• ICJ hearings addressed Israel's obligations regarding humanitarian aid to Gaza amid ongoing violence.
• The UK criticized Israel's ban on aid, asserting legal violations under international law.
• Israel faces global condemnation for obstructing essential food and medical supplies to Palestinians.
• The US defended Israel's actions, claiming military necessity justifies humanitarian aid restrictions.
• Legal experts warn that the ICJ's eventual opinion may be too narrow to prompt immediate change.

From April 28 to May 2, 2025, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) heard testimonies from diplomats and legal experts representing 40 countries and multiple organizations regarding Israel's obligations to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza. The jury's deliberation will focus on whether Israel's blockade of aid following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack violates international law, particularly as the humanitarian crisis intensifies in the region, according to Le Monde, Middle East Eye, and Al Jazeera.

During the hearings, representatives from various states united in their criticism of Israel's two-month ban on humanitarian aid, labeling it as "legally unjustifiable." Sally Langrish from the UK emphasized that Israel must allow safe access to food, water, and medical care, citing obligations under international humanitarian law. The UK's strong stance reflected a broader consensus among participating countries that Israel's actions are unacceptable, according to Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera.

The hearings revealed significant international concern over the dire humanitarian situation in Gaza, with experts warning that the blockade has exacerbated starvation and medical crises among Palestinians. Notable statements during the proceedings highlighted a grave consensus regarding Israel's failure to honor its responsibilities as an occupying power, with calls for the court to recognize the dire conditions faced by civilians, according to Le Monde and Al Jazeera.

In sharp contrast, the US supported Israel's position, arguing for the necessity of restricting aid due to military concerns. The American delegation's stance, defending Israel's right to self-defense, was criticized for failing to address humanitarian needs comprehensively and for attempting to discredit the neutral operations of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), as per allegations presented in the hearings, according to Middle East Eye and Al Jazeera.

As the ICJ prepares to deliberate, legal experts caution that the non-binding advisory opinion expected from the court may not provide sufficient leverage to compel Israel to alter its current policies. With the potential for extensive humanitarian suffering continuing in Gaza, the calls for concrete actions from international states to mitigate the situation remain urgent and essential, according to Le Monde, Middle East Eye, and Al Jazeera.