Gazan ‘Ecocide’ Accelerates Amidst Israel-Hamas War

Following the Oct. 8  offensive by the Israeli military in Gaza, over 20,000 Palestinians in Gaza have been killed, including a large percentage of women and children. However, the cost of war has gone beyond the considerable death toll; there have been catastrophic environmental damages, leaving us to question whether this conflict warrants the legal label of ‘ecocide.’

The Independent Expert Panel for the Legal Definition of Ecocide (IEP) defines ecocide to be ‘unlawful or wanton acts committed with knowledge that there is a substantial likelihood of severe and either widespread or long-term damage to the environment being caused by those acts.’

The term ‘ecocide’ has attracted much media attention since Oct. 7  and prolonged geopolitical tensions to this day; however, it can be said that today’s attack on Gaza is not the introduction of ecocide in the region, but the extension of a pre-existing one. Warfare has continued off and on in the Gaza strip since the Arab-Israeli War of 1948, and continued with the Six-Day War, subsequent Intifadas, the Gaza-Israel conflict in 2014, right up to Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7 and Israeli retaliation. 

Taken cumulatively, the destruction of biodiversity and mass extinction of species caused by the release of bombings and white phosphorous choking the atmosphere with toxic fumes overtime has been labeled an ‘environmental apartheid’; dispossessing Palestinians of their land, water and natural resources inflicted by the ecological damage of warfare. 

It is clear that the visible ecocide in the Gaza strip today was not only precipitated by the heightened 2023 attacks, but rooted in Israel’s historical colonial practices in the occupied Palestinian territory. In order for Israel to establish its colonial settlements, it began by bulldozing mass areas of Palestinian land, uprooting thousands of trees to build infrastructure on previously prized nature reserves. This tactic is used to deprive Palestinians not only of territory but any hope for economic opportunity, with approximately 80,000 to 100,000 Palestinian families relying on olive farming as their primary source of income. According to the Palestine Trade Center, or PalTrade, the olive sector is worth between $160 million and $191 million in a good year. 

The consequences of Israel’s destruction of Palestinian native land are therefore twofold: eradicating Palestinians from their territory through the expansion of illegal settlements, subsequently invoking severe habitat fragmentation, land degradation and soil erosion. In Aug. 2012, the United Nations predicted that Gaza would not be livable by 2020, demonstrating how Israel’s imposition of colonial settlements degrade the environmental health and habitability of the land, in addition to  the repercussions of active warfare.

Since the Israeli military response of Oct. 8, damages have spanned from mass destruction of infrastructure, the homes of half a million people being damaged or destroyed, to the internal displacement of almost 2 million people. Moreover, the environmental destruction, including water pollution and the consequences as a result of the deployment of white phosphorus, pose additional challenges for victims of the war. 

Israel’s limited allowance of water, fuel, and electricity into Gaza as a warfare tactic has led to sewage and water treatment facility disruption. As a result, “more than 130,000 cubic meters of untreated sewage” have entered the Mediterranean Sea daily, bringing acute environmental implications. The bombing of water treatment facilities has resulted in decreased availability of fresh drinking water for Gazans and strained aquifers, leading to Gazans having to drink large amounts of salty water. Experts predict that it will take years to successfully clear pollution from the soil, water, and air. The lack of water available is predicted to accelerate the spread of disease, noting the accumulation of corpses, causing unnecessary deaths from treatable diseases. 

The Israeli military has also utilized white phosphorus, an incendiary weapon, in its offensive, which, when considering that it is being used in some of the most densely populated areas of the world, acts as a violation of international law. While white phosphorus itself is restricted in warfare by international law, it is strictly prohibited in civilian areas, which Israel has used it in in both Lebanon and Gaza. Despite the various health implications of coming in direct contact with white phosphorus, when entering water sources, it can severely impact the potability of the drinking water that Gazans have access to. Moreover, the animals that ingest this water, primarily fish, also become toxic to consume. The agricultural ramifications of white phosphorus contamination pose a threat to livestock and severely alter the fertility of farmland, which can pollute soil for decades. 

These damages have largely been excused by Israel’s claims of self defense and pursuit to eliminate Hamas, a terrorist organization whose attacks on Oct. 7 resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1,200 people. However, a recent development in the international response to the Israeli military campaign in Gaza is South Africa’s submission, calling for proceedings to begin against Israel in the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The report details Israeli public officials’ expressed genocidal intent in their motivations for attack, and emphasizes the excessive civilian casualties that have occurred in the war. 

Additionally to the denunciation of civilian deaths, calls from the public to categorize Israel's military offensive as ecocide have also surfaced. The impacts of climate change have indicated the Middle East as one of the most vulnerable regions in the world, and the environmental damages occurring in Gaza can end up having adverse effects on the entire region (Israel included). Critics have raised attention to the longer term impacts that the bombing in Gaza will have, such as accelerating the effects of climate change and polluting the Mediterranean. A recent piece from The Guardian stated that the initial reports of carbon emissions in the 60 day period following the war amount to the equivalent of burning over 150,000 tons of coal, a greater carbon footprint than the annual emissions of 20 climate vulnerable nations. The emissions, which are attributed to emissions from combat and directly assisting combat, such as fueling aircraft, also largely originate from American cargo deliveries of military equipment to Israel. In turn, this highlights the sensitive position of all parties involved, as the impacts of their actions will emphasize their role in the region in the long-term.

How, then, can these stakeholders be held accountable? There is a proposal submitted into the International Criminal Court to add ecocide as a crime, waiting to be endorsed by two thirds of the signatories of the Rome Statute. As it stands, ecocide is not considered an international crime despite being a transgression of national law in several countries including France, Georgia, Armenia, Ukraine, Belarus and Vietnam. This is largely due to the fact that representatives have a hard time constituting environmental destruction as a ‘crime against humanity.’ However, given the rise of rights-based climate litigation characterizing recent international case law before the ICJ, hope for criminalizing environmental warfare is well within reach. The geopolitical climate in Gaza is drawing attention to the long-term damage towards wildlife, ecosystems, and industry, raising questions as to whether the charge of ecocide  should be included in international courts. For some, South Africa’s submission against Israel before the ICJ will not only bring justice to the civilian casualties and victims of wartime atrocities, but inspire nation states to endorse the ICC ecocide proposal, outlawing future damage to our natural world and our lives on it.