The top United Nations court on Friday (May 2, 2025) wraps a week of hearings on what Israel must do to ensure desperately needed humanitarian aid reaches Palestinians in Gaza and the occupied West Bank.

Last year, the U.N. General Assembly asked the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an advisory opinion on Israel’s legal obligations after the country effectively banned the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, the main provider of aid to Gaza, from operating.

Experts say the case could have broader ramifications for the United Nations and its missions worldwide.

The hearings are taking place as the humanitarian aid system in Gaza is nearing collapse and ceasefire efforts remain deadlocked. Israel has blocked the entry of food, fuel, medicine and other humanitarian supplies since March 2. It renewed its bombardment on March 18, breaking a ceasefire, and seized large parts of the territory, saying it aims to push Hamas to release more hostages.

Israel denies deliberately targeting civilians and aid staff as part of its war with Hamas and did not attend the hearing. The country did provide a 38-page written submission for the court to consider.

What is at stake?

The hearings focused on provision of aid to the Palestinians, but the U.N. Court’s 15 judges could use their advisory opinion to give legal guidance on the powers of the world body.

“The court has the opportunity to clarify and address questions about the legal immunities of the United Nations,” Mike Becker, an expert on International human rights law at Trinity College Dublin, told The Associated Press.

Advisory opinions issued by the U.N. Court are described as “nonbinding” as there are no direct penalties attached to ignoring them. However, the treaty that covers the protections that countries must give to United Nations personnel says that disputes should be resolved through an advisory opinion at the ICJ and the opinion “shall be accepted as decisive by the parties”.

“The oddity of this particular process,” Mr. Becker said, “is a clear response to any argument that the opinion is non-binding.” What has the ICJ been tasked with answering? The resolution, sponsored by Norway, seeks the ICJ’s guidance on “obligations of Israel… in relation to the presence and activities of the United Nations… to ensure and facilitate the unhindered provision of urgently needed supplies essential to the survival of the Palestinian civilian population.” The United States, Israel’s closest ally, voted against it.

Israel’s ban on the agency, known as UNRWA, which provides aid to Gaza, came into effect in January. The organisation has faced increased criticism from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right allies, who claim the group is deeply infiltrated by Hamas. UNRWA rejects that claim.

“We cannot let States pick and choose where the U.N. is going to do its work. This advisory opinion is a very important opportunity to reinforce that,” Mr. Becker said.

Do these proceedings matter for countries other than Israel? Whatever the judges decide will have an impact beyond the current situation in Gaza, according to Juliette McIntyre, an expert on international law at the University of South Australia. “Are these immunities absolute or is there wiggle room? This is useful for where United Nations personnel are working in other places,” McIntyre told AP.

An authoritative answer from the World Court can have influence beyond judicial proceedings as well. “Every time a norm is breached, the norm gets weaker. The advisory opinion in this case could push the norm back,” said Ms. McIntyre.

In separate proceedings last year, the court issued an unprecedented and sweeping condemnation of Israel’s rule over the occupied Palestinian territories, finding Israel’s presence unlawful and calling for it to end. The ICJ said Israel had no right to sovereignty in the territories, was violating international laws against acquiring territory by force and was impeding Palestinians’ right to self-determination.

According to McIntyre, the arguments presented this week reflect the opinion handed down just nine months ago. “Now the starting premise is that Israel is illegally occupying all of Palestine,” Ms. McIntyre said.

What did the Palestinians and Israelis say?

On Monday (April 28), the Palestinian delegation accused Israel of breaching international law in the occupied territories and applauded the move to bring more proceedings to the court.

“Our journey with the international institutions, be it Security Council, the General Assembly or the ICJ, is we are building things block on top of another block while we are marching towards the accomplishment of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people, including our right to self-determination, statehood, and the right of the refugees,” Palestinian U.N. envoy Riyad Mansour told reporters.

Israel has denied it is in violation of international law and said the proceedings are biased. Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar hit back at the case during a news conference in Jerusalem on Monday.

“I accuse UNRWA, I accuse the U.N., I accuse the secretary-general and I accuse all those that weaponized international law and its institutions in order to deprive the most attacked country in the world, Israel, of its most basic right to defend itself,” he said.

The court is expected to take months to deliver its opinion.

What significance did sport have for the Nazis?

Sport played an important role for the National Socialists, although they did not speak of sport, but of physical education. Their primary goal was to promote health and performance for a productive national economy and ultimately to be fit for war.
Individual sport was relegated to the background in favor of the collective, the masses, the so-called national body, to which every German should contribute as an individual in the best possible way. True to Nazi ideology, it was always about strength and fortitude.
“The weak must be hammered away,” begins a quote attributed to Adolf Hitler. “In my Ordensburg [educational facilities for the Nazi elite], a youth will grow up that will terrify the world. I want a violent, imperious, fearless, cruel youth. (…) I will have them trained in all physical exercises.”
These physical exercises were therefore compulsory in many of Nazi organizations, such as the Deutsches Jungvolk (DJ), the Hitler Youth (HJ), the League of German Girls (BDM) or Strength Through Joy (KdF). It was also recommended that young people join sports clubs.
In the Hitler Youth, but also in school sports, physical exercise was used to teach boys about being a soldier and military behavior, and to filter out young people who could later be considered for a leadership positions in the armed forces.
The Nazis were critical of international competitive sport, especially early on during the Weimar Republic. “Internationality, the Olympic movement, togetherness, international understanding, that was ideologically rejected,” historian Ansgar Molzberger from the German Sport University Cologne told DW.

Why did the Nazis still organize the Olympic Games in 1936?

In 1931, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) awarded the Olympic Games to Berlin during the days of the Weimar Republic. The Nazis, who came to power in the interim, however, were overt opponents of the Olympic movement.
The cosmopolitan idea of the Olympic Games was incompatible with their world view. Sporting competitions with members of the “enemy nations” from the World War I went against their sense of honor, and they rejected the IOC regulations on racial grounds.
However, those in power quickly realized — especially Hitler — what an opportunity the Games offered to present themselves to the world as a peace-loving, open, young state.
“There was a breathtaking turnaround,” says historian Molzberger. “Just as the Olympic movement, with its ideals of international understanding, had been strictly rejected until the end of the Weimar era, they [the Nazis] now presented themselves as great supporters of the Olympic movement.”
They also wanted to use the Games to demonstrate their own strengths of good organization and sporting success.

Were there any sports the Nazis promoted?

“One sport that can be emphasized in the context of school was boxing, which the National Socialists made compulsory for older boys,” says Molzberger. “Everyone had to learn to box in school sports.”
Team sports such as football and handball still existed, but the idea of fighting was always emphasized. “It was about fighting back, daring to do something together,” says Molzberger. “This was a repeated point of emphasis in team sports.”

What did physical exercise look like for women and girls?

Sporting activities for women were also strongly influenced by ideology. Women were primarily limited to their role as mothers and housewives. In order to fulfill these roles well, they were also expected to train their bodies, improve their health and fitness and strengthen their discipline.
The League of German Girls (BDM), in which girls between the ages of 10 and 18 were organized, also offered physical exercises intended to train them not only physically but also ideologically and prepare them for their future role in society.

Were Jews allowed to continue playing sports?

Shortly after the seizure of power, a law was passed on April 7, 1933, according to which civil servants and public employees who were Jews, non-Aryans or political opponents were no longer allowed to work in the civil service.
This so-called “Aryan paragraph” was gradually extended to oust Jews from professional and social life, including doctors, students and radio stations, the press, theaters, other cultural institutions and associations.
In principle, the paragraph also applied to sports clubs, but in view of the upcoming Olympic Games, Nazi leadership initially did not consistently demand its implementation. They did not want to make negative headlines before the 1936 Games and provide reasons for a possible withdrawal from or boycott of the Olympics. Nevertheless, there was criticism and calls for a boycott did follow. These intensified once again after the Nuremberg Race Laws were passed in 1935, which later formed the legal basis for the persecution and extermination of the Jews.
Nevertheless, many sports clubs and associations whose leaders were particularly convinced by the ideas of National Socialism implemented the Aryan Paragraph early on of their own accord and in anticipatory obedience. For example, the German Gymnastics Association, the largest German sports association at the time with 1.5 million members, excluded Jews just one day after the law was passed.
Other associations, such as the swimming, rowing and skiing associations, followed suit. The German Football Association (DFB) reacted less radically and continued to allow Jews to play. However, they were no longer allowed to hold leadership positions in soccer clubs. One prominent example is Kurt Landauer, who was club president of Bayern Munich for many years during the Weimar period and had to give up his position in 1933.
As a result of the exclusions, purely Jewish sports clubs experienced a real boom between 1933 and 1936, with a large increase in membership. Once the 1936 Olympic Games were over, however, the situation for Jews in Germany worsened.
“After the games, the mask could be dropped,” says Molzberger. “When the actual persecution of Jews began in 1938, Jewish sport was also systematically destroyed.”

In a scene that feels equal parts political satire and constitutional stress test, Marco Rubio has become the Trump administration’s man for all seasons, and all jobs.
Rubio, 53, now holds four prominent roles simultaneously: Secretary of State, Acting Administrator of the US Agency for International Development, Acting Archivist of the National Archives, and as of this week, Interim National Security Adviser.
The announcement came via a surprise post on Truth Social by former President Donald Trump, ousting NSA Michael Waltz and naming Rubio his replacement while nominating Waltz to serve as UN Ambassador.
The multi-hyphenate appointment raised eyebrows across Washington and drew laughs online.
US Vice President JD Vance, known for his sharp wit, couldn’t resist joking on X, “I think he could take on a bit more. If only there was a job opening for a devout Catholic…”, a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Pope, and the recent passing of Pope Francis.
Appearing on Fox News’ Hannity, Rubio gamely responded, “We thought about it, but you have to be an unmarried Catholic male. People don’t know that. You don’t have to be a priest, any unmarried Catholic male can be pope. But I got married and I’m happily married, so I guess I’ll miss out on that one.”
The rise of ‘secretary everything’
Rubio’s accumulation of power started when the Senate unanimously confirmed him as Secretary of State on Inauguration Day. But subsequent appointments have been more opaque.
In February, he was named acting USAID administrator just days before Trump loyalists Elon Musk and Pete Marocco began downsizing the aid agency. Then came his installation as acting archivist after Trump fired Colleen Shogan, reportedly in retaliation for the National Archives’ role in recovering classified documents from Mar-a-Lago.
Most recently, Rubio was tapped to replace Waltz at the National Security Council, learning of the decision, it seems, almost as suddenly as the public.
“We’ve seen him at the White House several times a week. His close working relationship with the president is clear,” said State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce when informed of the news mid-briefing, as reported NYT. “This is the miracle of modern technology and social media.”
An unprecedented power grab or administrative necessity?
Rubio’s quadruple-title reign appears unprecedented in modern US political history. The closest parallel may be Henry Kissinger, who served simultaneously as Secretary of State and National Security Adviser from 1973 to 1975, a dual role that even back then drew criticism for consolidating too much foreign policy power in one person.
Critics today are sounding similar alarms. “Directing even one federal agency is a full-time job,” noted Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW). “Rubio’s current positions are uniquely concerning.”
Ethical conflicts loom especially large in his dual roles as top diplomat and national archivist, a watchdog of federal agency records, including those from his own departments.
Is it about trust or control?
White House insiders say Rubio’s consolidation of power stems from the deep trust Trump places in him, and his close relationship with Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff and political gatekeeper, as reported NYT. Rubio has long been viewed as a foreign policy hawk with ideological alignment on China and Iran, issues that Trump wants streamlined.
Still, questions abound: Will Rubio be paid four salaries? Can one person reasonably lead four departments? Is this a temporary fix, or a sign of more centralized power structures in Trump 2.0?
On Hannity, Rubio appeared unfazed by the workload. He pivoted quickly to policy, defending Trump’s diplomatic push in Ukraine and characterizing the mineral deal signed this week with Kyiv as a “major win” for US leverage in the conflict.
“This is not our war,” Rubio said. “Trump’s been the only leader in the world trying to talk to both sides and end the killing. But if they’re not close enough, maybe we need to focus more on China and Iran.”
The punchline that stuck
Despite the high-stakes roles and serious foreign policy implications, it was JD Vance’s papal jab that stole the show.
With a wink to his recent Vatican visit, hours before the pope’s death, Vance’s tweet quickly went viral, with commenters dubbing Rubio everything from “Pope Marco I” to “Secretary of the Universe.”
Rubio’s response, half humor, half deflection, might become the unofficial slogan of his tenure: “I’m happily married.”