Gaza’s Ruined Seasons: When Genocide Meets Ecocide
Few terms in international law carry the gravity of genocide. One of the only concepts that stands alongside it is ecocide. The first refers to the destruction of a people; the second to the destruction of the conditions that sustain life. Gaza now sits at the intersection of both. Together, these terms describe two interlinked crises: one that threatens human survival, and the other that threatens environmental survival. Each intensifies the other.
The Genocide Convention defines genocide through five acts:
- killing members of a targeted group;
- causing serious bodily or mental harm;
- deliberately imposing conditions of life intended to bring about physical destruction;
- preventing births; and
- forcibly transferring children.
Since 7 October 2023, when Hamas attacked Israel and Israel responded with overwhelming force, several authoritative institutions have concluded that Israel’s actions meet this definition. B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights–Israel, and Amnesty International have all stated that Israel is committing genocide. The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry has reached the same conclusion. The International Association of Genocide Scholars also holds that genocide is taking place. These are respected institutions with long-standing records in human rights and international law.
Gaza’s catastrophe, however, extends beyond genocide. It also encompasses the destruction of nature, food systems, water infrastructure, and agriculture. This is where the concept of ecocide becomes essential.
The European Law Institute defines ecocide as “the destruction and devastation of the environment at any cost”. The Rome Statute includes provisions for environmental protection during war. In Gaza, ecological devastation is neither narrow nor accidental. It is systemic. It is deliberate.
A joint report by the Food and Agriculture Organisation and the UN Satellite Centre (FAO–UNOSAT), published on 28 July 2025, underscores this. It found that only 8.6% of Gaza’s cropland remains accessible, and just 1.5% is both accessible and undamaged. More than 86% of cropland has been damaged, while a further 12.4% is undamaged but unreachable due to ongoing fighting between Israeli forces and armed groups. These figures point to a near-total collapse in food production and illustrate how difficult recovery will be.
The destruction of Gaza’s environment has been systematic. Fields, orchards, and vegetable plots that once sustained families have been crushed by tanks, bombings, and bulldozers. Greenhouses have been destroyed. Soil has been churned into debris. The elimination of farmland is increasingly not a by-product of war but a tactic. It undermines long-term survival and blocks recovery.
Water infrastructure reflects the same pattern. Gaza’s water is now contaminated. Sewage systems have collapsed. Waste pools have overflowed.
Al-Jazeera reported on conditions in Gaza City through the testimony of Maher Salem, a municipal officer. He said:
“There is no doubt there are grave impacts on all citizens: Foul odours, insects, mosquitoes. Also, foul water levels have exceeded 6 metres [20ft] high without any protection; the fence is destroyed, with a high possibility for any child, woman, old man, or even a car to fall into this pond.”
Another reporter, Hani Mahmoud, said:
“Families know that the water they get from the wells and from the containers or from the water trucks is polluted and contaminated … but they don’t have any other choice.”
These accounts mirror the UN Environment Programme’s findings: “freshwater supplies in Gaza are severely limited and much of what remains is polluted.” It warned that the collapse of sewage networks, the destruction of pipelines, and the widespread use of cesspits likely worsened contamination of the aquifer—Gaza’s main source of drinking water. The consequences will last for years.
At COP30 in Brazil, Palestinian Ambassador Ibrahim al-Zeben situated Gaza’s environmental collapse within the broader destruction. He told world leaders:
“There’s no secret that Gaza is suffering because of the genocide that Israel continues to wage, a war that has created nearly a quarter of a million victims and produced more than 61 million tonnes of rubble, some of which is contaminated with hazardous materials.”
He explained that the destruction of sewage and water systems has contaminated groundwater and coastal waters, creating severe public-health risks. He also said that agricultural land has been devastated and that this devastation has produced famine: “Food is being used as a weapon.” His statements align with findings from UN agencies, relief organisations, and environmental investigators.
The movement to recognise ecocide seeks to create a legal instrument proportionate to the scale of environmental damage seen in Gaza. Environmental lawyers, human rights groups, and affected regions argue that ecocide should stand as its own crime, not as a subsidiary element of other offences.
Understanding Gaza’s ecological collapse requires comparing its pre-war landscape with the present. Before the war, Gaza had thousands of greenhouses producing vegetables, fruit, and income. It had citrus groves, olive orchards, and productive fields. Now, most are gone. Cultivable land has diminished. Soil has been compacted by heavy machinery. Wells and irrigation systems have been destroyed. Water sources are contaminated with debris, sewage, and chemicals. Ecological systems themselves have been disrupted: soil fertility, groundwater quality, pollinator populations, and coastal fisheries have all suffered.
Some critics argue that the term “ecocide” is political. Yet environmental destruction is already political. It is political when centuries-old olive trees, cultural symbols and anchors of identity, are cut down or burned. It is political when orchards are razed and fields are wiped out. Landscapes are not neutral; they hold memory, culture, and belonging. Their destruction severs more than the food supply. It severs ties to place and can act as a form of erasure, physical and cultural. It does not need to declare an intent to annihilate to have that effect.
Ethically, the situation is complex but not unclear. Acknowledging the wrongdoing of one actor does not absolve another. All parties in a conflict must be held responsible for endangering civilians. But moral clarity requires naming harms specifically. Environmental destruction is a distinct harm. It lasts beyond ceasefires. It shapes the future. It must be addressed directly.
A just response to Gaza’s crisis must begin with rigorous documentation. It must include immediate humanitarian interventions: clean water, decontamination, safe waste management, and emergency repairs to sewage networks. It must also offer legal pathways for accountability and reparations, which are the pathways that recognise ecological destruction as harm done to people’s health, livelihood, and cultural life.
There is also a challenge of vision. Reconstruction often focuses on buildings and roads, but ecological recovery is slower. Trees must regrow. Soil must heal. Water must be restored. Fisheries must regenerate. Without ecological planning, reconstruction becomes superficial and risks entrenching new forms of control instead of enabling recovery.
Gaza’s ruined seasons show that war destroys not only lives and buildings, but the foundations of life itself. The devastation of Gaza’s environment is not incidental; it is central. It demands an equally comprehensive legal, political, and moral response.
If international law is to keep pace with reality, it must name what is happening: genocide, ecocide, erasure. And then it must act through accountability, repair, and the redevelopment of Gaza.
