The ICJ’s panel of international judges was asked to clarify two questions in the resolution passed by the UN General Assembly in December.

Firstly, whether Israel’s ban on Unrwa breaches UN conventions guaranteeing the independence of UN agencies.

And secondly, whether Israel’s restrictions on aid crossings into Gaza violate international humanitarian law, including its duties as an occupying power to protect civilians.

While the opinion will be a non-binding legal clarification, it carries significant moral and diplomatic weight.

At the start of the hearings at The Hague in April, the UN’s Under-Secretary General for Legal Affairs Elinor Hammarskjöld told the court that, as the occupying power in the West Bank and Gaza, Israel’s obligations entailed “allowing and facilitating all relevant United Nations entities to carry out their activities for the benefit of the local population”.

These activities included relief schemes, such as the provision of foodstuffs, as well as caring for and educating children, and maintaining medical services, she said.

She also argued that as a UN member state, Israel had legal obligations under UN conventions to uphold the privileges and immunities of the UN and its premises, property, assets and personnel so it could function properly and fulfil its mandates.

“When the basic elements of this legal framework are not observed, the very nature of the work of the organisation on behalf of its member states is in jeopardy,” she warned.

Blinne Ní Ghrálaigh, legal counsel for the Palestinian government, said Israel’s “violations of the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, its attacks on the United Nations and on United Nations officials, property and premises, its deliberate obstruction of the organisation’s work, and its attempt to destroy an entire United Nations subsidiary organ, are unprecedented”.

Israel considers this ICJ procedure a “political circus” and “abuse of international law and institutions”.

It filed a written statement saying the court’s involvement undermined its self-defence and counterterrorism rights under international law.

“No state is expected to accept or to facilitate grave risk to its citizens and territory. On the contrary, international law prescribes the right and obligation of a state in acting to defend its existence, its territory, and its people,” the statement said.

It also argued that there were no obligations for a UN member state to co-operate with a UN agency or respect its immunities “where the legitimate security concerns of a member state are severely undermined by the agency in question”.