Two days of ICJ hearings: 'Israel’s' humanitarian obligations in focus

On April 28 and 29, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held public hearings at the Peace Palace to examine 'Israel’s' legal obligations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), as requested by a UN General Assembly resolution adopted on December 19, 2024.

The advisory proceedings, addressing 'Israel’s' responsibilities toward humanitarian aid and the activities of the UN and third states, drew global attention amid Gaza’s worsening crisis.

Over two days, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and others presented forceful arguments accusing 'Israel' of violating international law, while 'Israel' dismissed the hearings as biased. Here’s everything that happened.

Background, stakes

The ICJ’s hearings focus on 'Israel’s' duties as an occupying power, particularly ensuring humanitarian access to Gaza and the West Bank, where a prolonged blockade since March 2, 2025, has left 2.3 million Gazans facing famine.

The case follows 'Israel’s' October 2024 ban on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which prompted accusations of breaching the UN Charter. Unlike prior ICJ cases—such as the 2004 West Bank barrier ruling or the 2024 declaration of 'Israel’s' occupation as unlawful—this advisory opinion targets 'Israel’s' specific obligations toward UN operations and humanitarian aid.

The hearings, running through May 2, 2025, involve 40 states and four international organizations. 

Day 1: April 28, 2025 – Palestine, UN set the tone

The hearings opened with statements from Palestinian representatives and UN officials, highlighting the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza and accusing 'Israel' of systematic violations.

Palestinian arguments:

Elinor Hammarskjold, UN Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs, framed 'Israel’s' obligations:
“Under international law, states are prohibited from acquiring territory by force... In the specific context of the current situation in the occupied Palestinian Territories, these obligations entail allowing all relevant UN entities to carry out activities for the benefit of the local population.”

Ammar Hijazi, a Palestinian envoy, accused 'Israel' of weaponizing aid:
“These are the facts. Starvation is here. Humanitarian aid is being used as a weapon of war.” He argued that 'Israel’s' blockade and attacks aim to “destroy the fundamentals of life in Palestine.”

Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh KC, representing Palestine, emphasized the unprecedented danger to UN staff:
“The last 18 months have been the deadliest ever in the history of the United Nations, with over 418 aid workers killed in Gaza... Gaza has been turned into a mass grave of Palestinians and those coming to their assistance.” She accused Israel of “intentionally and egregiously” violating Article 2(5) of the UN Charter, which mandates support for UN operations.

'Israel’s' response:

'Israel’s' Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, absent from the hearings, called them a “circus” and criticized the UN’s alleged ties to Hamas:

I accuse.
I accuse UNRWA.
I accuse the UN.
I accuse the Secretary-General.
I accuse all those that weaponize international law and its institutions in order to deprive the most attacked country in the world — Israel — of its most basic right to defend itself. pic.twitter.com/AfdHe7ymj3

— Gideon Sa'ar | גדעון סער (@gidonsaar) April 28, 2025 />“They are abusing the Court once again to try and force Israel to cooperate with an organisation that is infested with Hamas terrorists.”

'Israel' claims its aid restrictions target Hamas’s diversion of supplies, a charge the group denies.

Day 2: April 29, 2025 – Saudi Arabia, others intensify critique

The second day saw South Africa, Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Belgium, and Colombia present oral statements, with Saudi Arabia delivering a particularly scathing rebuke of 'Israel’s' policies.

Saudi Arabia’s arguments:

Saudi Arabia’s representative condemned 'Israel’s' blockade and military actions as part of a deliberate strategy:
“Israel’s blockade of humanitarian assistance and simultaneous brutalization of the civilian population throughout bombardments can only be understood as two components of a single enterprise, namely: a means for bringing [about] unlivable conditions.”

They accused 'Israel' of defying prior ICJ orders:
“Israel ignored ICJ’s provisional orders, ‘exacerbated’ humanitarian crisis in Gaza, which turned to ‘unlivable pile of rubble.’”

The delegation framed 'Israel’s' actions as a broader assault on Palestinian existence:
“Israel’s hideous conduct, which piles illegality upon illegality is well-documented. Its most ruthless application has been the siege conditions imposed over the Gaza Strip since October 2023.”

Saudi Arabia reaffirmed Palestinian self-determination:
“The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wishes to emphasize that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is at the core of the question before the Court. The Kingdom takes this opportunity to reaffirm its unconditional [support for this right].”

Other states:

While detailed arguments from South Africa, Algeria, Belgium, and Colombia were not fully documented in available sources, their participation aligns with prior critiques of Israel’s Occupation.

South Africa, for instance, has likened 'Israel’s' policies to “apartheid” in past ICJ proceedings, a theme likely echoed. Algeria and Colombia, vocal supporters of Palestinian rights, probably focused on 'Israel’s' aid restrictions and violations of international humanitarian law. Belgium’s stance may have emphasized legal accountability, consistent with its EU role.

Broader context, reactions

The hearings underscore global divisions. Western states like the US and UK have historically defended 'Israel’s' security concerns, with US official Richard Visek arguing in 2024 that 'Israel’s' withdrawal from occupied territories must account for its “very real security needs.” Conversely, states like Saudi Arabia and South Africa frame 'Israel’s' actions as systemic violations of Palestinian rights.

'Israel’s' decision to submit written statements rather than attend orally reflects its view that the ICJ lacks authority over the aggression, which it insists requires direct negotiations. Critics, including 'Israeli' officials, argue the hearings ignore Palestinian responsibilities, such as Hamas’s role in hostilities.

Human rights groups, however, see the proceedings as a step toward accountability, building on the ICJ’s 2024 ruling that Israel’s occupation is unlawful.

What’s next?

The hearings continue through May 2, with countries like Jordan scheduled for April 30. The ICJ’s advisory opinion, expected in several months, will carry significant moral and legal weight, potentially influencing global pressure on 'Israel'.

The first two days of hearings have laid bare the stark realities of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis and the legal questions surrounding 'Israel’s' actions. As the ICJ navigates this contentious case, its findings could reshape the international response to one of the world’s most intractable aggression.