the temporary icj order against israel, as has been the case with other related orders by this body, suffers from definitional problems and factual inaccuracies. 

is israel occupying gaza? is that true?

is israel blocking the supply of aid? is that true?

there's some kernel of truth in these claims. they're half-truths, or quarter-truths, or pi-truths.

how seriously you want to take this order is going to depend on how seriously you want to interpret the premises. certainly, if gaza is an occupying power, it should be letting food in. however, if israel is merely at war against hamas, and not occupying gaza, a blockade is a legitimate strategy.

i have continually blamed most of this stuff on the egyptians, who aren't and never have lived up to their responsibilities.