On October 22, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a landmark advisory opinion declaring that Israel, as the occupying power in Gaza, is legally obligated to allow the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and other UN entities to provide humanitarian aid to the embattled territory. The ruling, while non-binding, carries significant diplomatic and moral weight, and it comes at a critical moment as a fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas continues to hold, albeit under considerable strain.
The decision came in response to a request from the UN General Assembly, made in December 2024, after Israel’s parliament passed laws effectively banning UNRWA from operating on Israeli territory and restricting its ability to deliver aid in Gaza. According to the ICJ’s President, Yuji Iwasawa, Israel is "under the obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by the United Nations and its entities, including UNRWA."
For months, Israel has blocked UNRWA from bringing supplies into Gaza, despite the agency maintaining critical operations within the strip. UNRWA continues to run health centers, mobile medical teams, sanitation services, and schools for children, but the agency says it has 6,000 trucks of food and life-saving supplies waiting at the border, ready to enter as soon as restrictions are lifted. The humanitarian need is dire: before the October ceasefire, UN-backed experts estimated that over 640,000 people in Gaza faced catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that a man-made famine had emerged in Gaza City.
Philippe Lazzarini, UNRWA’s Commissioner-General, welcomed what he called the "unambiguous ruling" by the ICJ. In a message posted to social media, he stated, "With huge amounts of food & other life-saving supplies on standby in Egypt & Jordan, UNRWA has the resources & expertise to immediately scale up the humanitarian response in Gaza & help alleviate the suffering of the civilian population." Sam Rose, UNRWA’s acting Gaza director, told the BBC that the agency viewed the opinion as reinforcing Israel’s obligations under international law, saying, "The ruling of today says that Israel's laws against UNRWA have gone against those obligations, as have its actions on the ground."
The ICJ’s opinion also addressed Israel’s longstanding allegations that UNRWA is infiltrated by Hamas or fails to maintain neutrality. The court found that Israel had not substantiated these claims, and UNRWA has consistently denied them. A UN investigation previously found that nine out of 13,000 UNRWA staff in Gaza "may have" been involved in the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attacks, but the ICJ concluded there was no evidence of widespread infiltration. Judge Iwasawa Yuji emphasized, "The occupying power may never invoke reasons of security to justify the general suspension of all humanitarian activities in occupied territory."
Israel, for its part, has roundly rejected the ICJ’s opinion. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs dismissed the proceedings as biased and politically motivated, stating, "This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of 'international law.'" Israeli officials have accused the UN and its agencies of harboring terrorists and have insisted they will not cooperate with UNRWA. Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the UN, described the court’s opinion as "shameful" and claimed, "They are blaming Israel for not cooperating with UN organs … They should be blaming themselves. Those organs became breeding grounds for terrorists."
The ruling comes as international pressure mounts on Israel to ease its blockade and allow aid into Gaza. U.S. Vice President JD Vance recently met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with senior American officials urging Israel not to restart the conflict and to adhere to the ceasefire. While the truce, brokered by the United States and effective since October 10, 2025, has led to some increase in aid deliveries—officials report a goal of 600 trucks per day—Palestinian residents and aid groups claim conditions on the ground remain grim, with little improvement in the availability of basic necessities.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres called the ICJ’s decision "an important decision" and expressed hope that Israel would abide by it. "This decision comes at a moment in which we are doing everything we can to boost our humanitarian aid in Gaza," Guterres told the Associated Press. "So the impact of this decision is decisive in order for us to be able to do it to the level that is necessary for the tragic situation in which the people of Gaza still is."
The ICJ’s advisory opinion explicitly stated that Israel’s blockade and restrictions had left Gaza’s population "inadequately supplied" and that Israel must ensure "the basic needs of the local population" are met. The court also condemned the use of starvation as a method of warfare, reiterating that "Israel is not to use starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare." This language echoes allegations made by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which last year issued arrest warrants for Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, accusing them of employing starvation as a weapon and intentionally targeting civilians—charges Israeli officials strongly deny.
The roots of the current crisis trace back to the Hamas attack on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and the taking of 250 hostages. Israel’s retaliatory military campaign in Gaza has, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, killed more than 68,000 people. While these figures do not distinguish between civilians and combatants, they are considered the most reliable available by UN agencies and independent experts. Israel disputes the numbers but has not provided alternative statistics.
This week’s ICJ opinion is the latest in a series of legal rebukes directed at Israel by international bodies. In July 2024, the ICJ declared Israel’s presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem illegal, calling for an end to settlement construction and the occupation. The court has also issued emergency measures ordering Israel to halt military operations in Rafah due to disastrous humanitarian conditions. These opinions, though non-binding, have intensified diplomatic pressure and fueled calls for unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood across the globe.
Meanwhile, a separate and ongoing case brought by South Africa accuses Israel of breaching the Genocide Convention in its conduct in Gaza. The ICJ’s current opinion is distinct from those proceedings, but it may bolster arguments that Israel’s actions violate international humanitarian law. Israel, for its part, continues to assert that it is acting within the bounds of international law and accuses the UN of harboring an anti-Israel bias.
As the ceasefire holds—at least for now—the world’s attention remains fixed on whether Israel will heed the ICJ’s advisory opinion and allow desperately needed aid to flow into Gaza. The ruling has added a new layer of urgency to an already volatile and tragic situation, with the fate of millions hanging in the balance.
