By Andrew Tucker, Director of thinc.
The UN General Assembly has again been mobilized by the Arab, Islamic and African groups of states, supported by some European states (including Norway, France, Ireland and Belgium) to request yet another Advisory Opinion from the ICJ, condemning Israel. This latest request concerns Israel’s termination of relations with the Palestinian refugee agency UNRWA and asks the Court to advise on Israel’s obligations to provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip under international law.
Just prior to Christmas, on 19 December 2024 the United Nations General Assembly adopted, at the 54th meeting of its Seventy-Ninth Session, resolution 79/232, by which it decided to request the International Court of Justice to render an advisory opinion. The resolution was adopted by 137 votes to 12, with 22 abstentions.
In November 2023, the Israeli Parliament (Knesset) passed legislation banning the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) from operating on Israeli soil, and forbidding contact between it and Israeli officials.
As Times of Israel has reported: “The ban was passed by the Knesset in November with a wide majority, with the support of opposition parties, amid a series of revelations about employees of the agency who were actively involved in terror groups in the Gaza Strip, and repeated use of UNRWA infrastructure for terror activities. Israel has also provided evidence that the agency’s schools incited hatred of Israel and glorification of attacks against Israelis.”
The question posed to the International Court of Justice is:
“What are the obligations of Israel, as an occupying Power and as a member of the United Nations, in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations, including its agencies and bodies, other international organizations and third States, in and in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population as well as of basic services and humanitarian and development assistance, for the benefit of the Palestinian civilian population, and in support of the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination?”
In its reasons for voting against the resolution, the United States argued that, by targeting only Israel’s conduct, this request for an ICJ decision is “one-sided” and will not contribute either to assisting the Palestinians in Gaza, or promoting a negotiated resolution of the conflict. Most problematically, it avoids the much-needed attention to the widely-held concerns that UNRWA has assisted and abetted Hamas in the Gaza Strip. As the US representative stated:
“Nobody benefits from the UN Organization’s failure to address lingering questions about whether UNRWA personnel violated the Agency’s neutrality policy. We deeply regret that this draft resolution fails to address credible allegations about the activities of some UNRWA personnel. Resolving those allegations could bolster UNRWA’s vital humanitarian mission.”
On 23rd December, the Court decided to accept the request, and laid down the extremely short deadline of 28th February 2025 for UN member states to submit written statements to the Court.
It seems clear that the previous ICJ President Salam (now Prime Minister of Lebanon) was instrumental in pushing this new Advisory Opinion through the UNGA just before Christmas, and imposing such a tight timeline, as part of the Islamic states’ lawfare against Israel – ambushing Israel and other Western-oriented states.
The problem with using the International Court of Justice in this way is that the Court is simply not equipped to gather the evidence necessary to answer the question posed. The Court is entirely dependent on the arguments and evidence presented by UN member states. Almost by definiton, the states that supported this resolution have no interest in an independent inquiry into whether or not UNRWA has been infiltrated by Hamas. And in any event, the ICJ is not the right tribunal to be investigating that question. There is a strong likelihood that the Court will be presented with one-sided arguments and “evidence”, ignoring the Israeli intelligence that led to the November banning of UNRWA, and leading to yet another one-sided ICJ Advisory Opinion.
The real problem in Gaza is Hamas. By weaponizing the Court in this way, the UN is avoiding its responsibility to undertake a root-and-branch review of its own agency, UNRWA, to ensure that the UN does not support violence and terror against Israel.