Strategic Denial? Humanitarian Assistance and the Law of Armed Conflict in the Middle East

No matter who is at fault in a conflict, depriving innocent civilians caught in the crossfire of basic needs like food, water, and medical attention is a grave insult to humanity. In light of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), this paper examines the nuanced moral and legal implications of humanitarian aid limitations, concentrating on the Israel-Palestine conflict. It analyses the strategic use of blockade and siege, specifically Israel's "Red Lines Policy" (2007-2010).Quantifying the absolute minimum calories to avoid starvation for Gaza's population, it was put forward as a security policy and has been widely criticized as collective punishment expressly prohibited under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).Though the International Criminal Court (ICC) has jurisdiction in the Occupied Palestinian Territories under its 2021 ruling, Israel, which is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, is unwilling to acknowledge this jurisdiction. As a result, abuses tracked by international observers go unenforced, and Israel's continued blockade of Gaza. Israel justifies these measures under Article 51 of the UN Charter, arguing that the siege constitutes a military necessity in self-defences and is not aimed at civilians. Nevertheless, this rationale has been globally challenged since the principle of military necessity under IHL does not take precedence over the duty to safeguard civilian populations. The crisis reveals profound ambiguities in the application of "military necessity" as against humanitarian law, and there are pressing questions about the politicization of international law. The international system's paralysis only deepens the crisis. The United Nations Security Council is still practically paralyzed by the persistent exercise of veto power by the United States, which precludes any resolution condemning Israeli conduct. Even non-binding resolutions are seldom enforced, and international legal mechanisms, like the ICC or possible sanctions, are made ineffective in the event of state non-cooperation. Human rights and humanitarian law are therefore often instrumentalized being selectively enforced according to geopolitical convenience and not universal principles. In the wider Middle Eastern context, regional silence is also disturbing. Though public opinion among Arab countries broadly favours Palestine, governments, particularly in the Gulf, have moved towards normalization with Israel. The Abraham Accords, signed by the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan, are an example of strategic reorientation geared towards trade, security, and pushing back against Iranian influence, not Palestinian unity. Saudi Arabia and the UAE, more concerned about Iran as a strategic threat, have subtly sided with Israel, refraining from explicit confrontation or material assistance to Gaza. This paper contends that unless the international legal order is reorganized to apply its own standards consistently, the suffering of civilian populations such as those in Gaza will continue as a result of strategic denial.