On 2 May, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) made Israel's obligation to allow UN agencies and other relief organizations to work on the Palestinian territory it occupied.

Since Monday, a group of judges have heard oral debates from 40 countries in 40 countries, including China, France, Indonesia, Pakistan, Russia and the United Kingdom.

The court may consider several months before the United Nations General Assembly requests a ruling in December.

Since a genocide war was launched in the enclave on October 7, 2023, many participating countries have denounced Israel for sharply limiting humanitarian aid to Gaza.

In the past two months, Israel has completely cut off all aid - food or medicine - that has accelerated the hunger and medical crisis.

Here are the key gains from the hearing:

Hunger threatens Palestinians as a nation

There is a broad consensus that Israel, as the right to occupy, has an obligation to allow aid organizations to provide assistance to the occupied people, especially in Gaza, where Israel is also bombing.

Juliette McIntyre, a legal scholar at the University of South Australia, believes that Israel has weakened human rights norms through violations in Gaza.

She noted that almost all states addressing the hearing affirmed that the capacity of Palestinians to receive humanitarian relief is necessary for their survival, the need to defend ultimate self-determination and to uphold the entire United Nations system and the treaties based on it.

Frankly, most states agree that Israel should not be allowed to starve the civilians it occupies, nor should it hinder the relief efforts of UN agencies.

“Each state except for two countries agrees that Israel is the occupier and owes certain obligations,” she told Al Jazeera.

What does Israel say?

Israel filed a written statement, calling the hearing a "circus" and accusing the court of anti-Semitism.

Most importantly, it claims that it has no obligation to cooperate with the obligations described to harm the United Nations persons or aid groups, and that its sovereign right to “defend itself” takes precedence over its responsibility to provide assistance to those it occupies.

This is not the first time Israel has refused to attend the ICJ meeting and has provided advisory opinions.

US Statement

Heidi Matthews, an assistant professor of law at York University in Canada, said the United States defends Israel.

She added that the United States tried to deny the seriousness of the situation by deliberately not talking about facts in the field and avoid Israel’s responsibility.

According to Matthews, while the United States mainly stated that it should recommend Israel to fulfill its legal obligations under international law, it did not provide detailed information on Israel's actions or ask Israel to take concrete steps to mitigate the humanitarian crisis it caused.

"This highly formalistic and factually empty legal approach is a formal characteristic of fascism and legal arguments," Matthews told Al Jazeera.

Rutgers University law scholar Adel Haque said the United States also tried to "scare" the court by bringing Israel's unsupported allegations that the United Nations Palestinians (UNFAR) (the UNFAR) has been infiltrated by Hamas.

In October 2024, Israel banned the use of UNRWA, and Zionist ethnic cleansing made Palestinians refugees, which was declared a state for Israel in 1948.

Huck said the U.S. bets courts can swing, so it is working to encourage more "general" advisory opinions.

"Basically, if the advisory was posted in such a high generality, it wouldn't say anything about Israel's actions at all," he told Al Jazeera.

More than 2 million Palestinians in Gaza starve to death the level of genocide at the hands of Israel.

ICJ case substitute action?

Hack said that while the ICJ's advisory opinion reaffirmed international laws and norms, its non-binding opinion cannot change the facts on the ground and that some countries may be seeking the ICJ's advice rather than taking concrete, coordinated actions against Israel.

"Many (European countries) have appeared before the ICJ at these hearings, saying that Israel has not fulfilled its obligations. But the question now is, what will these countries do to it?" he told Al Jazeera.

He noted that the UK had used recent hearings to condemn Israel’s obstruction of aid and talked about its decision to stop selling to Israeli armed forces, which was not enough.

France also talked about the need for Israel to rapidly promote aid in Gaza.

But the statements appear to be collective action attempted to replace Europe’s collective action on Israel’s actions in Gaza, Hack said.

“The responsibility is to decide what to do in the states (the Israeli action) rather than waiting for the court to rule on what they already know,” Hack added.

When and how does ICJ rules?

No months of consultation is expected to be issued.

According to legal scholars, non-binding advisory opinions may not force Israel or member states to change courses.

Israel has ordered it to expand humanitarian assistance through the ICJ and overlooked early binding interim measures in the December 2023 genocide case against Israel by South Africa.

No country has taken any action against Israel because they have failed to implement temporary measures.

McIntyre believes that the court will eventually issue a narrow ruling outlining Israel’s responsibilities for promoting aid and cooperating with nearby areas.

When the court made its opinion, thousands of Palestinians might have been starved to death or were ethnically cleansed by Israel.

"Advisory advice will not solve problems on the ground and real action is required," McIntyre warned.