The International Court of Justice’s October 22, 2025, Advisory Opinion on “Obligations of Israel” reveals a moral and legal double standard. The International Court of Justice labels Israel an occupier while ignoring evidence of terrorist infiltration of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and disregarding the context of Israel’s 2023 Gaza operations. This framing implicitly legitimizes the October 7, 2023, hostage-taking and the murder of 1,200 Israelis by portraying the captors as opposing an occupying power rather than committing terrorism. By declaring that Israel must “respect the right of protected persons from the Occupied Palestinian Territory … to be visited by the International Committee of the Red Cross,” the court demonstrates bias and a selective interpretation of international law.
The Red Cross itself also demonstrates selective advocacy.
Since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, the International Court of Justice has not issued a single Advisory Opinion on behalf of Israeli civilians abducted into Gaza. Now, with the last hostages released on October 13, 2025, the International Court of Justice demands Red Cross access to Palestinian terrorists in Israeli prisons. Its prior silence highlights bias: The court ignores Israeli victims of terrorism while focusing international attention on Palestinian detainees, including terrorists.
The Red Cross itself also demonstrates selective advocacy. The organization has demanded access to Palestinian detainees but did not visit a single Israeli hostage during captivity. This reversal of humanitarian principles grants rights and oversight to perpetrators while denying protection to innocent victims.
The Geneva Conventions protect civilians and prisoners in conflict, but these protections do not extend to terrorists targeting civilians, and the International Court of Justice’s Advisory Opinion ignores the fact that terrorists are not protected persons. Common Article 3 prohibits murder, hostage-taking, and attacks on civilians “in armed conflicts not of an international character.” Civilians abducted by terrorists require protection, while terrorists gain no status simply by detention.
A week after the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion, Israel announced on October 29, 2025, that it would deny Red Cross access to several thousand Palestinian detainees held under its “unlawful combatant” law. Defense Minister Israel Katz explained, “Visits by the Red Cross to terrorists in prisons would seriously harm national security.”
Although the Red Cross may argue that it has some right to access detainees under the Geneva Conventions, there are legitimate grounds for limiting or excluding access in cases of terrorism and security risk. Law, policy and principle all justify a restriction on Red Cross access to known terrorists and require strict safeguards before granting access.
Many states distinguish between “lawful combatants” entitled to prisoner-of-war status under the Third Geneva Convention and “unlawful combatants” or terrorists who engage in armed violence without meeting the lawfulness criteria. The legal status of prisoners shapes the obligation to allow Red Cross access. The United States, for example, denies access to terrorist suspects, holding that they fall outside the Geneva Convention framework.
For Israel, restricting Red Cross access to terror detainees protects national security; visits could enable communication with external actors, coordination of illegal acts, or receipt of external directions. Standard Red Cross visitation regimes—private interviews, unmonitored visits, and repeated access—could conflict with these security needs and create unacceptable risks. States may legally restrict access when compelling security interests exist.
States may condition or limit access provided basic protections for detainees remain.
When conflicts are non-international or involve terrorist groups, detaining states do not automatically have to permit Red Cross visits. States may condition or limit access provided basic protections for detainees remain. The International Court of Justice’s demands do not override these principles. On the same day that Israel denied access, its High Court convened to hear a petition asking the government to reinstate Red Cross visits and evaluate obligations under humanitarian and customary international law. This internal review reflects Israel’s ongoing legal and moral balancing of national security and human rights, demonstrating functioning institutions capable of adjudicating such issues.
Perception matters as much as practice in the Israel-Gaza conflict. Red Cross and International Court of Justice demands for access to Palestinian terrorists, coupled with neglect of Israeli hostages and rejection of Israeli security concerns, undermine humanitarian legitimacy at a critical moment. The International Court of Justice’s silence on Israeli victims, selective Red Cross advocacy, and international double standards reveal profound hypocrisy. Victims of terror are ignored, while perpetrators gain attention. International law exists to protect the vulnerable and not shield perpetrators. Until all civilians’ rights receive equal recognition, Advisory Opinions, humanitarian advocacy, and statehood demands remain hollow and harm the long-term reputations of the institutions that allow political advocacy to trump law.
