ICJ Says Israel Must Allow Aid Into Gaza

UN top court says Israel must support UNRWA efforts for aid delivery to Gaza

Header Image

POLITIS NEWS

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has issued an advisory opinion declaring that Israel, as an occupying power in the Gaza Strip, must facilitate the delivery of humanitarian relief and ensure the “basic needs” of the population are met.

The 11‑judge panel stated that Israel is under a positive obligation to allow aid agencies, including the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), to operate freely. It also emphasised a negative obligation – that Israel must not impede the passage of supplies essential for survival. 

The ruling noted that Israel had not substantiated its allegations that UNRWA staff were members of Hamas. Accordingly, the ban Israel imposed on UNRWA’s operations was deemed unjustified in the court’s view. 

Israel rejects court opinion

Although advisory opinions are not legally binding, the ICJ underlined their “great legal weight and moral authority”. 

The ruling comes amid a dire humanitarian situation in Gaza - widespread destruction, scarcity of food, water, medicine and fuel, and a partially‑enforced ceasefire.

Israel’s foreign ministry responded by rejecting the court’s opinion as “politically motivated”.

Prior to this month's ceasefire, UN-backed global experts estimated that over 640,000 people face catastrophic levels of food insecurity and that there was an "entirely man-made" famine in Gaza City. Israel has repeatedly rejected the famine declaration, insisting it was allowing in sufficient food.

 

Related Articles

22 October 2025

GLOBE

International Court To Rule Today On Israel’s Duties For Humanitarian Aid To Gaza

The UN asked the Hague court to clarify Israel’s obligations as an occupying power toward agencies delivering essential assistance.

Comments Posting Policy

The owners of the website www.politis.com.cy reserve the right to remove reader comments that are defamatory and/or offensive, or comments that could be interpreted as inciting hate/racism or that violate any other legislation. The authors of these comments are personally responsible for their publication. If a reader/commenter whose comment is removed believes that they have evidence proving the accuracy of its content, they can send it to the website address for review. We encourage our readers to report/flag comments that they believe violate the above rules. Comments that contain URLs/links to any site are not published automatically.