The International Court of Justice (ICJ) delivered a unanimous advisory opinion Wednesday, sharply scrutinizing Israel’s obligations regarding the Palestinian population in occupied territories. The ruling, issued in The Hague and directed to the UN General Assembly, asserts a binding responsibility on Israel to guarantee access to essential goods and services, including food, water, clothing, shelter, medical care and fuel.
The core of the opinion forcefully condemned the use of starvation as a method of warfare, a direct challenge to Israeli policies in conflict zones. While the court’s pronouncements are advisory and not legally binding, the sweeping consensus among the eleven judges – ten affirming Israel’s commitment to upholding Palestinian human rights, even in areas with UN presence – carries significant political and moral weight.
Of particular concern highlighted by the ICJ was the inadequacy of aid reaching the Gaza Strip. The court explicitly stated that Israel “must” facilitate and approve humanitarian programs, utilizing all available means to ensure the population’s sustenance. This obligation extends to unimpeded access for UN agencies, especially the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), whose operations have faced increasing restrictions. The court’s insistence on allowing UNRWA to function without hindrance represents a direct rebuke of recent Israeli government actions.
The opinion further underscored Israel’s duty to respect and protect humanitarian and medical personnel and facilities. It emphatically reiterated the prohibition of forced displacement and deportation, alongside a clear directive to uphold the rights of detainees and allow access for the International Committee of the Red Cross to visit detention centers.
While Israel has yet to formally respond, the ICJ’s decision is likely to intensify pressure on the government to revise its policies regarding humanitarian access and the treatment of Palestinian civilians. The ruling risks further complicating already strained diplomatic relations and could fuel international legal challenges concerning Israeli actions in the occupied territories, prompting serious questions about compliance with international humanitarian law and the viability of current approaches to the conflict. The decision’s long-term impact hinges on Israel’s willingness to acknowledge and implement its recommendations.
