ICJ rules Israel must facilitate UN humanitarian aid delivery to Gaza

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion affirming that Israel is legally obliged to enable the United Nations and its agencies to deliver humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, in order to ensure the basic needs of the Palestinian civilian population are met.

The Court concluded that Israel had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate its long-standing claims that the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) lacks neutrality, or that a “significant number” of its employees were affiliated with Hamas or other armed groups. UNRWA has consistently denied these allegations.

Israel’s ambassador to the UN condemned the opinion, describing it as “shameful.”

While the ICJ’s advisory opinions are non-binding, they hold strong moral, legal, and diplomatic authority, often influencing state practice, UN action, and international public opinion.

The advisory opinion was sought by the UN General Assembly in December, after:

Israel’s parliament enacted legislation banning UNRWA activities on Israeli territory, and

Prohibited official contact between Israeli authorities and the agency.

The Court was subsequently asked to clarify Israel’s legal obligations toward UN agencies and international organisations operating in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, including its duty to allow unhindered delivery of humanitarian supplies.

Following the outbreak of the war with Hamas two years ago, Israel tightened its blockade on Gaza, significantly limiting—and in some instances halting—the entry of food, fuel, and humanitarian aid for the enclave’s 2.1 million residents.

Prior to the current ceasefire, UN-backed global food security experts reported that:

More than 640,000 people were experiencing catastrophic hunger, and

Gaza City was facing an “entirely man-made” famine.

Israel rejected these findings, asserting that it had allowed the entry of “sufficient food.”

Although advisory in nature, the ruling:
Reinforces international legal expectations under international humanitarian law,
Underscores obligations arising from Israel’s control over occupied territory,
Increases pressure from the UN, states, and humanitarian actors, and
Could shape future resolutions, sanctions debates, and accountability mechanisms.