SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:var(--button-bg-color);padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"It'll likely see the collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza," warned a spokesperson for the U.N. Children's Fund.
Humanitarian groups and United Nations officials issued dire warnings Tuesday about the potentially catastrophic consequences of Israeli lawmakers' vote to ban the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, the body primarily responsible for delivering lifesaving aid to the people of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
James Elder, a spokesperson for the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), said Tuesday that if the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) is unable to operate due to the measures passed overwhelmingly by the Israeli Knesset on Monday, "it'll likely see the collapse of the humanitarian system in Gaza."
"So a decision such as this suddenly means that a new way has been found to kill children," said Elder.
The legislation that Israeli lawmakers passed in a 92-10 vote bars UNRWA—a frequent target of Israeli smear campaigns and military attacks—from operating or providing "any service" within "in the sovereign territory of the state of Israel."
Israeli lawmakers also passed a measure declaring UNRWA a "terror" group, barring Israeli officials from engaging in any contact with the agency.
The Guardiannoted that the newly passed measures—which are set to be implemented within 90 days—are "expected to lead to the closure of UNRWA's East Jerusalem headquarters and would effectively block the delivery of humanitarian aid into Gaza via Rafah."
"The severing of diplomatic relations would preclude Israel from issuing entry and work permits to foreign UNRWA staff and prevent coordination with the Israeli military to permit aid shipments," the newspaper added.
"Humanitarian actors rely on coordination with UNWRA to deliver aid and alleviate suffering. UNWRA cannot be replaced by NGOs."
Agnès Callamard, the secretary-general of Amnesty International, warned in a statement Tuesday that the measures represent "an outright attack on the rights of Palestinian refugees."
"It is clearly designed to make it impossible for the agency to operate in the occupied Palestinian territory by forcing the closure of the UNRWA headquarters in East Jerusalem and ending visas for its staff," said Callamard. "It amounts to the criminalization of humanitarian aid and will worsen an already catastrophic humanitarian crisis."
"This appalling, inhumane law will only exacerbate the suffering of Palestinians, who have endured unimaginable hardship since the horrific attacks by Hamas and other armed groups in southern Israel one year ago, and whose need for global support is greater than ever. The international community must be quick to condemn it in the strongest possible terms and exert any influence they have on the Israeli government to repeal it.”
The U.N. General Assembly established UNRWA in the aftermath of the 1948 Nakba, and the agency is central to humanitarian operations in the famine-stricken Gaza Strip—a role that aid groups described as necessary and irreplaceable. According to a World Health Organization official, roughly a third of the healthcare workers assisting the polio vaccination campaign in Gaza work with UNRWA.
"UNRWA plays a critical role in serving civilians in desperate need in Gaza," the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said Tuesday. "Humanitarian actors rely on coordination with UNRWA to deliver aid and alleviate suffering. UNRWA cannot be replaced by NGOs like IRC."
"The bill passed in the Israeli parliament is an unprecedented attack on a U.N. agency and, if implemented, would only worsen the humanitarian catastrophe," IRC added. "We strongly urge that this legislation is not applied. We continue to advocate for an immediate ceasefire to get aid in, to release the hostages, and to meet the growing and dire needs of the civilian population."
Sam Rose, deputy director of UNRWA affairs in Gaza, said in a CNN interview that "the entire humanitarian system" in the Palestinian enclave "relies every minute of every day on UNRWA to deliver services to 2 million people living in the worst possible conditions."
Implementation of the ban, Rose warned, "would be devastating for us, devastating for other aid agencies—but more importantly, for the population here that's suffering so much."
This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarized atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behavior as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law.
The International Court of Justice overwhelmingly decided last week that Israel is no longer legally entitled to act as the occupying power in Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, noting that its further presence in these territories is unlawful.
The decision took the form of an “advisory opinion” in response to two “legal questions” put to the ICJ by the United Nations General Assembly in 2022.
Israel declined to take part in the court proceedings except by way of a written statement objecting to the whole process as improper, arguing that Israel’s consent was needed before its governmental conduct could be legally evaluated by the ICJ, even in a process labelled as “advisory.”
Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.
Does being an “advisory opinion” rather than a formal judgment in a “contentious” case make a decisive difference in the political weight or legal authoritativeness of the outcome in this comprehensive legal scrutiny of Israel’s prolonged occupation of the Palestinian territories?
An important question is raised by the formal, obligatory format of the ongoing South African ICJ case alleging Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
From Israel’s point of view, these two cases are not very different, beyond the ICJ focusing on the alleged legal wrongdoing associated with 57 years of prolonged occupation in one instance, and in the other, South Africa seeking the court’s support to end the Gaza genocide that started last October.
In both instances, Israel has denounced the ICJ for reaching legal conclusions that it says compromise its security and right to defend itself. With such reasoning, Israel gives every sign of ignoring the ICJ as it works to “finish the job” in Gaza, while continuing the policies and practices associated with its approach to occupation since 1967.
Israel’s language of rejection is clear, with the prime minister’s office noting in a statement: “Israel does not recognize the legitimacy of the discussion at the International Court of Justice in The Hague regarding the ‘legality of the occupation’—a move designed to harm Israel’s right to defend itself against existential threats.” Or in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cruder language, “No one will stop us.”
On a superficial level, this near-convergence of outcomes seems to neglect the intended distinction between what is “advisory” (and hence non-binding) and what is “obligatory” and binding. Upon more reflective consideration, this convergence is far deeper, grounded more in the evolving jurisprudence of the ICJ than in Israel’s criticisms of the process and refusal to implement the rulings in either case.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel.
In its lengthy landmark decision on the issue of the Israeli occupation, the ICJ reached nine conclusions, none of which were opposed by more than four of the 15 participating judges.
This level of judicial consensus in such a politically polarized atmosphere lends support for viewing the court’s decision as authoritative when it comes to evaluating Israel’s behavior as an occupying power in relation to international humanitarian law—especially the Fourth Geneva Convention governing belligerent occupation—and international human rights law, especially the treaty prohibiting racial discrimination.
Such a consensus is strengthened by additional comments from judges from Global South countries (including Somalia and Lebanon) that go further than the advisory opinion itself to explore the relevance of the colonial background that informs the occupation of Palestine.
Also noteworthy is the fact that the U.S. and Australian judges cast their votes in line with the ICJ consensus, despite their governments being ardent supporters of Israel, with eyes closed to Israeli criminality in both the long occupation and the Gaza genocide.
As with the South African case, the ICJ gained widespread approval for so clearly putting law ahead of national identity. This kind of prioritization is missing from the political organs of the U.N., especially the Security Council, where affiliated flags take unquestioned precedence—and to be sure that the primacy of geopolitics is sustained, the permanent members, P5, get a veto (prompting Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to object with the pithy words: “The world is greater than five.”)
The ICJ formulates the substance of its legal analysis in language that intends to be obligatory with respect to Israel. It directs all states and the U.N. itself to implement its rulings on matters of illegality and the consequences of Israeli unlawfulness. While the decision is labelled “advisory,” as required by the ICJ framework, its pronouncements on the law are stated as if authoritative, and they are supported by the overwhelming majority of judges.
The ICJ also appears to be claiming the authority to tell three categories of political actors—Israel, all states, and the U.N.—what their obligations are with respect to its central finding that Israel’s prolonged presence is no longer legal and should be terminated as rapidly as possible.
This advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law.
In the process of reaching this weighty conclusion, the ICJ found that Israel was responsible for blocking the Palestinian right to self-determination, wrongfully annexing Palestinian territory by force, violating the Fourth Geneva Convention through its large-scale settlement project, and relying upon discriminatory policies and practices to administer the occupied territories.
The few judges who refused to go along with these findings argued that the ICJ proceedings took insufficient account of Israeli security concerns and counter arguments.
Regardless, this advisory opinion lends important authoritative support to several central Palestinian grievances with respect to international humanitarian and human rights law, particularly concerning the lawfulness of controversial Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories—and the legal duty of Israel, other states, and the U.N. to follow this decision up with concrete action.
The United Nations' highest court issued an advisory opinion arguing that Israel's large-scale expansion of settlements amounts to annexation, a crime under international law.
The International Court of Justice said Friday that Israel's decadeslong occupation of Gaza and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful and must end "as rapidly as possible."
The court's nonbinding advisory opinion was read aloud by ICJ President Nawaf Salam, a Lebanese judge and academic. Salam said the court determined based on "extensive evidence" that Israel is guilty of confiscating "large areas" of Palestinian land for use by Israeli settlers, exploiting natural resources, and undermining the local population's right to self-determination under international law.
The court pointed to "Israel's systematic failure to prevent or punish" settler violence and "demolition of Palestinian property" in the West Bank as part of its case that the Israeli government's actions in the occupied territories are indicative of an attempt to permanently annex land and forcibly transfer Palestinians from their homes.
"Israel is not entitled to sovereignty in any part of the occupied Palestinian territory on account of its occupation, nor can security concerns override the prohibition on acquisition of territory by force," said Salam.
The ICJ vote against Israel's occupation was 11-4. The court also voted to call on Israel to evacuate all settlers from the West Bank.
In a 12-3 vote, the ICJ said that all nations "are under an obligation not to recognize as legal the situation arising from the unlawful presence of the state of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining the situation created by the continued presence of the state of Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory."
The United States was among the countries that warned the ICJ against advising that Israel must swiftly end its occupation.
The ICJ handed down its opinion as the court is also considering a genocide case brought against Israel over its ongoing assault on the Gaza Strip—a devastating war that the court did not weigh as part of its new advisory opinion.
Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, applauded the ICJ's call for the dismantling of Israeli settlements and reparations for Palestinians harmed by Israel's occupation.
"The ICJ ruling in essence confirmed what the majority of people (except the West) already knew and have recognized: that Israel's occupation is illegal, that it is still occupying Gaza, it is annexing the West Bank, and Israel is an apartheid state," Parsi wrote on social media. "If there is any respect for international law, Western media must now include this in all its Israel coverage. Most don't even describe settlements as illegal!"
Nancy Okail, president and CEO of the Center for International Policy, said in a statement that "while the ICJ's action is nonbinding, countries that seek to uphold international law should respect the court's determination and take all appropriate steps to counter the injustices of the occupation and bring it to a peaceful end."
"At a minimum, countries should not engage in actions which help to perpetuate the occupation and its discriminatory, annexationist goals," said Okail. "In particular, the United States must end the unconditional supply of arms that Israel uses in connection with the dispossession and settlement of Palestinian land and other violations of Palestinian rights."