Israel's Supreme Court invokes biblical command to justify Gaza blockade

In a controversial ruling issued by Israel’s Supreme Court on March 27, 2025, Justice David Mintz referenced a biblical commandment to justify the ongoing blockade of the Gaza Strip. This decision sparked international outrage and highlighted the escalating use of religious language in Israel’s legal system, particularly concerning policies towards Palestinians. Human rights organizations and legal scholars condemned the use of the biblical citation as espousing extremist rhetoric that could incite violence. The ruling came amidst a dire humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where over two million Palestinians faced catastrophic conditions due to the blockade. This situation has worsened significantly, with reported deaths of over 1,500 Palestinians from recent airstrikes, many of whom are civilians. Critics argue that integrating religious justifications into legal rulings undermines the core values of a democratic state, raising fears of transforming Israel from a Jewish state to a halachic state governed by Jewish law. Justice Mintz’s background is intertwined with the religious nationalism movement in Israel, having immigrated as a European settler and residing in an illegal settlement in the West Bank. His alignment with religious Zionism and interpretations of Jewish law have long concerned observers. His invocation of the biblical figure Amalek, historically seen as a representation of evil, marks a troubling escalation in judicial decisions affecting the Palestinian population and reflects a fusion of religious ideology with state policy. Internationally, the ruling has called into question the complicity of foreign governments and organizations in what many perceive as religious zealotry driving military action against civilians. Prominent voices, such as U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, have raised alarms about the implications for U.S. taxpayers and foreign policy, expressing that the ruling could entrench a harmful form of religious nationalism. Legal experts warn that this decision could have long-lasting repercussions on the rule of law and undermine prospects for peace, emphasizing the dangers associated with using theology as the basis for state policy.