The world’s top court on Wednesday ruled that Israel‘s ban on the UN’s main humanitarian provider to Palestinians and its restrictions on aid to Gaza and the occupied West Bank violate international law.
The
court unanimously found that Israel as an occupying power is required
to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law,
including to ensure that Palestinians have essential supplies of daily
life including food, medical supplies and shelter.
It also ruled
by 10 votes to 1 that Israel must agree to and facilitate by all means
at its disposal relief schemes for the people of Gaza and not impede
them.
That includes those provided by the United Nations and its
entities, in particular the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, Unrwa.
The
court also ruled that Israel must abide by its obligations under
international law not to forcibly displace or transfer the population
under its occupation, and to respect the prohibition of the use of
statvation as a method of war.
The court added that Israel must
cooperate in good faith with the United Nations, including Unrwa, and to
respect and ensure respect for the privileges and immunites accorded to
the UN’s premises and officials.
In its advisory opinion, the
court found that Israel has failed to substantiate its claims that a
significant number of Unrwa staff are affiliated to Hamas.
It also
emphasised its opinion that Unrwa is “impartial” and indispensable for
the provision of relief to Palestinians, as mandated by the UN General
Assembly.
The court also noted Israel’s total siege on Gaza
between 2 March and 18 May, and the attempt to replace the work of the
UN with the highly controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The
court found that Israel, through the GHF, had not ensured that the
population of the Gaza Strip is adequately supplied as required by
international humanitarian law.
“The court notes the UN acting through Unrwa had been an indispensable provider of humanitarian relief,” the opinion read.
“The
court considers that Israel is under an obligation to agree to and
faciliate relief schemes provided by the UN and its entities, including
Unrwa.”
The advisory opinion comes six months after hearings by
the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, where more than
40 states and international organisations presented evidence mostly
arguing that Israel had breached its international legal obligations to
facilitate the entry of aid to the Palestinian population under its
occupation.
Only the US and
Hungary disputed the majority opinion, arguing for an interpretation of
international humanitarian law in favour of limiting such obligation
due to military necessity and Israel’s security.
The case was
prompted by Israel banning Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian
refugees, in October 2024, an event that sparked global outrage and
calls for Israel to be ejected from the United Nations due to
accusations that it violated the founding charter, particularly the
privileges and immunities enjoyed by its agencies.
Wednesday’s
ruling is the third advisory opinion case since 2004 to be heard before
the ICJ in relation to Israel’s violations of international law.
ICJ
advisory opinions are highly authoritative among states and the court’s
interpretation of a legal question is considered binding as a matter of
general international law.
This latest ICJ ruling tightens legal noose around Israeli regime over Gaza genocide.
The International Court of Justice says Israel has obligation to ensure and facilitate humanitarian relief to Palestinians.
The International Court of Justice also Rejected EVERY SINGLE LIE Israel Told to Them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YngxqATAZGE
The world’s top court on Wednesday ruled that Israel‘s ban on the UN’s main humanitarian provider to Palestinians and its restrictions on aid to Gaza and the occupied West Bank violate international law.
The court unanimously found that Israel as an occupying power is required to fulfil its obligations under international humanitarian law, including to ensure that Palestinians have essential supplies of daily life including food, medical supplies and shelter.
It also ruled by 10 votes to 1 that Israel must agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes for the people of Gaza and not impede them.
That includes those provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, Unrwa.
The court also ruled that Israel must abide by its obligations under international law not to forcibly displace or transfer the population under its occupation, and to respect the prohibition of the use of statvation as a method of war.
The court added that Israel must cooperate in good faith with the United Nations, including Unrwa, and to respect and ensure respect for the privileges and immunites accorded to the UN’s premises and officials.
In its advisory opinion, the court found that Israel has failed to substantiate its claims that a significant number of Unrwa staff are affiliated to Hamas.
It also emphasised its opinion that Unrwa is “impartial” and indispensable for the provision of relief to Palestinians, as mandated by the UN General Assembly.
The court also noted Israel’s total siege on Gaza between 2 March and 18 May, and the attempt to replace the work of the UN with the highly controversial Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF).
The court found that Israel, through the GHF, had not ensured that the population of the Gaza Strip is adequately supplied as required by international humanitarian law.
“The court notes the UN acting through Unrwa had been an indispensable provider of humanitarian relief,” the opinion read.
“The court considers that Israel is under an obligation to agree to and faciliate relief schemes provided by the UN and its entities, including Unrwa.”
The advisory opinion comes six months after hearings by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, where more than 40 states and international organisations presented evidence mostly arguing that Israel had breached its international legal obligations to facilitate the entry of aid to the Palestinian population under its occupation.
Only the US and Hungary disputed the majority opinion, arguing for an interpretation of international humanitarian law in favour of limiting such obligation due to military necessity and Israel’s security.
The case was prompted by Israel banning Unrwa, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees, in October 2024, an event that sparked global outrage and calls for Israel to be ejected from the United Nations due to accusations that it violated the founding charter, particularly the privileges and immunities enjoyed by its agencies.
Wednesday’s ruling is the third advisory opinion case since 2004 to be heard before the ICJ in relation to Israel’s violations of international law.
ICJ advisory opinions are highly authoritative among states and the court’s interpretation of a legal question is considered binding as a matter of general international law.
This latest ICJ ruling tightens legal noose around Israeli regime over Gaza genocide.
By Sondos Asem in The Hague, Netherland
Source: https://www.theinteldrop.org