Law on Trial: UNRWA, ICJ, and Israel's politics of defiance

As Palestinians in Gaza struggle to navigate a so-called ceasefire that Israel breaches almost daily, the International Court of Justice/ICJ issued, on Oct. 22, its advisory opinion on Israel’s obligations regarding the presence and activities of the UN, international organizations, and third states in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The Court reaffirmed what international law has long dictated but world powers have long ignored: that Israel, as an occupying force, bears binding obligations under both humanitarian and human rights law. It ruled that the occupier must “ensure” the population’s access to the basic necessities of life; food, water, shelter, medicine, and fuel, and must “facilitate”, not obstruct, relief efforts.

Ongoing suffering

This opinion comes as Israel continues to sabotage and delay the implementation of the October ceasefire agreement; an accord meant, at least on paper, to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.

According to the latest humanitarian update for Gaza, between the start of the ceasefire and October 26, 1,456 UN-coordinated aid trucks were finally offloaded at Gaza’s crossings; an uptick compared with the days before the truce. Yet, as the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported, Israel continued to police the flow of relief, intercepting 9% of consignments—an improvement only by the grim measure that it once blocked nearly 80%.

Still, that remains a fraction of what is needed for a population crushed by two years of bombardment, siege, and creeping famine.

With the Rafah crossing now sealed, entry into Gaza is funneled solely through Karm Abu Salem and Kissufim; both under Israeli control and requiring its explicit authorization. The 20-point Trump plan promises that “at a minimum, aid quantities will be consistent with what was included in the 19 January 2025 agreement regarding humanitarian aid .”

Under that January agreement, 600 trucks were to enter daily: half to northern Gaza, the rest to the south. The current rate remains far below that target. UN agencies continue to urge Israel to open all crossings, noting that UNRWA’s warehouses hold enough food parcels for 1.1 million people, flour for 2.1 million, and shelter supplies for 1.3 million; all waiting at the gates of a starving enclave for a stamp of Israeli approval.

Obligations of the occupier

The ICJ’s opinion imposes a clear duty on Israel, as the occupier, to administer the territory for the benefit of its people—not itsself. Israel is required to “agree to and facilitate” all humanitarian relief operations carried out by the UN and its agencies, including UNRWA, to ensure that basic needs are met. It must refrain from any act that hinders the delivery of aid or obstructs relief convoys.

The Court further underscored that international humanitarian law demands the respect and protection of medical staff, relief personnel, and their facilities. Israel has no lawful authority to restrict the presence or activities of the UN or any other international organization operating in or on behalf of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It is also bound to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross/ICRC unfettered access to Palestinian detainees held in its prisons; a duty Israel has long violated with impunity.

Under international human rights law, Israel is bound to respect and protect the rights of Palestinians in the occupied territories, a principle the Court merely reiterated, not discovered anew.

Accordingly, any weakening of UNRWA’s capacity, or that of any other humanitarian actor, to carry out its mandate only deepens Israel’s legal and moral obligation to meet the needs of the Palestinian population.

Israel, however, has no viable mechanism of its own to deliver even a minimum level of humanitarian relief. It therefore remains bound to facilitate the work of UN agencies tasked with managing aid programs, foremost among them UNRWA.

These obligations as an occupying power are compounded by Israel’s duties as a member of the UN. Owing to the Organization’s permanent responsibility for the question of Palestine, Israel is required to maintain full and continuous cooperation with the UN and its entities.

It cannot unilaterally sever that cooperation or decide which UN bodies may continue to operate “in and in relation to” the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The Court stressed that Israel must respect the privileges and immunities afforded to the UN; its premises, property, assets, and personnel. None of which are subject to the occupier’s discretion.

Any state, including Israel, is bound to address alleged violations by UN personnel through the Organization’s internal legal mechanisms. It has no authority to act unilaterally on such claims. In this context, the Court found no credible evidence supporting Israel’s allegations that Hamas had infiltrated UNRWA or that the agency operates without neutrality or impartiality.

Precedents with little effect

This marks the Court’s third advisory opinion on Israel and the OPT, following the 2004 opinion on the legal consequences of the construction of a wall in the OPT and the July 19, 2024 opinion on the legal consequences arising from Israel’s policies and practices in the OPT, including East Jerusalem.

In both prior opinions, the Court affirmed that an occupying power is obligated to administer occupied land solely for the benefit of its inhabitants, and that Israel cannot claim or exercise sovereignty over any part of the territory, as the occupation itself is unlawful.

Yet despite the Court’s unambiguous authority and the growing body of international legal consensus, Israel continues to disregard and defy these opinions, treating them not as binding instruments of law but as mere political commentary.

For this reason, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 in support of the ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion, translating its findings into explicit demands upon Israel. Chief among these was a deadline requiring Israel to end its unlawful presence in the Palestinian territories within twelve months, a deadline that expired on 18 September this year without a trace of compliance.

What lies ahead?

On the humanitarian front, UN agencies have prepared a joint 60-day plan to address urgent needs, including UNRWA’s essential health, water, sanitation, and hygiene services. Yet the agency’s capacity to resume even minimal operations remains crippled by Israeli restrictions on the entry of critical supplies. Among them, equipment required to repair UNRWA facilities damaged in Israeli attacks.

Since March 2, Israel has enforced a blanket ban on humanitarian aid entering Gaza through UNRWA, following the Knesset’s decision to outlaw the agency’s work in areas it now defines, unilaterally, as “Israeli territory.”

The Court emphasized that “UNRWA has been an indispensable provider of humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip,” noting its long history and deep integration within in the occupied territories. It concluded that “in the current circumstances, UNRWA cannot be replaced on short notice and without a proper transition plan.”

UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini welcomed the Court’s unambiguous ruling and reaffirmed that “Israel is under an obligation to agree to and facilitate relief schemes provided by the UN and its entities, in particular UNRWA.” Yet Israel has still not permitted the entry of aid or UNRWA personnel into Gaza.

In the light of these findings , Israeli and US objections to UNRWA’s mandate and its role in coordinating and delivering humanitarian assistance are baseless. The Court’s advisory opinion should serve as a binding reference for all members of the international community, especially as thousands of Palestinians face unprecedented levels of hunger and disease after more than two years of devastation.

Accordingly, the technicalities of the ceasefire’s implementation, including the sequencing of aid convoys or the recovery of remains, must not be allowed to obstruct or condition the flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.

Despite Israel’s persistent defiance of successive ICJ opinions, each carries legal and moral weight that continues to shape current and future judicial scrutiny of its conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The October opinion delineated only Israel’s obligations toward the UN, other international organizations, and third states; it did not determine whether Israel had breached them. Findings on those violations, and on allegations of war crimes in Gaza, will arise from subsequent proceedings before the ICJ, the International Criminal Court, or other agreed accountability mechanisms.

Those mechanisms will necessarily draw upon the Court’s conclusions regarding Israel’s duties under international humanitarian and human rights law, the principle of self-determination, the UN’s continuing responsibility for the question of Palestine, and the immunities of the Organization itself.

The UN and its organs, in turn, are obliged to uphold and operationalize the ICJ’s advisory opinion, through further General Assembly and Security Council resolutions, and by ensuring that all UN agencies integrate its legal findings into their engagement with Israel’s conduct in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

The ICJ’s ruling is not a moral appeal, it is a legal obligation. Whether the international community chooses to enforce it will determine not only the fate of Gaza, but the credibility of the law itself.