Articles 76 and 143 of the Fourth Geneva Convention require that representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) be granted access to places of detention, with “full liberty” to choose the facilities they wish to visit. Article 143 further provides that delegates must be allowed to interview detainees privately, without representatives of the detaining power present. These provisions are recognised as customary international law and are therefore binding on Israel with respect to Palestinian prisoners, regardless of whether they have been incorporated into domestic legislation.Since the outbreak of the war on October 7, 2023, the Government of Israel has imposed a blanket ban on such visits. Officially, it argued that the measure responded to Hamas’ refusal to allow ICRC representatives to visit the Israeli hostages it held. Yet even after the last hostage was released from Gaza, the ban remained in place. In any event, under international law, Hamas’ violations do not entitle Israel to violate the same obligations.The ban is part of the implementation of the far-right parties’ November 2022 election pledge to worsen conditions for Palestinian prisoners. It has effectively turned Israeli prisons into spaces shielded from meaningful international scrutiny, creating a convenient zone of denial regarding reports of abuses inside them. The policy mirrors Israel’s refusal to allow international journalists free access to the Gaza Strip.Had ICRC delegates – representing one of the world’s oldest and most respected humanitarian organisations – been allowed to visit the prisons, they could have documented prisoners’ complaints in real time and reported them to the relevant international bodies and diplomats. Israel might then have found it far more difficult to pursue policies that resulted in starvation, the spread of disease, torture, and the deaths of at least 100 Palestinian prisoners, while simultaneously sustaining its campaign of denial. It is also important to remember that thousands of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel are detained without charge or trial.No legal authority but multiple delaysOn June 3, 2026, the Supreme Court of Israel ruled on a petition filed by human rights organisations. International media reported that the justices had struck down the blanket ban on Red Cross visits, and countries such as the United Kingdom welcomed the decision. In reality, however, the court left the core issue unresolved.The three justices complained that, over the years since the petition was filed, the government repeatedly requested extensions to formulate its position. In the end, it failed to present any legal basis for the blanket ban or to enact legislation regulating it. In other words, the government misled the court.Yet the justices can blame only themselves. They repeatedly granted those extensions, allowing an openly unlawful policy to remain in force while ignoring the government’s failure to provide even minimal legal justification, despite the policy’s profound human rights implications.Their criticism is particularly striking because it was obvious from the outset that Israel had no legal authority to impose a blanket ban on Red Cross visits. Unsurprisingly, the court’s own legal analysis is brief and relies almost entirely on the relevant provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention. The government played a game, and the justices knowingly chose to play along.The judgment also reveals a striking disconnect from reality. Although it is evident that the government sought to keep Red Cross delegates out of the prisons in order to conceal what was happening inside and preserve plausible deniability, the justices suggested that such visits could actually strengthen Israel’s international public relations campaign, known as hasbara.Justice Daphne Barak-Erez wrote that “external oversight of detention facilities may even help address claims that occasionally arise regarding the treatment of security prisoners by the Israeli authorities.” Chief Justice Yitzhak Amit added that, at a time when Israel faces serious international accusations, preserving legally mandated mechanisms of external inspection demonstrates both its commitment to the rule of law and its confidence in the legality of its conduct.Also read: Israel’s State Attorney Won’t Investigate Rabbi Who Spoke of ‘Religious Duty to Kill All Gaza Residents’No general obligation to allow Red Cross visitsIn the end, contrary to international media reports, the court did little more than strike down the government’s formal blanket ban. It did not establish a general obligation to allow Red Cross visits except in narrowly defined exceptional cases, nor did it impose safeguards to prevent the government from replacing the ban with administrative hurdles and bureaucratic restrictions that could make such visits virtually impossible in practice.The justices could, for example, have required the government to reaffirm the commitments it made in previous proceedings to allow the Red Cross unrestricted access to every detention facility. They chose not to.As expected, the Israel Prison Service (IPS) issued a temporary directive on July 9, 2026, severely restricting Red Cross visits in violation of international law. Among other measures, the directive capped the number of Red Cross visits allowed each quarter and limited the number of prisoners who could be visited under special authorization. It also created vague categories of prisoners who would be categorically barred from receiving visits. In addition, visits would be brief, conducted without privacy, and would not allow for medical examinations. Embarrassingly for the justices, the directive explicitly stated that it had been drafted pursuant to their ruling.A racially differentiated nutritional regime in jailThe same pattern emerged in another recent case. Although acknowledging that Palestinian prisoners were suffering from malnutrition, on September 7, 2025, the Supreme Court upheld a policy establishing a racially differentiated nutritional regime under which Palestinian prisoners would receive only the “minimum required” level of nutrition. The court ruled that the policy would be lawful provided it was implemented through proper administrative procedures, including an adequate factual basis, oversight, and review.It was as though the court considered Palestinian bodies to require less food than Jewish ones. The outcome was entirely predictable: Palestinian prisoners have continued to suffer starvation, with some reportedly losing half their body weight.These are clear violations of international law – violations that no court anywhere in the world has the authority to legitimise. Yet too many governments continue to treat Israel’s Supreme Court as a bastion of human rights, invoking its existence as a reason not to impose tougher sanctions on Israel.Eitay Mack is an Israeli lawyer and human rights activist.