![]()
The vision of Israel and Palestine “living side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders,” will remain elusive, the essayist writes, as long as Israel continues to defy the world court and the UN with “the active support” of the United States. Here, a Gazan with a sack of free flour. SHAREEF SARHAN/UN PHOTOThe United States pushed its resolution on Gaza through the United Nations Security Council on Nov. 17, moving forward on President Trump’s purported peace plan while disregarding Israel’s violations of the ceasefire and despite its rejection of Palestinian statehood, a quintessential element of the US resolution.
Contrary to the pronouncements of the International Court of Justice, successive resolutions of the UN Security Council and General Assembly and even Trump’s Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity, Israel is further entrenching its occupation in Gaza; exponentially expanding its illegal settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem; and publicly planning to annex significant parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Who will stop Israel’s defiance of the world court; its contempt for the UN; and its apparent disrespect for the US, its closest ally and primary benefactor?
On Oct. 25, 2025, the International Court of Justice, or ICJ, rendered an advisory opinion requested by the General Assembly nearly a year earlier, on Dec. 19, 2024. Considering Israel’s escalating attacks on the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA), the Assembly requested the court’s opinion on Israel’s obligations as an occupying power and as a UN member state toward the UN and UNRWA in and relating to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, or OPT.
The October 2025 advisory opinion is the third in a series requested by the Assembly. The first, issued on July 9, 2004, confirmed the illegality of the wall constructed by Israel in the OPT and called for its immediate dismantlement. The second, issued on July 19, 2024, confirmed the unlawfulness of Israel’s prolonged occupation, settlements and racial separation practices in the OPT and called for Israel, its forces and its settlers to leave as rapidly as possible.
Israel has not only ignored the three advisory opinions, but it has also escalated and expanded its violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, including against the UN and UNRWA. Israel has killed nearly 400 UNRWA staff as well as hundreds of their children; detained and reportedly tortured dozens of UNRWA staff without charge; and destroyed or damaged more than 300 UNRWA schools and other installations.
Israel’s security concerns v. international law
While the court acknowledged Israel’s security concerns, it cautioned that “the protection of security interests is not a free-standing exception permitting a State to depart from the otherwise applicable rules of international humanitarian law.” The ICJ reiterated that whether Israel is defending its territory against attack or combating terrorism, the country must abide by international humanitarian law and human rights law.
In addition to its military attacks against UNRWA, which under the Fourth Geneva Convention may constitute war crimes, Israel has also adopted legislation banning UNRWA’s operations in the OPT, confiscating its property and stripping it and its personnel of their UN privileges and immunities.
Israel has also alleged that UNRWA was complicit in the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, 2023, thereby waging a third form of attack, jeopardizing its financial viability and posing an existential threat to UNRWA’s very existence. In this connection, the court highlighted the absence of evidence and lack of sufficient information to substantiate these allegations.
It is not lost on the world that these allegations first arose on the eve of the ICJ’s hearing, on Jan. 26, 2024, when the court determined that there was a plausible genocide in Gaza and ordered legally binding provisional measures for Israel to stop the killing, the incitement and the denial of the basic conditions of life “essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population.”
It should also not be lost on the world that UNRWA is facing its existential threat at the same time that the people of Palestine are facing theirs — despite the much-promoted ceasefire agreement, which may have slowed but has not stopped the killing, the devastation or the starvation in Gaza.
Duty of the secretary-general
As a matter of procedure, Norway led the initiative leading to the General Assembly’s request for the ICJ’s advisory opinion. UN Secretary-General António Guterres should have invoked Section 30 of the Convention on the Privileges and Immunities of the United Nations. Israel’s military, legal and other attacks against UNRWA not only violate the privileges and immunities of the agency, its personnel and its premises but also impede its ability to carry out its mandate in the OPT.
Guterres continues to have the right and duty under the Convention to bring such serious differences between the UN and Israel to the attention of the Assembly or to the Security Council, which could then request an advisory opinion that would be binding on the parties, in accordance with the Convention to which Israel is a party.
As a matter of substance, the ICJ concluded that as a UN member state, Israel has an obligation to cooperate with the UN in good faith and to support UNRWA’s mandated activities, in accordance with the UN Charter. It also confirmed that UNRWA’s mandate reflects the UN’s commitment to, and permanent responsibility for, the question of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinian people.
The court also confirmed that Israel has an obligation to cooperate with and to facilitate the UN and UNRWA’s efforts in the OPT as well as to respect the privileges and immunities of the UN and UNRWA and their personnel, premises, property and other assets.
As an occupying power, Israel also has binding obligations under customary international law even in, and possibly especially in, times of armed conflict:
• to respect, protect and fulfill international human rights in the OPT and the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination;
• to ensure the supplies essential to the survival of the civilian population, including food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel and medical supplies and services;
• to allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, subject to a limited right of control;
• to respect and protect personnel participating in relief actions, including to protect the safety and security of UN and UNRWA personnel ensuring that they are not targeted.
The court also concluded that Israel has negative obligations — to refrain from impeding humanitarian relief; using “starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare”; and restricting the presence and activities of the UN and UNRWA in the OPT to a degree that creates, or contributes to, conditions of life that are intolerable and/or would force the population to leave the OPT.
To the extent that these obligations flow from customary international law, they are also binding on Israel.
As a matter of consequence, the ICJ opined that any diminution by Israel limiting the capacity of UNRWA and other actors to ensure the basic human rights and needs of the Palestinian people “means that the obligations of Israel to respect, protect and fulfill these rights increases to a commensurate degree.”
The court honored UNRWA, describing the agency as “the backbone of all humanitarian response in the Gaza Strip, serving Palestinian refugees and civilians in urgent need of life-saving humanitarian assistance.”
To the extent that Israel has not fulfilled its own obligation to ensure that the Palestinian people are adequately supplied, UNRWA has been, according to the court, “an indispensable provider of humanitarian relief in the Gaza Strip” and “cannot be replaced on short notice and without a proper transition plan.”
Ultimately, the court reaffirmed the right of the Palestinian people to an independent and sovereign state and reiterated the vision, shared by both the Security Council and the General Assembly, as well as the overwhelming majority of UN member states, of two states — Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders.
The realization of this shared vision depends on several actors and many factors but none will matter if Israel continues to defy the world court and the United Nations with the active support of the US and the passive complicity of other member states.