How Israel Uses Its Legal System For Genocide

The Israeli Supreme Court’s ruling to deny a request to allow humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip is a crucial component of a well-functioning colonial system designed to perpetrate the crime of genocide against the Strip’s people.

The ruling made 27 March is further evidence that the Israeli judiciary—which has never served as a tool of justice for Palestinians—functions as a part of a system in which all state institutions participate, whether Israel’s government, army and other security forces, military prosecution, courts, or media. All of these institutions blatantly violate international legal and humanitarian norms by committing crimes against Palestinians, aiding in the commission of such crimes by coordinating their activities, and/or providing a false legal cover.

The Israeli Supreme Court has explicitly and directly legitimised Israel’s illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip. This blockade has denied food, water, medicine, fuel, and electricity to over two million people—half of whom are children—for nearly 18 months. Meanwhile, human rights organizations have warned that Israel’s refusal to allow humanitarian aid and basic supplies into the enclave for more than three consecutive weeks has accelerated famine in the Strip and led to the deaths of infants from starvation.

One of the most obvious examples of the complicity of all Israeli state institutions in the crime of genocide is the use of starvation as a declared weapon against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, which has now been made an official policy through a “political” decision validated by a court ruling.

https://twitter.com/jncatron/status/1905672487326699995

To support its ruling, the Israeli court used the argument that the State of Israel is exempt from the obligations of belligerent occupation under international law in all cases pertaining to the Gaza Strip. This blatantly violates established international legal norms that are acknowledged to apply to the Occupied Palestinian Territory. It also goes against the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion and gravely breaches the ICJ rulings in South Africa’s genocide case against Israel.

The Fourth Geneva Convention, which applies to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the Gaza Strip, is gravely violated by the Israeli court’s recent decision. The occupying power is required by the Convention to provide food and medical supplies to the occupied population. It is also required to permit relief efforts for the benefit of these populations in the event that local resources are insufficient, and to allow for the supply of facilities, including those conducted by states or humanitarian organizations, especially those involving food aid, clothing, and medical supplies.

Euro-Med Monitor emphasizes that the decision is a flagrant disregard of the rulings of the International Court of Justice in the South Africa v. Israel genocide case. In January and March of 2024, the Court mandated that Israel take prompt and decisive action to allow for the delivery of humanitarian aid and essential basic services to alleviate the terrible circumstances faced by Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. In coordination with the United Nations, these measures included providing food, water, electricity, fuel, shelter, humanitarian aid, clothing, hygiene, and sanitation needs, as well as medical supplies and medical care to Palestinians across the Strip, including by expanding the number and capacity of land crossing points and keeping them open for as long as possible.

The International Court of Justice affirmed that Israel’s actions in the Gaza Strip constituted a real and immediate threat of genocide to the Palestinian people there, as well as the possibility of irreversible harm and violations of Palestinians’rights to be protected from genocide under the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

The Israeli court’s rationale is therefore in direct opposition to the advisory opinion issued on 19 July 2024 by the International Court of Justice, the highest court in the world.

The ICJ unequivocally affirmed that Israel’s legal obligations were not terminated by its military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, as Israel still maintains effective control over key areas of the Strip, such as the buffer zone, the land, sea, and air borders, restrictions on the movement of people and goods, and tax control. Since 7 October 2023, this control has become much more intense. As a result, Israel continues to be the occupying force in accordance with international law and is responsible for providing humanitarian aid and other necessities to the civilian population in the Strip. 

The rejection of these fundamental legal precepts by the Israeli court is not just a misreading; rather, it is a deliberate judicial intervention aimed at denying the existence of the Israeli occupation and undermining the laws that safeguard the rights of the people who are subject to it. Viewed within the larger framework of institutional complicity that helps to enable and carry out Israel’s crime of genocide against the Palestinian people, this intervention turns the international legal system from a tool of protection into a cover for impunity.

https://twitter.com/QudsNen/status/1905321169923829963

Israel has a legal duty to the people it governs, and this duty extends beyond its legal relationship with the territory. Instead, it necessitates a steadfast obligation to uphold and defend human rights and the principles of preemptive international law under all conditions. Israel’s responsibilities under fundamental human rights conventions, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and other international instruments, extend beyond the regulations of occupation law and include duties pertaining to preventing population starvation and allowing the entry of humanitarian aid.

Regardless of a state’s legal standing under international law, its effective control over a territory serves as the foundation for its legal accountability for actions that impact this territory’s residents.

The presence of a state of occupation alone does not negate the duties of an occupying power to prevent the occupied population from living in substandard conditions or from suffering from severe physical or mental injury. 

Instead, these duties are enforced by preemptive standards of customary international law, such as the outright ban on crimes against humanity, such as apartheid and genocide. Whether in times of peace or conflict, these standards require all states to uphold these rights and guarantee their protection at all times.

All Palestinians in the Gaza Strip are experiencing a dire humanitarian situation, especially since Israel’s genocidal campaign of direct killings in the Strip resumed on 18 March. This occurs at a time when Israel has been using other tools of genocide against the Strip’s people for a year and a half now.

These tools include starvation, blockade, deprivation of virtually all means of survival, severe physical and psychological suffering, and the imposition of living conditions that are destructive, all of which are intended to destroy the Palestinian people there.

Not only does the ongoing situation in the Gaza Strip violate Israel’s legal obligations, but it also directly calls into question all other states’ adherence to their own obligations, whether these states are directly involved in the genocide or have not acted decisively to stop Israel if in a position to do so. The Fourth Geneva Convention, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, and customary international law all bind these states. These regulations require states to actively work to prevent genocide and to abstain from any actions that facilitate, encourage, or open the door for its occurrence. 

The international community must stop enslaving the Palestinian people to a state that is using all of its official institutions to destroy their lives, drive them off their land, and threaten their shared national identity. Given its decades-long failure to uphold international law and apply it equitably to, and without discrimination against, Palestinians, the international community is directly responsible for the disastrous reality that Palestinians face today, wherever they may be. This failure reveals the biased foundations upon which the international system was established, as this system has deprived Palestinians of their most fundamental rights, most notably their right to exist.

All states must take up their individual and collective legal obligations and act quickly to put an end to the genocide in the Gaza Strip. They must do everything they can to protect Palestinian civilians there, i.e. enforce all necessary measures to force Israel to immediately and fully lift the blockade; permit unhindered freedom of movement of people and goods; open all crossings without arbitrary conditions; and take decisive action to protect Palestinians from forced displacement and swift or slow-motion killing. This entails launching an immediate response to address the population’s pressing and pertinent needs, such as offering suitable temporary housing for displaced people.

The international community must impose economic, diplomatic, and military sanctions on Israel due to its systematic and serious violations of international law. These sanctions, which willincrease pressure on Israel to stop its crimes against Palestinians, should include barring arms exports to Israel; stopping military cooperation with Israel; freezing the financial assets of officials involved in crimes against Palestinians; and suspending trade privileges and bilateral agreements that give Israel economic benefits.

In addition to acting to stop Israeli policies that violate the most fundamental humanitarian principles and endanger the lives of millions of civilians, the States Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention should fulfil their duty under Common Article 1 to uphold and guarantee adherence to the Convention under all circumstances.

The International Criminal Court must issue arrest warrants for Israeli officials involved in international crimes in the Gaza Strip, and expedite its ongoing investigations. Additionally, the Court ought to acknowledge and specifically address Israel’s crimes as genocide. The Rome Statute’s States Parties should fulfil their legal duties to assist the Court in every way possible;make sure that arrest warrants against Israeli officials are carried out; bring these officials to international justice; and make sure to end the policy of impunity that has been granted to these officials thus far.

Along with fulfilling its legal obligations, the international community must take immediate action to end the root causes of the suffering and persecution endured by the Palestinian people forthe past 76 years: Israeli occupation and settler-colonialism in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The international community must compel Israelto guarantee the Palestinians’ right to live in freedom, dignity, and self-determination in accordance with international law; to dismantle the system of apartheid and isolation imposed on the Palestinians; to lift the illegal blockade of the Gaza Strip; to hold Israeli perpetrators and allies accountable and prosecute them; and to ensure Palestinian victims’ rights to compensation and redress.

Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026