đď¸ The International Court of Justice Just Rejected EVERY SINGLE LIE Israel Told to Them
I have embedded their 150 page opinion below, but went ahead and summarized it for you so that you can understand it in plain English.
Fact punch: Today the International Court of Justice (the U.N.âs world court) issued a sweeping Advisory Opinion detailing Israelâs legal obligations as an occupying power and as a U.N. Member State, with specific findings on relief, UNRWA, humanitarian access, and the prohibition on starvation.
Why it matters now: The ICJ cannot physically stop bombs â I know that, and so do you â but imagine if these same courts were churning out rulings for Israel instead of against its conduct. Our fight would be infinitely harder.
Moral clarity: When the worldâs highest court says âdo not starve civilians,â âfacilitate U.N. aid,â and ârespect U.N. privileges and immunities,â and a state does the opposite, thatâs not a misunderstanding â thatâs defiance of law.
Family â before we dive in, a quick, honest appeal. I keep this Gaza reporting free for everyone. If this clarity helps you see through the fog, please CLICK HERE to become a member of The North Star today. Your support lets me read 70-page rulings the morning they drop, pull the receipts, and publish them for all of us.
What the ICJ just said & did â in plain English
The UN General Assembly asked the ICJ a targeted legal question: What are Israelâs obligations â as an occupying Power and as a U.N. member â toward the presence and activities of the United Nations (including UNRWA), other international organizations and third States, âincluding to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survivalâ of Palestinians? The Court took jurisdiction unanimously, declined to duck the question, and issued a detailed opinion after receiving 45 written statements and hearing 39 States, the U.N., and others in public session.
Hereâs the blunt version of the holdings (Iâm quoting and paraphrasing the Court directly):
As an occupying power, Israel must ensure essential supplies of daily life â food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies and services â and not impede their provision (unanimous). It must agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal relief schemes so long as the population is inadequately supplied âincluding relief provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular UNRWA,â other international organizations and third States, and ânot impede such relief.â (10â1) It must respect and protect relief and medical personnel and facilities (unanimous); respect the prohibition on forcible transfer (unanimous); allow ICRC access to detainees (unanimous); and respect the absolute prohibition on the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare (unanimous).
Under human rights law, Israel must respect, protect and fulfil Palestiniansâ human rights in the occupied territory, and restrictions on indispensable humanitarian aid directly implicate those obligations (10â1).
As a U.N. Member State, Israel must co-operate in good faith with the U.N., providing every assistance in any Charter-based action â including to UNRWA â and must ensure full respect for U.N. privileges and immunities, the inviolability of U.N. premises (including UNRWAâs), and the immunities of U.N. officials and experts on mission (each 10â1).
Thatâs the law, today, from The Hague.
What âensure and facilitateâ really means on the ground
The Court did not write poetry; it wrote obligations. âAgree to and facilitate by all means at its disposalâ is not a slogan â itâs a duty. The press releaseâs operative clause spells it out: relief must be facilitated when the population is inadequately supplied âas has been the case in the Gaza Strip,â with special reference to UNRWA and not impeding such relief. The same operative clause restates, without hedging, the ban on starvation, the duty to protect relief and medical personnel, and the access rights for ICRC to visit detainees.
The Opinion connects those obligations to the facts: Israel blocked aid from 2 March until 18 May 2025; limited aid since âhas not significantly alleviated the situationâ; and, in those circumstances, the Court ârecalls Israelâs obligation not to use starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare.â That is as clear as law gets.
Gaza is occupied â and the core international laws are still binding against Israel
A few participants tried to contest Israelâs status as an occupying Power in Gaza; the Court dismissed that argument. It recalls its 2024 Advisory Opinion confirming that after 2005, âIsrael remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip,â and that the law of occupation applies commensurate with that effective control. The Opinion also re-sets first principles: distinction, proportionality, and precautions are baseline duties, not optional talking points.
Self-determination, UNRWA, and why this matters for the future
The judges go beyond emergency relief and tie UNRWAâs unique mandate to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. UNRWAâs programs in education, health, direct relief and development are described as a manifestation of the Organizationâs commitment to that right; the Court notes UNRWA remains âthe principal means and the backbone of all humanitarian responseâ in Gaza since October 2023. Consequently, Israel is under an obligation not to impede U.N. entities and to co-operate in good faith with the U.N. so that Palestiniansâ basic needs are actually met.
This is not a small point. If you cut UNRWAâs legs, you are not merely âreforming an agencyâ; you are obstructing a peopleâs path to self-determination, which international law treats as a peremptory norm. The Court makes that link explicit.
Privileges, immunities, and the inviolability of U.N. premises
Another clear holding: Israel must ensure full respect for U.N. privileges and immunities in and in relation to the OPT. That includes the inviolability of U.N. premises, including UNRWAâs, and the immunity of U.N. property, assets, officials and experts on mission from interference â each adopted 10â1, with Vice-President Sebutinde alone against. The press release lists the votes, judge by judge, and notes the appended separate and dissenting opinions. This is the world court speaking with near-unity.
âBut advisory opinions arenât binding.â Letâs tell the truth about that.
They are not judgments between litigating states, yes. They are, however, authoritative statements of international lawthat U.N. organs rely on, states cite, and movements organize around. The Court explains why it could not decline this request: only âcompelling reasonsâ justify refusal; the question is legal in character; the Courtâs answer does not prejudge the separate genocide case (different subject-matter and obligations); and the information before it is enough to decide the law without becoming a fact-finder in an ongoing conflict. That is the Court clearing away the excuses.
If these same courts â the ICJ and the ICC â were handing down rulings for Israel, validating aid blockages or calling starvation a âtactic,â our fight would be almost impossible. Instead, the compass keeps pointing one direction: do not starve civilians; do not block lifesaving aid; do not criminalize the U.N. for feeding the hungry.
What this means for the U.S., donors, and third States
The question the General Assembly sent to The Hague expressly included âthird Statesâ. The Courtâs answer likewise addresses third-State presence and activity âin and in relation toâ the OPT. If you are a state, a donor government, or a multilateral agency operating in Gaza, the ICJ just told you that Israel is obligated to co-operate in good faith with your life-saving work and not to impede it; and that U.N. premises and personnel are to be respected and protected under the Charter and the Convention on Privileges and Immunities. Those are not political favors â they are legal duties.
The starvation clause, in black and white
For anyone still trying to euphemize famine, the Court cites the rule as customary law and restates the definition: starvation means âprovok[ing] it deliberately, causing the population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food or of supplies.â Against a record of aid blockages and inadequate supplies, the Court recallsIsraelâs obligation not to use starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. There is no loophole buried in that sentence.
Objection & Answer (straight talk)
Some will say âsecurity comes first.â The Court is explicit that security is not a free-standing exception to ignore humanitarian law or human rights. If you invoke security, you must still allow and facilitate relief; you may not starve civilians; you must respect U.N. operations and immunities. That is how law restrains power even when power is angry.
Others will say âUNRWA isnât neutral.â The judges read the record, including the U.N.âs own investigations, and found no evidence that UNRWA as an organization lacks the impartiality required under the Geneva framework. They also note the practical truth everyone in the field knows: UNRWA is indispensable and irreplaceable on short notice in Gaza. Thatâs law and logistics, together.
And some will say âthe ICJ is biased.â The votes tell another story: unanimous on jurisdiction, on proceeding to answer, and on the core IHL duties; 10â1 on privileges, immunities, and good-faith co-operation with the U.N. One judgeâs separate view does not cancel the Courtâs voice. Read the operative paragraphs yourself; feel how calm and careful they are.
What I need from you today
I know some of you feel exhausted â two years of genocide on your phone screen can do that. But thatâs the point â to numb us. Donât let them. Read the words of the Court. Share them. Quote them. Teach them. If a leader in your city or mosque or church says âthe law is complicated,â hand them the operative clause and say: âNo. Itâs clear.â
If my work helps you carry this truth with moral clarity, become a member. Independence is how I keep reading, summarizing, and publishing these rulings the day they land, so our community isnât guessing â weâre grounded.
Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun
Donât Stop Here! Below are 3 FREE articles for you to read & shareâŚ
đľđ˝ Memoir of Epstein survivor says that she was brutally raped and choked unconscious by the Prime Minister of Israel
Family â this is not gossip. Itâs a survivorâs words, on the record.
𧨠White House Says Israel is Lying About Hamas after Israel Bombs Themselves Then Unleashes Bombs on Gaza in Retaliation
Fact punch: A senior administration official told conservative reporter Curt Mills: âHamas did nothing. Israeli tank hit an unexploded IED that has probably been there for months.â
I know this court, and other groups, have seemingly lacked the actual power to do much about the genocide and occupation, but I assure you decisions like this still matter - particularly to the rest of the world.
That's good news. Even if it is a symbolic gesture, hopefully, it will have a ripple effect