November 11, 2025 11:25 AM IST
First published on: Nov 11, 2025 at 11:25 AM IST
In a stark indictment of Israel’s use of starvation as a weapon of war, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in an advisory opinion adopted on October 22 with near unanimity, ruled that Israel must lift its restrictions on the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and ensure the unhindered flow of humanitarian aid. In the face of political failure, the Court underscored that Israel has an unambiguous obligation not to impede aid to the point of threatening civilian survival through starvation — a method of warfare expressly prohibited under international humanitarian law and amounting to a war crime, a crime against humanity, and an act of genocide.
As Gaza continues to suffer a deepening humanitarian catastrophe, with its population trapped between the relentless bombardment and man-made famine that have defined Israel’s military campaign launched after Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack, the ICJ’s opinion is crucial and carries profound legal and political significance.
Most crucially, the Court dismissed Israel’s unsubstantiated claims of UNRWA’s Hamas links and bias, a deliberate policy aimed at discrediting the agency. Ever since its establishment by a General Assembly Resolution 302 (IV) of December 8, 1949, UNRWA has been Gaza’s lifeline and the backbone of all humanitarian assistance in the area. It has been serving 5.9 million registered Palestine refugees through schools, vital clinics, and extensive food and cash assistance that have sustained a besieged population amid devastation and deprivation. The Court rightly recognised its role as “unique” and “indispensable,” mandating Israel to cooperate with it in good faith.
The legal foundation of the opinion is unassailable, rooted in the Fourth Geneva Convention’s core mandate that an occupier must ensure that the territory is supplied with the essentials of daily life, including food, water, shelter, medical supplies, and medical care, with additional obligations when the population is inadequately supplied. The Court rightly ruled that Israel’s obligations extend beyond merely permitting access; it must actively ensure aid is distributed. The ruling exposes Israel’s hollow claims that simply opening a crossing is enough while it imposes a labyrinth of bureaucratic and military obstacles that render the gesture meaningless.
Notwithstanding the ICJ’s strong judicial findings, we should not be deluded about the prospects for compliance, given Israel’s history of persistent defiance with total impunity — bolstered by strong US backing, which has blocked every UN Security Council resolution against it. The immediate dismissal of this opinion by both nations as “politically motivated” was an expected and cynical move, one that confirms this grim reality. It is Israel’s most familiar script: When confronted with a Court’s stark indictment, it attempts to undermine the legitimacy, impartiality, or authority of the Court itself. We must therefore stop pretending that this ruling will work as magic. The ICJ has no army to enforce its judgments; its power resides not in compulsion, but in legitimacy.
However, to assess the ICJ’s opinion only through the lens of immediate enforcement is to miss its deeper strategic significance and true power. The real value of this opinion is not in compelling a recalcitrant Israel today, but in fortifying the legal and moral arsenal of those who seek justice for the long haul. Crucially, the opinion reinforces UNRWA’s legitimacy at a critical juncture, providing a legal basis for donor states to restore — and even increase — the funding they suspended following Israeli allegations and insulating the agency from such politically motivated attacks in the future.
Finally, the opinion adds to a mounting corpus of international legal pronouncements condemning Israel’s conduct in Gaza, including the Court’s own provisional measures in the genocide case, its 2004 and 2024 advisory opinions on the separation of wall and occupation, and the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) 2024 arrest warrants for Israeli leaders. For diplomats, activists, and lawyers fighting for Palestinian rights, it is a vital vindication of their stand and recognition of the fact that their claims were not merely rhetorical, but based on a sound legal basis. It is a powerful new instrument in their protracted struggle to hold Israel accountable and further isolate it on the international stage. The question is no longer what the law requires, but whether the world, armed with this ruling, will find the courage to enforce it.
The writer is dean of the Faculty of International Studies and chairman of the Department of Strategic and Security Studies at Aligarh Muslim University, where he teaches international law
