🏛️ 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.’s world court) issued a sweeping Advisory Opinion detailing Israel’s 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 — I know that, and so do you — 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 world’s highest court says “do not starve civilians,” “facilitate U.N. aid,” and “respect U.N. privileges and immunities,” and a state does the opposite, that’s not a misunderstanding — that’s defiance of law.

Family — 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.

Summary of the ICJ Opinion

219KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The full detailed opinion is in the PDF right below this one.

Download

The Full, Unedited Opinion of ICJ

669KB ∙ PDF file

Download

This is the 150 page document that I basically break down in the rest of this article.

Download

What the ICJ just said & did — in plain English

The UN General Assembly asked the ICJ a targeted legal question: What are Israel’s obligations — as an occupying Power and as a U.N. member — toward the presence and activities of the United Nations (including UNRWA), other international organizations and third States, “including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival” 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.

Here’s the blunt version of the holdings (I’m quoting and paraphrasing the Court directly):

• As an occupying power, Israel must ensure essential supplies of daily life — food, water, clothing, bedding, shelter, fuel, medical supplies and services — 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 “including relief provided by the United Nations and its entities, in particular UNRWA,” other international organizations and third States, and “not impede such relief.” (10–1) 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 Palestinians’ human rights in the occupied territory, and restrictions on indispensable humanitarian aid directly implicate those obligations (10–1).

• 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 — including to UNRWA — and must ensure full respect for U.N. privileges and immunities, the inviolability of U.N. premises (including UNRWA’s), and the immunities of U.N. officials and experts on mission (each 10–1).

That’s the law, today, from The Hague.

---

What “ensure and facilitate” really means on the ground

The Court did not write poetry; it wrote obligations. “Agree to and facilitate by all means at its disposal” is not a slogan — it’s a duty. The press release’s operative clause spells it out: relief must be facilitated when the population is inadequately supplied “as has been the case in the Gaza Strip,” 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 “has not significantly alleviated the situation”; and, in those circumstances, the Court “recalls Israel’s obligation not to use starvation of the civilian population as a method of warfare.” That is as clear as law gets.

---

Gaza is occupied — and the core international laws are still binding against Israel

A few participants tried to contest Israel’s status as an occupying Power in Gaza; the Court dismissed that argument. It recalls its 2024 Advisory Opinion confirming that after 2005, “Israel remained capable of exercising, and continued to exercise, certain key elements of authority over the Gaza Strip,” 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 UNRWA’s unique mandate to the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination. UNRWA’s programs in education, health, direct relief and development are described as a manifestation of the Organization’s commitment to that right; the Court notes UNRWA remains “the principal means and the backbone of all humanitarian response” 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 Palestinians’ basic needs are actually met.

This is not a small point. If you cut UNRWA’s legs, you are not merely “reforming an agency”; you are obstructing a people’s 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 UNRWA’s, and the immunity of U.N. property, assets, officials and experts on mission from interference — each adopted 10–1, 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.

---

“But advisory opinions aren’t binding.” Let’s 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 “compelling reasons” justify refusal; the question is legal in character; the Court’s 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 — the ICJ and the ICC — were handing down rulings for Israel, validating aid blockages or calling starvation a “tactic,” 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 “third States”. The Court’s answer likewise addresses third-State presence and activity “in and in relation to” 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 — 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 “provok[ing] it deliberately, causing the population to suffer hunger, particularly by depriving it of its sources of food or of supplies.” Against a record of aid blockages and inadequate supplies, the Court recallsIsrael’s 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 “security comes first.” 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 “UNRWA isn’t neutral.” The judges read the record, including the U.N.’s 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. That’s law and logistics, together.

And some will say “the ICJ is biased.” The votes tell another story: unanimous on jurisdiction, on proceeding to answer, and on the core IHL duties; 10–1 on privileges, immunities, and good-faith co-operation with the U.N. One judge’s separate view does not cancel the Court’s 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 — two years of genocide on your phone screen can do that. But that’s the point — to numb us. Don’t 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 “the law is complicated,” hand them the operative clause and say: “No. It’s clear.”

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 isn’t guessing — we’re grounded.

Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun

Don’t Stop Here! Below are 3 FREE articles for you to read & share…

---