Table of Contents
Introduction – 2
History of the Israel-Palestine Conflict with Legal Framework – 2
Background – 2
Legal Framework – 2
Recognising Palestine Under International Law – 3
U.K. Recognition: Lawful or Unlawful – 3
Killing of Palestinians Under International Law – 4
Starvation as a Weapon of War – 5
Violation of International Legal Norms – 5
Holocaust Parallels and Moral Shock – 5
Comparison with Prisoners of War Rights – 6
Is This a New Holocaust? – 6
Stopping Aid to Gaza: UN Charter Breach and Required Action – 7
Conclusion – 7
References – 8
Figure 1: Gaza as a Holocaust
https://odi.org/en/insights/humanitarian-
hypocrisy-double-standards-and-the-law-in-gaza/
Introduction
The Gaza war has reinvigorated the international discussions on the aspect of humanitarian law, genocide and its definition as well as state responsibility. Mass killing of civilians, the destruction of infrastructure and the blocking of assistance has become a major worry (UN OCHA, 2023). Academicians and human rights organisations express doubt about whether such incidents form a new genocide, and they compare this to what happened in the holocaust (Levy and Sznaider, 2004). This report will take a legal and ethical analysis of the Gaza war in juxtaposition to other acts of atrocities in history, as well as what international law would stipulate to happen in cases like this one.
History of the Israel-Palestine Conflict with Legal Framework
Background
The roots of the Israel-Palestine conflict are to be found in the web of colonialism, nationalism, and territorial claims involved in the Middle East. When the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine was created and placed under British control at the end of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was destroyed. In the process, Britain came up with the 1917 Balfour Declaration, pledging to support the creation of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, which should not deprive the rights of the other peoples that were residing in the country.
During the interwar period and WWII, tension between Jews and Arabs rose due to the heightened immigration of the Jews. In 1947, the UN suggested the Partition Plan (Resolution 181), which recommended splitting the land into two Jewish and Arab states. This was accepted by Jewish leaders, Arab states however, Palestinians rejected it as it was denying the rights of indigenous people. The declaration of Israel has caused the country to go to war, and as a result, more than 700,000 Palestinians fled, also referred to as the Nakba (Choonara, 2024), which led to the start of conflict concerning ownership and occupation, as well as the creation of a Palestinian State.
Legal Framework
International law is a crucial factor in determining the rights and obligations of parties to the conflict and the merits or deficiencies of violations committed. The United Nations Charter (1945) is fundamental, especially through Articles 2 and 4, which do not allow the participants to take steps against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state through the use of force. Article 51 gives a right to self-defence in case there is an armed attack, but it ought to be taken that the principle of necessity within reasonableness has to be applied (UN Charter, 1945).
Another crucial legal document is the Geneva Conventions (1949), especially the Fourth Geneva Convention, which protects civilians in an occupied territory. Such conventions do not condone collective punishment, involuntary transfer, and assault on civilian installations (ICRC, 1949).
The International Criminal Court, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), creates a legally binding tool to punish individuals who commit war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. It gives the ICC the mandate to investigate the following forms of serious violations: wilfully killing of citizens, deportation without due process and intentional attack of humanitarian missions (Rome Statute, 1998).
Figure 2: Legal Framework
https://www.aljazeera.com/
news/2023/10/9/
whats-the-israel-palestine-conflict-about-a-simple-guide
Recognising Palestine Under International Law
The issue of the statehood of Palestine and its recognition in international law has been a controversial topic. The recognition of Palestine as an independent state is not merely symbolic; it carries significant legal, political and diplomatic implications especially in relation to evaluating occupation, war crimes and state responsibility.
Palestine has been recognised as a sovereign state by more than 130 members of the United Nations out of the 193 member states. This trend culminated towards a recognition with a boost after the Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) declared independence in 1988 and reached its climax when the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution 67/19, by which Palestine was legitimised as a non-member observer state in 2012 (UNGA, 2012). This shift allowed Palestine to be given limited access to UN proceedings and to even sign on to various international treaties and conventions.
Statehood recognition typically refers to the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1933) that gives four criteria, namely: (1) permanent population, (2) a defined territory, (3) a government and (4) the ability to engage in relations with other states (Montevideo Convention, 1933). Although Palestine does not have complete dominance over its land, this may be said to be because of the Israeli occupying forces, and therefore, it does pass the test as a sovereign state without complete control. It has an established population, has taken up administrative roles through the Palestinian Authority and has been practising international diplomacy for decades.
In addition, the fact that Palestine has the right to accede to major treaties strengthens its international legal personality. Palestine joined the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in 2015, thereby having the opportunity to prosecute the acts of war crimes and international crimes against humanity both committed on and over their territory (ICC, 2015). It has also subscribed to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and other treaties on international norms, hence asserting its interest in the same.
Although some countries, mainly the western states, do not support full recognition of a possible state without a concrete result in a peace process, the legal minds indicate that recognition should not be delayed when a people proves that it conforms to the necessities of an independent state. According to Weiler (1982), the Palestinian state is not a political dream as currently being claimed by the political head of the state; it is a legal reality that is backed by international law and practice.
Figure 3: Recognising Palestine Under International Law
some-of-britains-most-prominent-lawyers-have-warned-
prime-minister-keir-starmer-/1159991912832340/
U.K. Recognition: Lawful or Unlawful?
The approach taken by the United Kingdom towards the recognition of Palestine can be discussed as a compromise between diplomatic care and the rights of Palestine according to international law. Though the UK has continuously underlined its commitment to the two-state solution and the Palestinian right to self-determination, it has not officially recognised Palestine as an independent state. That stance is one of legal reluctance as well as of other geopolitical factors, such as adherence to U.S. policy and a need to maintain influence in peace talks.
The recognition of a state is a political act, although it has a legal effect in international law. Hersch Lauterpacht stated recognition can be described as a formal announcement by one state of the existence of another state with a government that can represent it in international relations (Lauterpacht, 2013). The decision is at the discretion of the individual states, which are not required to seek the prior authorisation of an international body.
However, recognition is guided by international law that parameterises the recognition. Other than breaching peremptory norms, which are absolute, such as the ban on acquiring territory by force, recognition should not be contravened. This doctrine, as inscribed in Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and cemented in customary international law, restricts the legitimacy of any territory derived by conquering militarily. Any such recognition that is made to sustain occupation or annexation, e.g. on the East Jerusalem or other areas of the West Bank, could be interpreted as being illegal (UN Charter, 1945).
On the other hand, in case recognition helps to ensure the right of self-determination, which is stated in Article 1 of the UN Covenant and other resolutions, it may be claimed that it is legally and morally right. The Montevideo Convention (1933) gives a starting point for the requirements of the recognition of a state: permanent population, defined territory, government, and the capability of relations with foreigners (foreign relations). Palestine probably fits the bill.
As other legal scholars (such as Moses in 2017) observe, accepting Palestine would not only be a legal choice but would also comply with international law established standards, particularly with the inhuman conditions of occupation.
Figure 5: U.K. Recognition: Lawful or Unlawful?
https://www.theguardian
.com/technology/2025/
un/17/facial-recognition-technology-needs-stricter-regulation
Killing of Palestinians Under International Law
Intentional or indiscriminate attack of civilians during armed conflicts is one of the most serious offences of international humanitarian law (IHL). Independently, in the case of Gaza, there have been numerous bombing campaigns by the Israelis in heavily populated regions, leading to numerous casualties, which, under the entirety of the existing international laws, are under scrutiny and attract a great deal of apprehension.
Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August (1949), the protections that are given to these groups are minimal. It also forbids, at any time, violence to life and person, which specifically prohibits murder of any kind, cruel treatment and outrages on personal dignity (ICRC, 1949). Articles 51 and 52 of the Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Convention further support the concept of distinction, where the parties need to observe distinction between the civilians and the combatants always, and attacks must never be targeted at the civilian population or civilian objects (ICRC, 1977). These are principles of law that are constitutionally enshrined in customary international law and have been codified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998). War crimes as Article 8 of the Rome Statute defines it also includes intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not directly participating in hostilities and also intentionally launching an attack in knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life, injury to, or other impairment of health that would be excessive about concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated (Rome Statute, 1998).
There are numerous reports of how civilian infrastructure in Gaza has been targeted or has been hit during military actions; these include schools, hospitals, residential buildings and facilities owned by UN agencies. Whereas Israel continues to assert that such attacks are used in an attempt to achieve a potentially legitimate military objective, critics claim that the concept of proportionality is being blatantly and repeatedly broken as the number of casualty victims is heavily skewed towards the civilian population (UNHRC, 2021).
As a reaction to these issues, the International Criminal Court initiated an official investigation in 2021 into the suspected war crimes that occurred in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including Gaza, as early as 2014. This inquiry includes the conduct of both Israeli troops and Palestinian armed organisations, including the unspecified launching of rockets on the territory of the civilian population (ICC, 2021). The fact that these violations have persisted despite the expressed opposition to the conflict portrays not just the humanitarian cost of the conflict, but also that there is a dire need for accounting mechanisms in enacting international humanitarian law, as well as safeguarding the lives of civilians.
Figure 6: Killing of Palestinians Under International Law
https://arabcenterdc.org/resource/is-international
-law-still-relevant-after-the-carnage-in-gaza/
Starvation as a Weapon of War
Starvation as a method of war is one of the worst offences to international humanitarian law that has been observed in the Gaza conflict. Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court makes use of starvation of civilians as a warfare tool an offence, that is, deprivation of civilians of objects that are essential to their survival, such as by wilfully obstructing relief supplies (Rome Statute, 1998). By starvation, Hamas does not mean a complete lack of foodstuffs, but a systematic blockade that does not give access to necessities in life, such as water, medicine, and fuel. The current blockade of the Gaza Strip by Israel, which has been going on since 2007 in one form or another, immensely reduces the movement of goods and people. Restrictions were tightened further after the increase of hostilities in 2023 and 2024, which led to what the UN agencies consider a full-blown humanitarian disaster (UN OCHA, 2024). Sanitary facilities have gone down, hospitals are unelectrified and without medication and food distribution is almost impossible in most of the areas.
Figure 7: Starvation as a Weapon of War
https://en.majalla.com/node/309801
/politics
/starvation-weapon-war-all-too-familiar
-horror-history
Violation of International Legal Norms
The specific use of starvation as a war strategy is explicitly condemned in the UN Security Council Resolution 2417 (2018), and accountability is called for in those instances where it is identified as being used. It appeals to every participant in an armed conflict to respect and allow access to food and humanitarian help to civilians (UNSC, 2018). The stopping of aid deliveries, the denial of convoy over and the bombing of humanitarian corridors are all actions which can be considered war crimes given the aim to carry them out in a deliberate or very negligent manner towards civilian life.
The fourth Geneva Convention is also categorical in terms of outlawing mass punishment of the civilian population and requiring unhindered humanitarian aid in war (ICRC, 1949). Such protection applies to situations, particularly in Gaza, where aid trucks could be regularly delayed or even denied entry at all.
Holocaust Parallels and Moral Shock
The deliberate famine of urban civilians in the contained or under-siege locations reverberates with dreadful parallels throughout history. Cases like that of the Jewish ghetto in Warsaw were intentionally starved and deprived of medical treatment during the Holocaust as a part of the general approach of genocide that was being conducted by the Nazi regime (USHMM, 2023). There is a creeping resemblance, even though the Gaza conflict is clear about geography, history and politics, there are the patterns of isolation, starvation and systematic withholding of humanitarian aid which are reminiscent.
Comparison with Prisoners of War Rights
According to the Third Geneva Convention (1949), prisoners of war (POWs) have a right to humane treatment, the safeguard against violence and adequate provision of food, medical care, and the right to receive impartial humanitarian organisations (ICRC, 1949). Although many of the Palestinians cannot be classified as POWs in the accepted definitions, the mass imprisonment of civilians, including children, without trial and even a formal charge, is a violation of such norms. International human rights organisations, such as B’Tselem, have widely reported on an ample amount of administrative detention, psychological cruelty, and healthcare mistakes in the service of Palestinian detainees by the Israeli government (B’Tselem, 2022). Such circumstances are a reiteration of the deprivation of human dignity that was witnessed among the inmates of the Holocaust, contributing to the comparison between the two subjects in the humanitarian realm.
Figure 8: Comparison with Prisoners of War Rights
The ICRC and the protection of prisoners of war: highlights from the ICRC Library’s collections
Is this a New Holocaust?
The holocaust, which killed six million Jews and millions of other victims in the systematic slaughtering carried out by the Nazis in 1941-45, remains the most notorious atrocity of the 20th century. It was so huge that it resulted in the creation of the 1948 Genocide Convention, which defined genocide to be actions that aimed at destroying a national, ethnic, racial or religious group wholly or partly by killing, causing bodily injuries or death conditions (UN, 1948).
Although the situation in Gaza is historical, political and geographical, the size and scale of suffering the civilian population of the area faces evoke alarming aspects. Preserving troop numbers and possible deaths through repeated military crackdowns, systematic blockades, targeting key infrastructure and denying basic humanitarian access suggest more than the collateral damage of war. The UN Genocide Office (2023) observes that the existence of dehumanising vocabulary, mass displacement, and the artificial and impossible conditions of life may indicate the initial or even continuous development of genocidal behaviour.
What genocide presupposes in the law is intent and a pattern of conduct directed to destroying a group described as such. The means of destruction are not specified in the law, and finding gas chambers and death camps is not necessary. The linguistic and conceptual framework produced by Raphael Lemkin, who initially thought of genocide, did not only focus on mass killings, but on the eradication of the cultural, religious, political, and social life as a part and parcel of the crime (Irvin-Erickson, 2016).
While these parallels are deeply troubling, there is no unified international consensus that the situation in Gaza constitutes a new Holocaust. However, the ongoing patterns of humanitarian failure, mass civilian casualties, and siege warfare suggest that the threshold for initiating a formal genocide investigation under the Genocide Convention may have been met warranting urgent legal scrutiny and potential prosecution.
Figure 9: Is This a New Holocaust?
Stopping Aid to Gaza: UN Charter Breach and Required Action
The prohibition of humanitarian aid to Gaza contravenes the international humanitarian law (IHL) and the UN Charter, which dwell on peace, human rights, as well as international collaboration (UN Charter, 1945). Measures such as closing borders, bureaucracies and impediment of military action during crises like famine and displacement contravene these principles. The agencies mainly include UNRWA and OCHA, which highlight the problem of limited access, aid convoys being destroyed, and the refusal to supply essential supplies, especially in cases when large-scale military actions are being implemented (UN OCHA, 2023).
Through Article VII of the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is itself to conclude whether or not there exist any threats to peace and to initiate enforcement of measures, such as sanctions, peacekeeping interventions, or even setting up humanitarian passes to rectify the scenario (UN Charter, 1945). In spite of this mounting global outcry, the Security Council has at best been incapacitated when it comes to making firm decisions, oftentimes because of jurisdictional differences among the permanent members.
The 2010 ICJ advisory opinion on the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory reiterated that states must enable the free passage of humanitarian aid and that the blockades as a collective punishment are a violation of international law (ICJ, 2010). It highlights the human disaster in Gaza and the culpability of the global community in legal and moral aspects.
Figure 10: Stopping Aid to Gaza: UN Charter Breach and Required Action
https://www.gulftoday.ae
/news/2025/05/21/uae-
reaches-agreement-with-israel-to-allow-urgent-
aid-delivery-to-gaza
Conclusion
The war in Gaza stands as one of the gravest humanitarian crises of the 21st century, challenging the very foundations of international law and human conscience. While terms like genocide and Holocaust carry strict legal definitions, the patterns of organised violence, persecution and systematic suffering are undeniable. The international community must move beyond legal semantics and act decisively, ensuring swift humanitarian response, holding violators of international law accountable, and pursuing a just and rights-based political resolution.
Dr Liaqat Malik leading legal analyst of public International Law
Irfan Malik Barrister legal analyst of Human Rights and Financial Crimes
References
B’Tselem: Israeli Information Centre for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories.
Choonara, J., 2024. A second Nakba. Int Social, 2(181), pp.3-26.
Geneva Conventions, 1949. The Geneva Conventions and their commentaries.
[online] www.icrc.org. Available at: https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy
/geneva-conventions-and-their-commentaries.
Genocide Convention, 1948, Article II. [online] Wikipedia. Available at:
https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Genocide_Convention.
Holocaust Encyclopedia. Holocaust Encyclopedia | United States
Holocaust Memorial Museum. [online] Ushmm.org.
Available at: https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/.
International Court of Justice 2003. Legal Consequences
of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian
Territory. [online] www.icj-cij.org.
Available at: https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131.
Irvin-Erickson, D., 2016. Raphael Lemkin
and the concept of genocide. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Lauterpacht, H. 2013. Recognition in international law.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p.419.
Levy, D. and Sznaider, N., 2004. The institutionalisation
of cosmopolitan morality: The Holocaust and human rights. Journal of Human Rights, 3(2), pp.143-157.
Malcolm Shaw 2021. International Law. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108774802.
Montevideo Convention 1933. Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States.
online] Available at: https://www.ilsa.org/Jessup/
Jessup15/Montevideo%20Convention.pdf.
Moses, A.D., 2017. Empire, resistance, and security: International law and the transformative occupation of Palestine. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism, and Development, 8(2), pp.379-409.
Raphael Lemkin 2019. [online] Wikipedia.
Available at: https://en.wikipedia
.org/wiki/Raphael_Lemkin.
Rome Statute 1998. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 1998. [online] Un.org. Available at: https://legal.un.org/icc/statute/99_corr/cstatute.htm?utm_source.
Rome Statute, Article 8(2)(b)(xxv). 2024.
Starvation as a method of warfare: Case Matrix Network.
[online] Casematrixnetwork.org. Available at:
http://www.casematrixnetwork.
org/cmn-knowledge-hub/elements-digest/art8/b/8-2-b-xxv.
Third Geneva Convention, 1949. Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949. [online] Icrc.org.
Available at: https://ihl-databases.icrc.or
g/en/ihl-treaties/gciii-1949.
UN General Assembly Resolution 2025. UN General Assembly Resolution 67/19, 2012. [online]
Un.org. Available at: https://docs.un.org/en/A/RES/67/19?utm_source.
UN OCHA Reports on Gaza Humanitarian Crisis. 2025. Updates | United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – Occupied Palestinian Territory. [online] United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs – Occupied Palestinian Territory.
Available at: https://www.ochaopt.org/updates.
UN Office on Genocide Prevention. 2023. Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect | United Nations. [online]
United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention.
United Nations 2024. United Nations Charter (full text) | United Nations. [online]
United Nations. Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/full-text?utm_source.
United Nations Chapter VII 1945. Chapter VII: Action concerning Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression (Articles 39-51). [online] United Nations.
Available at: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/un-charter/chapter-7.
UNSC Resolution 2417 2018 Resolution 2417 (Protection of Civilians) S/RES/2417. [online] Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect.
Available at: https://www.globalr2p.org/resources
/resolution-2417-protection-of-civilians-s-res-2417/.
Weiler, J.H., 1982. Israel and the Creation of a Palestinian State: The Art of the Impossible and the Possible. Tex. Int’l LJ, 17, p.287.