On October 22, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a landmark advisory opinion that has sent ripples through diplomatic and humanitarian circles worldwide. In a strongly worded decision, the United Nations’ top judicial body ruled that Israel, as an occupying power, must immediately allow humanitarian aid into Gaza and ensure the basic needs of the population are met—a verdict that lays bare both the legal and moral obligations at the heart of one of the world’s most intractable conflicts.
The ICJ’s opinion, requested by the UN General Assembly in December 2024, comes after months of mounting humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where Israeli-imposed restrictions have left hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on the brink of famine. The court found that Israel’s actions, including the near-total blockade of aid since March 2, 2025, and its severance of ties with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), have violated international law and the Geneva Conventions. According to Al Jazeera, the panel of 11 judges emphasized that starvation must never be used as a method of warfare.
“Israel, as an occupying power, is under an obligation to ensure the basic needs of the local population, including the supplies essential for their survival,” the court stated. The ICJ further ruled that Israel is required to support the relief efforts provided by the United Nations and facilitate aid delivery by third states and impartial humanitarian organizations, including UNRWA and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
The ruling also delivered a stinging rebuke to Israel’s claims that UNRWA was infiltrated by Hamas militants. The court found Israel had failed to provide credible evidence to support these allegations, echoing findings from the Office of International Oversight Services and the Colonna Report, which concluded that while some breaches of neutrality had occurred, UNRWA had robust mechanisms to ensure compliance with humanitarian principles. As reported by The Guardian, the ICJ reaffirmed that UNRWA “possesses a more developed approach to neutrality than other similar UN and NGO entities.”
Israel’s passage of two laws in October 2024 to end all cooperation with UNRWA and prohibit state agencies from contact with the organization was also found unlawful by the court. These legislative moves, the ICJ said, prevented UNRWA from fulfilling its humanitarian mandate at a time when its services were most desperately needed. The court noted that 360 UNRWA staff members had been killed during the conflict, and that the agency formed the backbone of all humanitarian relief efforts in Gaza.
Despite a U.S.-brokered ceasefire earlier in October 2025 that mandated the entry of 600 aid trucks daily, aid delivery has remained woefully inadequate. The World Food Programme (WFP) reported that since the ceasefire, only 530 trucks carrying over 6,700 tons of food have entered Gaza—enough to feed nearly half a million people for two weeks. “So far, we’ve delivered over 6,700 tons of food, enough to feed nearly half a million people for two weeks. Daily deliveries continue, now averaging around 750 tons,” said Abeer Etefa, WFP Middle East spokesperson. But this figure falls far short of the 2,000 tons per day target necessary to meet the population’s needs.
“People are showing up in large numbers, grateful for the efficient distribution of food assistance and the dignified manner in which rations are provided,” Etefa added. She highlighted the particular vulnerability of women, female-headed households, and the elderly, who often ration their food for fear of what tomorrow may bring.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion also addressed the deadly consequences of Israel’s blockade and militarized aid distribution. According to court findings, more than 2,100 Palestinians have been killed near aid distribution points, and famine has been declared in parts of Gaza. The court found that Israel’s reliance on the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation and private contractors such as Safe Reach Solutions, rather than established UN agencies, led to chaotic and militarized distribution centers that failed to deliver aid at the necessary scale.
Norway, which initiated the proceedings at the UN, announced plans to move a resolution in the General Assembly based on the court’s findings. Qatar’s Minister of State, Mohammed Al Khulaifi, welcomed the opinion, stating, “It underscores the duty to enable humanitarian relief—notably UNRWA’s vital operations—and to respect UN immunities, while reaffirming the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. Justice must now guide action.”
Yet, the ICJ’s ruling has not been without controversy or resistance. Israel’s foreign ministry dismissed the court’s conclusions, insisting it had adhered to its international obligations and reiterating unsubstantiated claims about Hamas infiltration of UNRWA. The United States Department of State echoed these sentiments, criticizing the ICJ for what it called an unfairly favorable stance toward UNRWA and downplaying Israel’s security concerns.
Within the court itself, there was dissent. Judge Julia Sebutinde argued that her fellow justices had not given sufficient weight to Israel’s concerns about Hamas infiltration and stated that Israel should retain discretion over which aid channels to use, especially if some agencies were “acting contrary to the Charter’s principles.”
Still, the majority of the court was clear: under Article 59 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel is unconditionally obligated to agree to and facilitate relief schemes if the local population is inadequately supplied. While states may inspect consignments for security, they cannot impede delivery in a way that undermines their responsibilities to protect civilian populations. The court further emphasized that the immunities of UN staff, premises, and entities must be respected at all times, including the inviolability of schools, hospitals, and UNRWA facilities. Only the UN itself, the judges said, can determine whether its control over such premises has been lost.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, and the court lacks the authority to enforce its decisions. Nevertheless, its findings carry significant legal and political weight, shaping international expectations and providing a moral compass for future action. As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues, the world will be watching to see whether Israel, its allies, and the broader international community heed the court’s call for urgent relief and respect for international law.
The court’s decision, delivered amid extraordinary suffering and political tension, stands as a powerful reminder of the enduring importance of legal norms in the face of overwhelming adversity.
