Global Injustice: International Court of Justice Responds to Ceasefire by Demonizing Israel and Propping Up UNRWA

Like the International Criminal Court, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has shown once again that, at least in the case of Israel, it is no more than just a political tool to demonize and weaken Israel. This time it is attempting to force Israel to work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA), a known tool of Hamas and other terrorists.

On December 20, 2024, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a resolution asking the ICJ to give an advisory opinion on the following question: “What are the obligations of Israel . . . in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, . . . in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory . . . ?”

Take action with us, add your name to the petition: Defend Israel From Anti-Israel Attacks Across the Globe.

At the outset, note that the UNGA did not ask whether Israel had violated such obligations. It simply asked the ICJ to define the obligations. Yet the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), also called International Humanitarian Law (IHL), is quite clear and undisputed. Israel already knows that it has a general obligation to allow humanitarian aid in the Gaza Strip. However, this obligation is not absolute. Due to the limitations placed by military necessity and proportionality, IHL also allows Israel to have a wide range of discretion as to how such aid is delivered.

One would wonder why the UNGA would ask a question (i.e., “What are the obligations?”) to which the answer is clear and undisputed. Consider the following two reasons. First, it simply helps fuel the ongoing lawfare and propaganda against Israel. Second, it demonizes Israel for putting any limitations on humanitarian organizations that support Hamas. The issue is not whether Israel was and is fulfilling its obligation to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. Several U.N. bodies, international organizations, and States are already engaged in providing humanitarian relief in Gaza. The real issue is Israel’s termination of one specific U.N. agency’s operations within Israeli sovereign territory – the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA). This is unsurprising given the fact that many UNRWA employees actually helped carry out the October 7 attacks and even held Israeli hostages captive for Hamas, and the agency is generally known to support Hamas and other like-minded terrorist organizations.

By 10 votes to 1, the ICJ held that “Israel has an obligation to co-operate in good faith with the United Nations by providing every assistance in any action it takes . . . including [UNRWA].”

However, as one judge who voted against this conclusion, Judge Julia Sebutinde, noted, “[T]here is no legal requirement that Israel as an occupying Power must permit a specific third State or international organization to conduct humanitarian activities in the OPT, if doing so would compromise Israel’s security interests.” Judge Sebutinde is absolutely correct.

Judge Sebutinde stated:

So long as Israel continues to ensure the provision of essential humanitarian aid and basic services to the Palestinian population through alternative channels — as it has consistently done throughout the ongoing military operation in the Gaza Strip — its decision to prohibit UNRWA’s operations and presence within its territory falls squarely within its sovereign rights.

Rules of IHL require that relief organizations “adhere strictly to the core humanitarian principles of impartiality, neutrality and independence.” Obviously, UNRWA has consistently failed to be impartial and neutral. The U.N. Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS), for example, terminated contracts of nine UNRWA staff members after Israeli intelligence reported the involvement of hundreds of UNRWA staff members in the October 7, 2023, attacks.

It is also well documented that Hamas and other terrorist organizations in Gaza use UNRWA schools and facilities to carry out terrorist activities. In light of such evidence, as Judge Sebutinde noted, Israel has competing obligations: to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, on the one hand, and combat terrorism and protect its national security on the other hand. Given the nature of the armed conflict where the enemy unlawfully hides in civilian clothing and civilian facilities, steals and abuses aid, and uses humanitarian facilities to carry out acts of terror, Israel has no choice.

Note the following paragraph in Judge Sebutinde’s separate opinion that lists the humanitarian organizations operating in the disputed territories. Yet Israel is vilified for restricting the operations of one organization (i.e., UNRWA).

[T]he Observer State of Palestine identified several international organizations operating in the OPT, including the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD); the International Labour Organization (ILO); the International Trade Center (ITC); the UN Department of Safety and Security (UNDSS); the UNDP; the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO); the UN Environment Program (UNEP); the UN Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO); the OHCHR; the UN Register of Damage Caused by the Construction of the Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory;  the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process; UN Trade and Development; the WHO; Acted; Action Against Hunger, ACF; Action Aid Australia — Palestine; Alianza Por La Solidaridad; ANERA; CARE International; Caritas Jerusalem; Catholic Relief Services; CESVI; Cooperazione Internazionale Sud; Dan Church Aid/Norwegian Church Aid; the Danish Refugee Council; Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe; Global Communities; Humanity and Inclusion; International Medical Corps; the International Rescue Committee; the Lutheran World Federation; Médecins sans Frontières; Medical Aid for Palestinians; Mercy Corps; Middle East Children’s Alliance; the Norwegian Aid Committee; Norwegian People’s Aid; the Norwegian Refugee Council; Oxfam; Première Urgence Internationale; Project HOPE; Relief International; Save the Children; Solidarités International; Swiss Church Aid; Terre des Hommes; The Centre for Mind-Body Medicine; War Child; War Child Holland; We World-GVC.

The list of humanitarian organizations operating in the disputed territories shows that the ICJ’s advisory opinion is not about the lack of humanitarian aid in Gaza or Israel’s restricting the U.N.’s or other organizations’ ability to administer humanitarian aid in Gaza. It is lawfare against Israel.

The very fact that the ICJ waited to release its opinion just days after Israel agreed to a ceasefire and Hamas released the hostages is further proof of this lawfare. The ICJ, ICC, and U.N. cannot allow peace to flourish. They are dedicated to undermining and destroying Israel.

At the ACLJ, we will continue to defend Israel’s interests on the international stage, and our legal team is already hard at work preparing our next arguments. Take action with us, add your name to the petition: Defend Israel From Anti-Israel Attacks Across the Globe.