The ecological fallout of Israel’s war in Gaza

Why in the News

6 November is the United Nations’ International Day for Preventing the Exploitation of the Environment in War and Armed Conflict, designated by the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in 2001. The damage to Gaza’s environment has deepened since Israel attacked Gaza after the Hamas-led attacks of 7 October 2023. The war tests whether international law can make a state repair the environment it wrecks.

What are the PERAC principles?

1. What they are: The 27 draft principles on the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts (PERAC) work like a rulebook for how war must treat nature.
2. Why they were needed: War damages ecosystems and depletes resources long after fighting ends, often across borders and into future generations.
3. Adoption and UN recognition: The International Law Commission (ILC), the UN’s law-drafting body, adopted the principles. The UNGA formally noted them on 7 December 2022, the same year.
4. Scope: Principle 1 applies them before, during and after a conflict, including during occupation.
5. The takeaway: The principles make a state answerable for environmental harm even after the fighting stops, which brings an occupying power within their reach.

What has the war done to Gaza’s environment?

1. UNEP assessment: The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) report ‘Environmental Impact of the Conflict in the Gaza Strip’ found unprecedented damage to Gaza’s soils, freshwater and coastline.
2. Lost vegetation: Since 2023 Gaza has lost 97% of its tree crops and most shrubland and annual crops, leaving its people on the brink of famine.
3. Polluted water: Freshwater is critically scarce and largely contaminated. Destroyed sewage plants and pipes, and reliance on cesspits, have probably polluted Gaza’s main aquifer and its coastal waters.
4. Damaged soil: Vegetation loss and soil compaction by military activity have cut the soil’s ability to absorb water, raising flood risk and reducing groundwater recharge.

What does international law expect of an occupying power?

1. Dual responsibility: The writer holds Israel responsible both for the war, which he calls a genocide, and for its conduct as an occupying power.
2. Duty of trusteeship: Under PERAC, an occupying power must use the territory’s natural resources for the benefit of the protected population and protect its environment.
3. ICJ finding: An International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion of 19 July 2024 acknowledged that Israel systematically took natural resources from the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) for itself.
4. Permanent sovereignty: International law gives all peoples, including those under occupation, permanent sovereignty over natural resources. The writer argues settlements and resource appropriation have undermined it.

Who must pay for the damage?

1. Principle 9: A state whose internationally wrongful act in an armed conflict damages the environment bears international responsibility. It must make full reparation, including for damage to the environment itself.
2. Application to Gaza: On this basis Israel owes full reparation for the destruction in Gaza, an obligation the writer says the ICJ opinion reaffirmed.
3. Climate justice argument: Citing climate activist Andreas Malm, the writer argues climate justice is impossible without ending Israel’s occupation.

Challenges

1. Non-binding principles: The UNGA only noted the PERAC draft principles, so they do not bind states the way a treaty does.
2. Outdated figures: Damage statistics date quickly as conditions worsen, so the UNEP report understates the full harm.
3. Enforcing reparation: No mechanism compels a state to pay for environmental damage.

Way Forward

1. Regular assessment: UNEP should update its Gaza assessment at fixed intervals so the damage record keeps pace with events.
2. Reparation mechanism: The UNGA should set up a body to assess war damage to the environment and order compensation.
3. Binding rules: States should negotiate a treaty that turns the PERAC principles into binding obligations.

Conclusion

International law now names a state’s duty to repair war damage to nature but has no means to enforce it. Whether the UN builds a working process to make states pay for wrecking nature is the test Gaza now sets.

Key numbers

1. Shrubland lost: 95% since 2023 (UNEP, 23 September 2025).
2. Annual crops lost: 82% since 2023 (UNEP).
3. Buildings damaged or destroyed: About 78% of an estimated 2,50,000 (UNEP).
4. Debris: Around 61 million tonnes (UNEP).

Back2Basics: International Court of Justice (ICJ)

1. Formation: Set up in 1945, with its seat at The Hague, Netherlands.
2. Role: The UN’s principal judicial organ, settling disputes between consenting states and giving advisory opinions to UN bodies.
3. Composition: 15 judges, elected by the UNGA and the UN Security Council for nine-year terms.

Matching Previous Year Question

“No direct PYQ traced in the provided files. Thematic PYQ: [2023] Invasive Species Specialist Group’ (that develops Global Invasive Species Database) belongs to which one of the following organizations? (a) The International Union for Conservation of Nature (b) The United Nations Environment Programme (c) The United Nations World Commission for Environment and Development (d) The World Wide Fund for Nature ANSWER: (a)”