A U.S. official addressing the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday defended Israel's attacks on United Nations agencies in Gaza as potentially lawful, as Israel's full ban on humanitarian aid to the enclave nears two months. 

Opposing the arguments delivered by the UN’s top legal official on Monday and by 12 states that have also spoken to the court this week, the U.S. official claimed that international law “does not impose any unqualified obligations on an occupying power” with respect to humanitarian assistance provided by the UN, international organizations and third states.

“In the law of occupation, military and humanitarian interests converge,” said Joshua Simmons, the senior bureau official of the Office of the Legal Adviser at the U.S. Department of State.

Simmons referred to Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which concerns the humanitarian obligations of an occupying power, claiming the provision does not impose an absolute duty to permit relief to the population under its control. 

When it comes to third states, the article states that relief schemes “may be undertaken either by states or by impartial humanitarian organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross”. 

Reflecting Israel’s view, Simmons questioned the impartiality of UNRWA as a relief provider.