The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body, delivered a landmark advisory opinion on Wednesday, October 22, 2025, declaring that Israel must immediately permit and facilitate United Nations relief operations in the Gaza Strip. This decision, while formally nonbinding, has sent ripples through international diplomatic circles and reignited fierce debate over humanitarian access in one of the world’s most embattled territories.
The 11-judge panel’s opinion was clear: as the occupying power in Gaza, Israel is legally obligated under international humanitarian law to ensure that civilians receive food, potable water, medical supplies, fuel, shelter, and all other necessities vital for survival. According to BBC and The Associated Press, the court stated that Israel cannot invoke generalized security concerns to justify blanket restrictions on humanitarian access, including the operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA).
Presiding Judge Yuji Iwasawa, reading from the court’s 70-page opinion in The Hague, emphasized, “Israel is under the obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by the United Nations and its entities, including UNRWA.” The court found that evidence presented “did not substantiate Israel’s broad allegation that a significant number of UNRWA staff were members of terrorist groups” and warned that such unverified claims could not justify comprehensive suspensions of the agency’s activities.
This ruling comes at a particularly fraught moment. Since March 2025, Israel has blocked UNRWA shipments, leaving an estimated 6,000 trucks loaded with food, medicine, shelter equipment, and educational materials stranded at border crossings in Egypt and Jordan. UNRWA, the primary aid provider for Gaza’s 2.2 million residents, has struggled to maintain core operations, administering health care and schooling for tens of thousands of displaced families even as supplies dwindle.
The ICJ’s opinion was requested by the United Nations after Israel imposed sweeping restrictions on UNRWA and other agencies in the wake of the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led assault on southern Israel. That attack killed about 1,200 people and saw around 250 taken hostage, prompting a devastating Israeli military campaign in Gaza. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 68,000 Palestinians have been killed in the enclave since then, a figure that U.N. agencies consider broadly reliable. The numbers are staggering: at least 67,253 Palestinians killed, including 20,178 children, and more than 170,203 injured, the majority of whom are civilians.
Human rights organizations have long warned that Gaza teeters on the brink of famine. Hospitals are crippled, sanitation systems are near collapse, and the population’s basic needs remain unmet. U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres, welcoming the court’s “unambiguous” determination, remarked, “This decision comes at a moment in which we are doing everything we can to boost our humanitarian aid in Gaza. The impact of this decision is decisive in order for us to be able to do it at the level necessary for the tragic situation in which the people of Gaza still find themselves.”
Israel, however, has rejected the ruling outright. Its Foreign Ministry issued a written statement asserting, “Israel fully upholds its obligations under international law. We will not cooperate with an organization that is infested with terror activities.” Despite these claims, the ICJ noted that Israel failed to provide evidence substantiating its accusations of systematic infiltration by Hamas within UNRWA. An independent review led by former French foreign minister Catherine Colonna in April 2024 also flagged concerns about neutrality in some UNRWA procedures but concluded that Israel had not provided sufficient evidence that a substantial proportion of the agency’s staff were members of terrorist organizations.
The court’s advisory opinion, while nonbinding, carries significant legal and moral weight. As The Associated Press notes, such opinions are often cited by other international courts and U.N. bodies, and this decision is expected to bolster ongoing legal actions. It may, for example, serve as supporting material in the genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel at the ICJ and in the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant proceedings targeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former defense minister Yoav Gallant. Stanford legal scholar Tom Dannenbaum observed that the opinion “provides strong legal support” for prosecutors seeking to prove that Israel used starvation as a method of warfare—an allegation already cited in the ICC warrant.
The ruling coincides with a fragile U.S.-brokered ceasefire that has held since October 10, 2025. Yet, even in this relative lull, the humanitarian crisis in Gaza remains acute. The court underscored that “starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare” is strictly prohibited under international law, and that Israel must ensure the “basic needs of the local population.”
Palestinian officials have hailed the opinion as a breakthrough. Ammar Hijazi, the Palestinian ambassador to the Netherlands, stated, “It is clear, unequivocal and conclusive. Israel now has no pretext, no context, no excuse to deny humanitarian assistance.” Humanitarian groups, too, have welcomed the decision, arguing that it restores legal certainty around UNRWA’s mandate and strengthens the case for immediate restoration of aid flows.
For Israel, the opinion adds to mounting diplomatic and legal pressure. The ruling follows two other major advisory decisions against Israel by the World Court in the past two decades: the 2004 declaration that Israel’s West Bank barrier was unlawful, and last year’s finding that Israel’s continued occupation of Palestinian territory violated international law. Both decisions accelerated diplomatic recognition of Palestine in several countries and increased international scrutiny of Israeli policies.
Yet, the ICJ’s lack of direct enforcement powers means that compliance will depend on diplomatic pressure, decisions by donor states, actions in the U.N. Security Council and General Assembly, and negotiated arrangements among Israel, the U.N., and aid organizations. Donor governments that suspended funding for UNRWA face renewed calls to resume assistance or impose narrowly tailored oversight measures that preserve the agency’s operational capacity while addressing credible allegations of misconduct.
Looking ahead, much hinges on whether Israel will heed the court’s opinion and allow the passage of lifesaving aid convoys into Gaza. The United Nations and humanitarian agencies are expected to cite the ruling in renewed calls to reopen aid corridors and restore UNRWA services. Diplomats anticipate that the legal consequences of the blockade—and Wednesday’s ruling—will feature prominently in upcoming U.N. Security Council discussions.
Meanwhile, the human toll continues to mount. In the occupied West Bank, Israeli forces and paramilitary colonizers have killed 220 Palestinians since the beginning of 2025, including 40 children and 6 women. Since October 7, 2023, Israeli soldiers and colonizers have killed 1,056 Palestinians in the West Bank, and bodies of 263 slain Palestinians remain withheld by Israeli authorities.
While the ICJ’s opinion does not itself compel immediate change, it has clarified the legal obligations of an occupying power and amplified the moral imperative for action. The world is watching to see whether this legal and diplomatic turning point will translate into tangible relief for the people of Gaza and a renewed commitment to upholding the principles of international humanitarian law.