The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial authority, issued a landmark advisory opinion on October 22, 2025, declaring that Israel is legally obligated to ensure the basic needs of Gaza’s population are met and to cooperate with United Nations relief agencies, including the embattled UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA). This decision, though non-binding, carries significant legal, political, and moral weight, intensifying global debate over Israel’s conduct in the occupied Palestinian territories and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The ICJ’s panel of 11 judges, led by President Yuji Iwasawa, concluded that Israel must not only allow humanitarian aid into Gaza but also actively support the relief efforts of UN agencies. In a pointed rebuke to Israeli authorities, the court found that Israel had failed to substantiate its longstanding allegations that a significant number of UNRWA employees were members of Hamas or other terrorist groups. As Iwasawa stated during the proceedings, “The court finds that Israel has not substantiated its allegations that a significant part of UNRWA’s employees are ‘members of Hamas … or other terrorist factions’.”
This ruling comes amid a protracted humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, where, despite a US-mediated ceasefire earlier in October, aid deliveries remain woefully insufficient. According to Abeer Etefa, Middle East spokesperson for the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP), “530 of the organisation’s trucks had crossed into Gaza since the ceasefire,” delivering more than 6,700 tonnes of food—enough for nearly half a million people for two weeks. Yet, Etefa noted that current daily deliveries, around 750 tonnes, are far below the WFP’s target of 2,000 tonnes a day, underscoring the scale of unmet needs.
The ICJ’s opinion directly addresses the question of whether Israel can invoke security concerns to justify blocking humanitarian assistance. Judge Iwasawa was unequivocal: “The occupying power may never invoke reasons of security to justify the general suspension of all humanitarian activities in occupied territory.” After reviewing the evidence, the court found that “the local population in Gaza Strip has been inadequately supplied.”
The advisory opinion also pointedly recalls international law’s prohibition on the use of starvation as a method of warfare. The court stated that 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,” and “not to impede the provision of these supplies.”
Israel’s response to the ICJ’s opinion was swift and combative. The Foreign Ministry, in a post on X (formerly Twitter), declared that it “categorically rejects the ICJ’s ‘advisory opinion,’ which was entirely predictable from the outset regarding UNRWA.” The statement continued, “This is yet another political attempt to impose political measures against Israel under the guise of ‘International Law.’” Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, went further, calling the opinion “shameful” and accusing UN institutions of being “breeding grounds for terrorists.”
UNRWA, for its part, welcomed the court’s findings. Sam Rose, the agency’s acting Gaza director, told the BBC, “The ruling of today says that Israel’s laws against UNRWA have gone against those obligations, as have its actions on the ground.” Rose emphasized that the opinion “underscores the obligations of Israel under international law.”
The controversy over UNRWA’s role in Gaza has been at the heart of this legal and diplomatic standoff. Israel banned UNRWA from operating in its territory in March 2025 after accusing some of its staff of participating in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack. However, a UN investigation found that while nine of UNRWA’s 13,000 Gaza-based employees “may have” participated in the attacks, they no longer work for the agency. The ICJ found no evidence of widespread Hamas infiltration, rejecting Israel’s justification for the ban.
Despite the ban, UNRWA continues to operate in Gaza, though its ability to bring in supplies has been severely hampered. The agency’s centrality to humanitarian operations in the enclave was underscored by the ICJ, which noted that UNRWA “cannot be replaced on short notice without a proper transition plan.”
The United States has played a visible role in recent developments. Top US officials, including Vice President JD Vance, were in Israel the week of the ruling to monitor the ceasefire and discuss ways to improve humanitarian conditions in Gaza. Jared Kushner, who helped broker the ceasefire deal, remarked on “surprisingly strong coordination” between the UN and Israel on aid delivery—a striking contrast to the sharp rhetoric from Israeli officials.
Israel’s position remains that aid restrictions are necessary to exert pressure on Hamas and to prevent resources from falling into militant hands. Israel has repeatedly accused Hamas of stealing food and supplies, an allegation the group strongly denies. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have also insisted there is no starvation in Gaza, dismissing reports of famine as “a false campaign promoted by Hamas.” Yet, UN officials and humanitarian agencies have reported severe shortages, with famine-like conditions observed in parts of the enclave.
The ICJ’s advisory opinion is not Israel’s only legal challenge on the international stage. In July 2024, the court issued another advisory opinion declaring Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory “unlawful” and calling for its end “as soon as possible.” Additionally, the court is weighing accusations brought by South Africa that Israel has violated the 1948 UN Genocide Convention through its actions in Gaza. While the ICJ’s opinions are not binding and lack enforcement mechanisms, they are considered authoritative interpretations of international law and can have far-reaching diplomatic consequences.
Palestinian officials have welcomed the ICJ’s stance. During the April hearings, Palestinian representative Ammar Hijazi told the court that Israel was using aid as a “weapon of war” and triggering starvation in Gaza. The UN General Assembly’s request for the ICJ opinion reflects growing international concern over the humanitarian situation and Israel’s legal obligations as an occupying power.
Al Jazeera’s Step Vaessen, reporting from The Hague, described the advisory opinion as “very important” because the ICJ is the primary legal body of the UN. “Even if Israel ignores it, as it’s done time and time again, all the UN countries are obliged to follow up on this court’s advice,” she said. “Even if Israel is ignoring it now, it will hang over the head of Israel from this moment on.”
As the humanitarian crisis in Gaza grinds on, the ICJ’s opinion adds new urgency—and new complexity—to the international effort to ensure aid reaches those most in need. While the court’s decision may not force immediate change on the ground, it has crystallized the legal and moral debate over Israel’s responsibilities and the future of humanitarian relief in one of the world’s most troubled regions.
