“What we are doing to the forests of the world is but a mirror reflection of what we are doing to ourselves and to one another.”
In the heart of Palestine’s rich heritage lies a story not often told—a narrative drenched in environmental struggles. As Israel’s policies cast a shadow over the land, the environmental concerns, if unaddressed, loom as a dangerous precedent for not only the region but the world.
The struggle between Palestine and Israel, a long-standing and deeply rooted issue, has yielded far-reaching consequences, not only on the infringement of human rights protections for the people across the region but also on the environment. As the images and reports flood mainstream media, there is a lack of concern in addressing the environmental impact of decades-long warfare in the Middle East, with scenes of dumped waste, collapsed buildings, and rusted cars. The Palestinian territories, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip have borne witness to the exacerbation of this environmental degradation as a result of Israel’s military tactics in Palestinian territory. Ongoing conflict, movement restrictions, and resource control have led to environmental sustainability and protections being sidelined. These detrimental impacts act as a kind of collective punishment that extends to the environment. Despite Israel and Palestine’s commitments to reduce anthropogenic impacts on the climate, projected emissions were greater than the annual CO2 emissions of 20 individual countries and territories.
Furthermore, other looming environmental concerns include the degradation of olive trees and water control within the region. Collective action from the international community is required to address the overlooked environmental challenges and promote sustainability, particularly in Gaza. Calling for a ceasefire is not only crucial to mitigate the loss of innocent civilian life, but it is also fundamental for the preservation and rehabilitation of the environment in Palestine. The environmental degradation that comes from warfare must stand as another rationale for a ceasefire while also re-enforcing accountability to climate change agreements.
Olive Tree Degradation
Culturally, olive trees symbolize resilience, endurance, and rootedness in the land. The tradition of olive cultivation has been passed down through generations, fostering a sense of continuity and heritage among Palestinian families. The annual olive harvest also serves as a communal activity, bringing together families and communities to celebrate and preserve their cultural identity. Economically, olives and olive oil are vital components of the Palestinian agricultural sector, providing a livelihood for many families. Further, the olive tree’s ability to thrive in the region’s challenging environmental conditions, such as drought and poor soil quality, not only underscores its economic value but also represents Palestinian resilience.
Since 1967, over 2.5 million trees have been removed in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, with nearly one million olive trees among them. This represents the loss of a crucial source of sustenance and income for numerous Palestinians. The Israeli army, often supporting settlers, has consistently targeted Palestinian farmers, especially during the olive harvest, to make space for settlements. As illegal settlements extend further, the deliberate targeting of olive trees themselves has proved to be a significant driver to the displacement of Palestinians, who are denied the full use of—and even access to—their land.
This loss not only impacts the immediate livelihoods of Palestinian farmers but also contributes to ecological imbalances, threatening biodiversity, increasing soil erosion, and exacerbating environmental degradation. According to the International Olive Council, the olive tree absorbs 11 kg of CO2 per liter of olive oil produced, thereby leading to a subsequent increase in food insecurity, aesthetic degradation, and loss of vegetation.
The Collapse of Water and Sanitation Systems
Following the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip in 1967, Israel gained full control over all water resources and related infrastructure in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Since Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, the escalation of violence has exacerbated Gaza’s existing water insecurity, with water production plummeting to merely 5%. Current assessments by the United Nations reveal that the majority of Gazans are surviving on a mere one to three liters of water per day, significantly below the international emergency standard of 15 liters per day. Desperation has driven many to resort to consuming untreated water. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) estimates a minimum of 100,000 cubic meters of sewage and wastewater is discharged daily onto land or into the Mediterranean Sea.
Gaza’s water security heavily relies on external sources. Gaza primarily sources crucial fuel imports from Israel and Egypt to extract, treat, and distribute water and wastewater. Gaza received approximately 9% of its water directly from Israel through three pipelines. After October 7, Israel completely halted this supply for 17 days, reopening two pipelines afterward but with reduced flow. Further, Israel has imposed restrictions on the supply of equipment necessary to enhance Gaza’s water infrastructure, citing concerns about potential dual-use for weapon production. These limitations, coupled with frequent conflicts and infrastructure destruction, have made donors hesitant to invest in Gaza’s water and sanitation systems, further exacerbating the region’s water security challenges.
Although there has been a partial resumption of water supply to select areas in southern Gaza, alongside some water now entering from Egypt, these efforts are still insufficient to meet the needs of the population. Many residents must rely on the contaminated local water sources, and the United Nations reports that over 96% of the water in Gaza is deemed “unfit for human consumption.” The blockade’s enduring impact has resulted in severe water shortages, contamination, and health-related challenges, fostering a public health crisis in Gaza, which has also seen the destruction of critical infrastructure, such as water pumps, wastewater treatment plants, and a Gaza power plant that supplied one-third of the region’s energy needs. These actions contribute to soil, water, and air pollution, exacerbating the overall environmental degradation in the territory.
Following the establishment of a “Joint Water Commission” (JWC) as outlined in the Oslo Accords, the World Bank highlighted in 2009 that Israel maintains “almost all the authority,” including veto power, over the water resources of the West Bank. While the JWC frequently approves Israeli-proposed projects to benefit settlers, it has rejected numerous Palestinian-initiated projects, including all requests to drill in the Western Aquifer Basin. Israelis often have permission to drill deeper into the Aquifer, construct internal settlement water networks without JWC approval, and extract water without limits when it flows downstream into Israel without needing JWC approval, whereas Palestinians are subjected to strict extraction quotas. Further, even though promises were made in the Oslo Accords of 1995 to improve Palestinian access to water, Palestinian extraction rates have largely stayed consistent with pre-Oslo levels despite the growing population.
Adhering to International Law
International law, particularly the principles outlined in the Protection of the Environment in Relation to Armed Conflicts, provides a framework for how the environment should be managed under armed conflict. As the Occupying Power, Israel has a responsibility to implement appropriate measures to prevent grave environmental harm in the occupied territories. Pursuant to Principle 19, Israel bears the responsibility of safeguarding the environment of the occupied territory, taking steps to prevent significant environmental damage that could affect the health and well-being of the local population. This obligation includes ensuring the protection of natural resources, protection of the persons of the occupying territories, and mitigating the impacts of military activities on local ecosystems. Additionally, Principle 20 requires that any use of natural resources in Gaza should be done sustainably and in a manner that benefits the local population while minimizing harm. These principles further stress the significance of not only minimizing but also preventing transboundary harm, as outlined in Principle 21. Israel must take into account the much broader environmental impact of its actions that gravely contribute to wider global environmental challenges.
Further, the U.N. Security Council Resolution 465 of 1980 states “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.” Additionally, Resolution 2334 reaffirms Israel’s obligations and condemns actions such as “the construction and expansion of settlements, transfer of Israeli settlers, confiscation of land, demolition of homes, and displacement of Palestinian civilians,” all of which are deemed violations of international humanitarian law and relevant resolutions.
Israel’s failure to adhere to these provisions is evident in its ongoing settlement expansion, which disregards Palestinian land rights and environmental concerns. This expansion leads to the confiscation of Palestinian land, destruction of natural habitats, and disruption of ecosystems, further exacerbating environmental degradation in Occupied Palestine.
Conclusion
A permanent ceasefire and a return of the hostages would serve as a crucial step in preventing further damage to olive trees and water infrastructure in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, restoring access to water, and furthering peace in the region. It would halt the ongoing violence and destruction, allowing efforts to be redirected toward repairing the damaged olive groves and reviving water systems. Moreover, the stability provided by a ceasefire would create an environment conducive to implementing sustainable environmental policies. These policies would include initiatives to replant olive trees, promote soil conservation, and manage water resources effectively, thus safeguarding these vital resources for Palestinian communities.
Furthermore, achieving freedom for Palestine is critical for protecting the rights of Palestinian communities to their land and natural resources, thereby achieving environmental justice. This environmental justice dimension engenders the duty of the environmentalist to advocate for Palestine liberation, the return of all hostages, and a permanent ceasefire. If colonial forces continue to exist, the threat to the climate will persist.
“The path to climate justice travels through a free Palestine.”
If you wish to provide comments on this piece, please send your thoughts to pelracq@law.pace.edu