Israel’s Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling on Sunday, September 7, 2025, finding that the Israeli government has failed to provide Palestinian security prisoners with adequate food for basic subsistence. The court’s decision, which came in a 2–1 vote, ordered authorities to improve both the quantity and quality of nutrition provided to Palestinian inmates held in Israeli detention facilities. This rare instance of judicial intervention during wartime has ignited fierce debate within Israel and drawn international attention to prison conditions amid the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict.
The case was brought forward in April 2024 by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) and the Israeli rights group Gisha. The petitioners alleged that National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and the Israel Prison Service (IPS) had deliberately cut rations for Palestinian prisoners to levels approaching starvation. Affidavits submitted by detainees described extreme hunger, rapid weight loss, and meager meals consisting of little more than bread and spread. According to the court’s majority opinion, written by Justice Daphne Barak-Erez, "starvation cannot be used as a form of punishment." She described adequate nutrition as “the A, B, C of the rule of law,” and said the evidence raised “real doubts” about whether prisoners were receiving enough food in practice.
Justice Barak-Erez also rejected arguments that reducing food for Palestinian prisoners would somehow benefit Israeli hostages still held in Gaza, remarking, “It must be remembered that the painful testimonies of freed [Israeli] hostages show that a stricter food regime [for Palestinian prisoners] does not improve the suffering of our kidnapped brothers who are still in distress and captivity, and even the opposite.” The three-judge panel unanimously agreed that the government has a legal duty to provide three meals a day to ensure “a basic level of existence.” As the ruling stated, “We are not speaking here of comfortable living or luxury, but of the basic conditions of survival as required by law. Let us not share in the ways of our worst enemies.”
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks a significant moment in Israeli jurisprudence. According to AP, the judiciary has seldom challenged government actions during the nearly two-year Israel-Hamas war. Since Hamas’s attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which killed 1,200 people—mostly civilians—Israel has detained large numbers of Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank on suspicion of militant ties. Thousands have been released after months of detention without charge, with many recounting brutal conditions: overcrowding, scant food supplies, inadequate medical care, and outbreaks of scabies. Rights groups have documented widespread abuse, including insufficient food, poor sanitary conditions, and beatings.
Palestinian authorities have recorded at least 61 deaths in Israeli custody since the war began. In March 2025, a 17-year-old Palestinian boy died in an Israeli prison, with doctors citing starvation as the likely cause of death. The court’s decision cited these reports as evidence that the current food supply does not sufficiently guarantee compliance with legal standards. The ruling concluded that authorities must "take steps to ensure the supply of food that allows for basic subsistence conditions in accordance with the law."
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the prison system and leads a far-right ultranationalist party, has been unapologetic about the harsh conditions in Israeli prisons. Last year, he boasted about degrading the conditions of security prisoners to the bare minimum required by law. Following Sunday’s ruling, Ben-Gvir lashed out at the court, asking the judges, “Are you from Israel?” He argued that while Israeli hostages in Gaza have no one to help them, the Supreme Court is “defending terrorists” to Israel’s disgrace. He vowed that the policy of providing prisoners with “the most minimal conditions stipulated by law” would continue unchanged. Justice Minister Yariv Levin echoed Ben-Gvir’s sentiments, criticizing the court for focusing on prisoners while “the hostages are being starved in the tunnels.”
For their part, ACRI and Gisha welcomed the court’s decision as a crucial victory for human rights and the rule of law. ACRI called for immediate implementation of the verdict, posting on X that the prison service has “turned Israeli prisons into torture camps.” The group declared, “A state must not starve people. People must not starve people—no matter what they have done.”
The Supreme Court’s decision comes at a time when international organizations are warning against the use of hunger as a weapon of war. At the UN Food Systems Summit in July, Secretary-General António Guterres stated, “We must never accept hunger as a weapon of war.” The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has reported that one in five children in Gaza is malnourished, with over 100 starvation-related deaths by late July 2025 and nearly half a million people living in famine-like conditions. The World Food Programme has warned that more than 320,000 children under five are at risk of acute malnutrition.
Since the start of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Israel has faced mounting international criticism over its conduct, particularly regarding the treatment of detainees and the restriction of food and medical supplies to Gaza. The government has largely defended its actions as necessary to defeat Hamas, but rights groups and humanitarian agencies have repeatedly raised alarms about the humanitarian impact on Palestinians—both in detention and in the wider population.
The Supreme Court, as Israel’s highest tier of accountability, hears complaints from individuals and organizations about government actions. While it is not unprecedented for the court to rule against the government, such interventions have been exceedingly rare during the current conflict. This ruling, therefore, signals a notable assertion of judicial oversight at a time when the government’s wartime policies are under intense scrutiny both domestically and abroad.
The issue is deeply divisive within Israeli society. Supporters of the government, particularly those aligned with Ben-Gvir’s far-right bloc, argue that any concession to Palestinian prisoners is an affront to Israeli hostages and undermines national security. Critics counter that upholding basic human rights, even for those accused of security offenses, is essential to maintaining Israel’s democratic values and standing in the international community.
As of now, it remains to be seen how quickly the Israel Prison Service will implement the court’s directives and whether the government will seek to limit the ruling’s impact through legislative or administrative means. For Palestinian detainees and their advocates, the Supreme Court’s decision offers a glimmer of hope for improved conditions after months—if not years—of hardship. For Israel, the ruling is a reminder that even amid war, the rule of law and the principles of human dignity remain binding obligations.
In a conflict marked by suffering and polarization, the Supreme Court’s decision stands as a rare moment of legal restraint and humanitarian concern, challenging both the government’s policies and the broader public to grapple with the ethical boundaries of wartime conduct.
