Gaza ceasefire violations: Legal experts say Israel committing war crimes and more

By Rabia Ali

ISTANBUL (AA) – As Israel reimposes a siege on Gaza and continues its attacks despite a ceasefire, legal experts are raising alarm over its blatant violations of international law, warning that these could amount to war crimes and more.

The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which took effect in mid-January after 15 months of relentless Israeli bombardment, has done little to improve conditions on the ground. More than 48,500 Palestinians have been killed in the Israeli assault and nearly 112,000 more wounded, while almost the entirety of the Gaza Strip lies in ruins.

Israel has repeatedly violated the ceasefire agreement, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis. On Feb. 11, Munir al-Barsh, director-general of Gaza’s Health Ministry, said Israel had killed 92 Palestinians and injured 822 others in direct attacks since the truce began, while the Gaza government media office said on Feb. 21 that more than 350 ceasefire violations had been recorded.

Israeli incursions into border areas east of the Gaza Strip, along with military movements reported in central and western Rafah, have also raised concerns. Additionally, Israel has obstructed the return of displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza, blocked the entry of shelter supplies, and delayed the arrival of medical necessities.

The situation has worsened since last Sunday, when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu completely halted humanitarian aid to Gaza, while also refusing to initiate talks on the second phase of the deal.

- Blocking humanitarian aid

Despite widespread international calls for humanitarian access, Israel continues to obstruct aid shipments into Gaza.

Saeed Bagheri, a lecturer and assistant professor in international law at the University of Reading, emphasized that under international humanitarian law (IHL), providing humanitarian aid to civilian populations is a customary obligation.

“Israel has an obligation under customary IHL to allow and facilitate rapid, free and unimpeded passage of humanitarian aid to Palestinians in Gaza,” he told Anadolu.

Bagheri also pointed to Article 23 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, 1949, which applies to occupied territories and explicitly requires Israel to allow humanitarian assistance.

“Delaying humanitarian aid and relief is a direct violation and breach of IHL obligations by Israel,” he asserted.

Marco Longobardo, a reader in international law at the University of Westminster, offered similar insight.

“Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, Israel must consent to the delivery of humanitarian assistance and must facilitate the distribution of aid,” Longobardo explained.

Luigi Daniele, an international law expert and senior lecturer at Nottingham Trent University, highlighted the potential consequences of this obstruction.

Denying civilians the means of subsistence, if prolonged, can destroy an entire national group, he said.

He also pointed to the International Court of Justice (ICJ)’s three provisional measures rulings urging Israel to remove obstacles to humanitarian aid, warning that continued restrictions could amount to a violation of the Genocide Convention, particularly regarding the prohibition of genocide by imposing destructive living conditions on a targeted group.

- Starvation as a weapon of war

Human rights organizations have vehemently slammed Israel’s obstruction of aid and accused it of continuing the use of starvation as a weapon of warfare.

Longobardo said Israel’s restrictions could constitute both the war crime of starvation and the war crime of intentionally depriving Gaza’s civilian population of objects indispensable to their survival.

Both of these are at the heart of the arrest warrants by the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, he said.

Moreover, the ICJ has ordered Israel to allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance, so “any impediment to this violates the court’s order and may reinforce allegations of genocide,” he added.

Like Longobardo, Bagheri also pointed to Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of the ICC – “intentionally using starvation of civilians as a method of warfare by depriving them of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for under the Geneva Conventions.”

“In that sense, the blockade of humanitarian aid by Israel, if used with the purpose and intention of causing starvation of civilian population in Gaza, would lead to a war crime under the Rome Statute,” he said.

Daniele, an expert in both IHL and international criminal law (ICL), provided historical context, noting that starvation was once considered a legitimate military tactic.

The last legal document considering starvation as a legitimate means of warfare was the Lieber Code of 1863, used during the American Civil War, he said.

However, international humanitarian law has since evolved, eliminating any justification for using starvation as a military strategy.

Legal exceptions allowing starvation tactics have been systematically removed over the years, Daniele emphasized.

- Israel’s systematic attacks on Palestinian civilians

Israel’s deliberate actions – including Netanyahu’s public admission that starvation is being used as leverage against Hamas – are part of a broader organized strategy, experts argue.

“Israeli actions have systematically been directed against civilian population, with knowledge that they will cause great suffering and serious injury to body or to mental or physical health of civilians in Gaza,” said Bagheri.

Such actions, he said, could amount to crimes against humanity under Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute – “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.”

- Impeding the return of displaced Palestinians

Soon after the ceasefire was established, Hamas accused Israel of violating the agreement by preventing displaced civilians from returning to northern Gaza.

Bagheri stressed that the right to return is a fundamental principle of international law.

“The return of displaced persons to their homes or habitual residences as soon as the reasons for their displacement cease to exist is regulated by Article 49(2) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which is also a customary rule of IHL,” he said.

This has also often been recognized in ceasefire or peace agreements, as is now the case between Israel and Hamas, he added.

“Either delaying or preventing the return of displaced Palestinians to northern Gaza in safety would amount to a violation of both customary IHL and treaty obligations of Israel,” said Bagheri.

- Forced displacement

Legal experts also addressed reports of an Israeli-American plan to permanently expel Palestinians from Gaza, warning that such an action would constitute a war crime.

Longobardo said the permanent displacement of Palestinians is prohibited under IHL and “would entail the commission of war crimes and crimes against humanity.”

“Such permanent displacement would be unlawful under the principle of self-determination of peoples as well,” he said.

The ICJ also said last year that all states in the world “must refrain from recognizing as lawful Israeli violations of Palestinian self-determination; must refrain from offering any assistance to Israel in relation to violations of Palestinian self-determination; and must cooperate through lawful means to end these violations,” Longobardo added.

Daniele emphasized that the displacement of civilians is the “core of Israel’s unlawful military policies.”

The forced removal of individuals qualifies as both an IHL violation, or a war crime, and a crime against humanity, he said.

Daniele also addressed a common misconception, particularly in Europe, that to be held responsible for genocide, “one has to eliminate the entirety of the victim group, member by member.”

“That’s not the case. Even forcibly displacing the survivors and scattering them as separated communities in other countries is also a way to eliminate a national group,” he explained.

- Refusal to release Palestinian prisoners

Following a series of successful exchanges as part of the ceasefire deal, Israel delayed the release of 620 Palestinian prisoners, sparking condemnation and concerns about the future of the truce.

Bagheri explained that since hostage-taking is a war crime under Articles 8(2)(a)(viii) and 8(2)(c)(iii) of the Rome Statute, Israel’s “arbitrary detention of Palestinian prisoners as bargaining chips” could be classified as a war crime.

“Israel’s refusal to release those civilians who had been taken as hostages or detained arbitrarily, in line with the ceasefire deal, would, in itself, lead to a violation of the relevant provisions of the Rome Statute and qualify as a war crime,” he said.