Far-right minister Ben-Gvir rejects SC’s order, insists Palestinians receive only minimum food
text_fields
In response to Israel’s supreme court’s ruling that the government had failed to provide Palestinian security prisoners with sufficient food and its order to improve their nutrition, national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir insisted that his policy of offering only minimal provisions would remain unchanged, while rights groups such as the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and Gisha continued to accuse the prison authorities of treating inmates in a manner that amounted to torture.
The ruling followed a petition filed by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel and the rights group Gisha, which argued that a food policy change introduced after the war in Gaza began had led to malnutrition and starvation among prisoners, The Guardian reported.
The three-judge panel found evidence that the current food supply did not meet the legal requirement to maintain a basic level of existence, and it instructed the authorities to take steps to ensure compliance with the law.
The court’s decision came after reports by rights groups documented poor conditions in prisons and detention centres, where insufficient food, inadequate health care, unhygienic facilities, and physical abuse were said to be widespread. Concerns intensified in March when a 17-year-old Palestinian detainee died in an Israeli prison, and doctors identified starvation as a likely cause of death.
Since the outbreak of the war, Israel has detained thousands of people in Gaza suspected of links to Hamas, and while many have been held for extended periods without charge, thousands have also been released after months of detention. The treatment of these prisoners has drawn international criticism and has placed additional scrutiny on Israel’s prison policies.
Itamar Ben-Gvir, who oversees the prison system and leads a far-right ultranationalist party, had previously boasted that he had reduced conditions for security prisoners to what he considered the legal minimum. He reacted angrily to the court’s ruling and maintained that his policy of minimal provisions would remain unchanged, despite the justices’ concerns about malnutrition.
The court’s intervention underscored growing tension between the judiciary and the government over the treatment of detainees, and it highlighted the extent to which wartime policies have altered prison standards. The justices expressed doubts that prisoners were receiving food adequate for their subsistence, and their ruling imposed a clear obligation on the state to act in line with legal standards.
The Association for Civil Rights in Israel welcomed the ruling and called for its immediate implementation, while continuing to accuse the prison authorities of treating inmates in a manner that amounted to torture. The group stressed that deprivation of food could not be justified under any circumstances, and it urged the state to recognise its duty to uphold basic human rights even in times of conflict.
