International Law, the framework governing relations between states, has consistently been violated by Israel with apparent impunity. Despite numerous documented breaches in the occupied Palestinian territories, accountability mechanisms have failed to bring meaningful consequences. This comprehensive examination of Israel’s violations of international law reveals a pattern of systemic impunity enabled by geopolitical protection, structural flaws in accountability mechanisms, and the selective application of international legal standards. The ongoing conflict in Gaza and continued occupation of Palestinian territories demonstrate how Israel continues to operate above international law while facing minimal repercussions for actions that would trigger severe consequences for other nations.
The Historical Pattern of Israeli Violations of International Law
Israel’s history with international law has been characterized by consistent violations dating back to its founding. Since occupying the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel has established a pattern of disregarding international legal principles that govern military occupation. Human Rights Watch documented in 2017 that “fifty years after Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza Strip, it controls these areas through repression, institutionalized discrimination, and systematic abuses of the Palestinian population’s rights”4. This five-decade-long occupation represents one of the world’s longest-standing violations of international law, with Israel continuing to exert control through methods that contradict established legal norms.
Among the most persistent violations is the illegal acquisition of land by force. Following the 1948 war, Israel annexed territories beyond those allocated in the UN partition plan, violating the fundamental international law principle prohibiting the acquisition of territory through military conquest5. This pattern continued after the 1967 war, with Israel annexing East Jerusalem and effectively controlling the West Bank through settlements and military presence, despite numerous UN resolutions condemning these actions.
The displacement of Palestinian civilians and the denial of their right to return constitute another significant breach of international law. Approximately 750,000 Palestinian civilians were prevented from returning to their homes following the 1948 conflict, with Israel enacting laws and employing military force to block their return5. This violation of the right of return, a fundamental principle under international humanitarian law, continues today with displaced Palestinians still denied the ability to reclaim their homes and property.
Israeli settlement construction in occupied territories represents a flagrant violation of international law that has continued unabated for decades. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its civilian population into territories it occupies5. Despite this clear prohibition, Israel has established hundreds of settlements across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, transferring hundreds of thousands of Israeli citizens into occupied territories in direct contravention of international legal standards.
Israel’s Military Operations and Violations of International Humanitarian Law
Israel’s military conduct in Gaza and the West Bank has drawn widespread condemnation for violating core principles of international humanitarian law. The most recent escalation following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks has resulted in what human rights organizations describe as “indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks in violation of international humanitarian law”2. These operations have caused massive civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure, raising serious questions about Israel’s compliance with legal obligations to distinguish between military and civilian targets and to ensure proportionality in military actions.
Collective punishment, prohibited under international law, has become a hallmark of Israel’s response to Palestinian resistance. Human Rights Watch and Oxfam documented that Israeli authorities have “imposed collective punishments on the civilian population, deprived the civilian population of objects indispensable to its survival, and used starvation of civilians as a weapon of war”2. These actions constitute grave violations of the Fourth Geneva Convention and customary international humanitarian law, yet they continue without meaningful accountability.
The destruction of civilian infrastructure critical for human survival has been a recurring feature of Israeli military operations. In Gaza, Israeli forces have targeted water systems, medical facilities, schools, and power plants, compromising the basic necessities for civilian survival2. Such actions potentially constitute the war crime of deliberately targeting civilian infrastructure and violate the obligation of an occupying power to ensure the welfare of the civilian population under its control.
Forced displacement resulting from military operations further demonstrates Israel’s disregard for international legal norms. According to Human Rights Watch, “The vast majority of Gaza’s population has also been forced to flee their homes, many as a result of Israeli actions that amount to war crimes”2. This mass displacement echoes historical patterns of forced removal of Palestinian populations, creating a continuous cycle of dispossession that violates the prohibition against forced transfer of protected persons under occupation.
Israel’s Military Justice System: A Mechanism for Impunity
A primary reason Israel escapes accountability is its deeply flawed military justice system, which creates the appearance of investigation while ensuring actual impunity. The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) identified “accountability failures in law and practice characterizing Israel’s military justice system” that effectively shield Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) members from meaningful consequences for violations of international humanitarian and human rights law1. This system operates as a barrier to justice rather than a pathway to accountability.
The structural problem begins with the dual role of the Military Advocate General (MAG), who simultaneously serves as legal advisor to the military on operations and as the authority determining whether to investigate potential violations arising from those same operations1. This inherent conflict of interest undermines the independence and impartiality essential for credible investigations. The ICJ explicitly states that “Israel is willfully promoting impunity for crimes committed in the OPT [Occupied Palestinian Territory]”1, highlighting how the system is designed to protect perpetrators rather than deliver justice.
Statistics on investigations and prosecutions reveal the extent of this impunity. Only a tiny fraction of alleged violations results in criminal investigations, and an even smaller percentage leads to prosecutions. When convictions do occur, they typically involve low-ranking soldiers facing minimal penalties incommensurate with the severity of the alleged crimes1. High-ranking officers and policymakers responsible for policies that systematically violate international law almost never face accountability, creating a culture of impunity that permeates the entire military and political establishment.
To address these structural failures, the ICJ recommends fundamental reforms including “establishing effective civilian oversight over the military” and “transferring the competence to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of IHL and IHRL committed by IDF members from the Military Advocate General to an independent and impartial civilian authority”1. These recommendations highlight how drastically Israel’s current system deviates from international standards for military justice and accountability.
International Legal Institutions: Jurisdiction Challenges and Political Obstruction
The International Criminal Court (ICC) represents the primary international mechanism for accountability when domestic systems fail, yet its efforts regarding Israel face significant challenges. In a landmark 2021 decision, the ICC ruled that its prosecutor could investigate possible Israeli war crimes committed during operations in Gaza and other alleged violations in occupied territories3. This decision was significant because it “shows that the ICC will not be intimidated with respect to criminal allegations directed at countries protected by Western geopolitics”3, as noted by international law professor Richard Falk.
Israel’s non-membership in the Rome Statute that established the ICC creates jurisdictional complexities but does not prevent accountability. The ICC determined it has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the territory of Palestine, which has acceded to the Rome Statute, regardless of the perpetrator’s nationality3. As Falk explains, this is “an affirmation of ICC jurisdictional authority for crimes committed on the territory of Parties to the Rome Statute even if the perpetrators of the crimes were citizens or officials of a State that was not a Party”3. This legal reasoning overcomes Israel’s attempt to escape jurisdiction through non-membership.
Despite these legal determinations, the ICC investigation has progressed slowly amid intense political pressure. The United States and other Israeli allies have opposed the investigation, even imposing sanctions on ICC personnel during the Trump administration. This political interference undermines the court’s independence and demonstrates how geopolitical considerations often supersede legal principles when powerful nations’ interests are at stake. The ICC’s hesitancy reflects the challenges international institutions face when attempting to hold states with powerful protectors accountable.
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has also addressed Israeli violations, most notably in its 2004 advisory opinion finding Israel’s separation barrier illegal in parts of its route. However, ICJ advisory opinions lack enforcement mechanisms, and Israel has largely disregarded these findings. A recent UN report called for adherence to international legal mechanisms, including both the ICC and ICJ, noting that ongoing human rights violations “cannot be permitted to continue”6, yet effective enforcement remains elusive.
Geopolitical Protection: The Role of Powerful Allies in Shielding Israel
Israel’s ability to violate international law with impunity stems largely from the diplomatic protection provided by powerful allies, particularly the United States. This protection manifests in various forms that collectively shield Israel from meaningful accountability at the international level. The most direct form of protection comes through the United States’ use of its veto power in the UN Security Council to block resolutions critical of Israel or that might establish accountability mechanisms. This veto power has been exercised dozens of times over the decades, creating a diplomatic shield that prevents international consensus from translating into concrete action.
Financial and military support further enables Israel’s violations while insulating it from consequences. The United States provides Israel with billions of dollars in military aid annually, which directly supports the military operations that often violate international law4. This continued support, despite documented violations, sends a clear message that Israel’s most powerful ally will stand behind it regardless of its actions. The recent submission by Oxfam and Human Rights Watch in response to NSM-20 highlights this contradiction, demonstrating that “assurances from the Israeli government, a major recipient of US arms, are not credible, especially in light of the conduct of Israeli forces since the onset of hostilities in October 2023”2.
Diplomatic legitimization of illegal policies further undermines accountability efforts. When powerful nations recognize or normalize actions that violate international law, such as the Trump administration’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital or its declaration that Israeli settlements are not necessarily illegal, they weaken the normative force of international law. These actions create a permissive environment where violations are not only tolerated but effectively endorsed by major global powers.
The combined effect of this protection is a virtually impenetrable shield against accountability. When diplomacy, financial support, and legitimization work in concert, they create a situation where Israel can calculate that the benefits of violating international law outweigh any potential costs. This cost-benefit analysis is skewed by the knowledge that powerful allies will prevent serious consequences, creating a rational incentive structure that favors continued violations.
Double Standards: Selective Enforcement of International Law
The selective application of international law creates a system of double standards that particularly benefits Israel. While other nations face sanctions, international isolation, and sometimes military intervention for violating international norms, Israel’s violations are met with remarkable tolerance from the international community. This inconsistency undermines the legitimacy of the international legal system and creates justified perceptions of hypocrisy among those who suffer from violations without recourse to justice.
The pattern of selective enforcement is evident in the strong international response to Russia’s annexation of Crimea and invasion of Ukraine compared to the muted response to Israel’s decades-long occupation and effective annexation of Palestinian territories. Similarly, economic sanctions are rapidly deployed against countries like Iran, Venezuela, or Syria for various violations of international norms, while Israel’s economy enjoys preferential trade agreements with major economies despite its ongoing violations. This discrepancy reveals how geopolitical alliances, rather than consistent legal principles, determine the enforcement of international law.
The rhetoric surrounding international law further illustrates this double standard. Western powers frequently invoke international law when condemning adversaries but adopt far more nuanced language when addressing Israeli violations, often framing them as “complexities” or “challenges” rather than clear breaches of legal obligations. This linguistic evasion creates a narrative environment where Israeli violations are normalized or minimized while similar actions by other states are characterized as grave threats to the international order.
This selective enforcement has eroded faith in the international legal system among populations that suffer from violations without recourse. When Palestinians see their rights under international law systematically violated with no consequences for the violator, the promise of a rules-based international order rings hollow. The resulting cynicism about international law’s value undermines its normative force globally, as other states observe that compliance appears optional for powerful nations and their allies.
Israel’s Self-Justification: Legal Arguments to Evade Accountability
Israel has developed sophisticated legal arguments to justify actions that most international legal experts consider violations of international law. These arguments represent a form of “lawfare” designed to create legal cover for policies that enable continued occupation and control over Palestinian territories. By contesting the applicability of established legal frameworks and creating alternative legal interpretations, Israel attempts to place itself outside the reach of conventional accountability mechanisms.
One central argument involves contesting the legal status of the occupied territories. Israel refers to the West Bank as “disputed territories” rather than occupied territories, claiming that since no recognized sovereign state previously controlled these areas, the Fourth Geneva Convention governing military occupation does not fully apply5. This position contradicts the near-universal consensus among international legal experts and institutions, including the International Court of Justice, which has consistently affirmed that these territories are under occupation and subject to the relevant legal frameworks.
Israel also invokes security necessity to justify actions that violate international humanitarian law. While security concerns are legitimate, international law specifically establishes boundaries for how security measures can be implemented, including principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. Israel’s self-defense argument often fails to acknowledge these limitations, effectively claiming that security considerations override all other legal obligations, a position rejected by international legal frameworks that recognize security needs must be balanced with humanitarian protections.
The characterization of the conflict as a unique legal situation further serves to evade established accountability mechanisms. By arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict represents a sui generis legal case that cannot be adequately addressed through existing frameworks, Israel creates ambiguity that benefits its position. This exceptionalism argument serves to place Israel’s actions in a legal gray area where normal standards of accountability supposedly cannot apply, despite the fact that international humanitarian law was specifically designed to address a wide range of conflict situations.
These legal arguments, while sophisticated, ultimately function as mechanisms to evade rather than engage with international legal obligations. They represent what some legal scholars have termed “legal perversions” that use the language of law to undermine its substance, creating a facade of legality for actions that fundamentally violate the spirit and letter of international humanitarian law.
The Way Forward: Steps Toward Accountability
Addressing Israel’s impunity requires a multifaceted approach that strengthens accountability mechanisms at both domestic and international levels. The International Commission of Jurists has outlined several concrete reforms that would enhance accountability, including establishing “effective civilian oversight over the military” and transferring “the competence to investigate and prosecute alleged violations of IHL and IHRL committed by IDF members from the Military Advocate General to an independent and impartial civilian authority”1. These reforms would align Israel’s accountability mechanisms with international standards and remove the structural barriers that currently prevent meaningful investigations and prosecutions.
International legal institutions must assert their jurisdiction despite political pressure. The ICC investigation into alleged crimes in Palestine represents a crucial test case for the court’s independence and commitment to universal justice. As the ICJ stated, “Given Israel’s inability and unwillingness to genuinely investigate and prosecute IDF members for alleged crimes in the OPT, the ICC ought to assert jurisdiction over them, and prosecute alleged perpetrators of crimes under the Rome Statute”1. The international community should fully support this investigation as “the sole avenue of accountability for past and ongoing crimes falling under the jurisdiction of the Court”1.
Economic leverage offers another potential pathway to accountability. International trade agreements could be conditioned on compliance with international law, and businesses could be required to ensure their operations do not contribute to or benefit from violations in the occupied territories. Targeted sanctions against individuals responsible for serious violations could create personal consequences for decision-makers currently operating with impunity. These economic measures would alter the cost-benefit analysis that currently favors continued violations by creating tangible consequences for non-compliance.
Civil society organizations play a crucial role in documenting violations, advocating for accountability, and maintaining public awareness of ongoing injustices. Their work helps counter the normalization of occupation and creates pressure for legal compliance. Supporting these organizations and amplifying their findings represents an important component of a comprehensive accountability strategy.
Ultimately, ending impunity requires political will from the international community to enforce the legal standards it has established. When powerful nations demonstrate that international law applies equally to all states regardless of their geopolitical alignments, the entire international legal system is strengthened. This universal application would benefit not only Palestinians suffering under occupation but all populations whose rights depend on a functioning rules-based international order.
Conclusion: The Imperative of Accountability for International Law
International Law will remain undermined as long as states like Israel can violate its fundamental principles without facing consequences. The documented pattern of violations in the occupied Palestinian territories represents not just a failure of accountability in one specific context but a challenge to the entire concept of a rules-based international order. When violations become normalized and impunity becomes expected, the normative force of international law is weakened globally.
The evidence demonstrates that Israel has established elaborate mechanisms to evade accountability, from a flawed military justice system that shields perpetrators to sophisticated legal arguments that attempt to place its actions outside established frameworks. These evasion strategies succeed largely because of the protection provided by powerful allies who prioritize geopolitical considerations over consistent legal principles. The resulting double standards create a situation where international law applies differently depending on a state’s political alignments rather than the nature of its actions.
Moving forward requires acknowledging that accountability serves the interests of all parties, including Israelis. A system where violations go unaddressed perpetuates injustice, fuels resentment, and makes lasting peace more difficult to achieve. True security cannot be built on a foundation of impunity but requires a commitment to justice and respect for the rights of all people in the region. As the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights noted, the ongoing human rights violations “cannot be permitted to continue”6, and addressing them requires immediate adherence to mechanisms of international law.
The question of why Israel is not held accountable for its violations of international law ultimately reveals more about the weaknesses of the international legal system than about any specific conflict. It demonstrates how power dynamics can override legal principles, how selective enforcement undermines normative standards, and how impunity for one state encourages violations by others. Addressing these systemic failures represents not just a matter of justice for Palestinians but an essential step toward building an international order where law truly constrains power rather than merely reflecting it.
