State terrorism, defined as the systematic use of violence and intimidation by governments to achieve political and military objectives, has been widely debated in international legal circles. Unlike non-state terrorist groups, states engaging in acts of terror often justify their actions under the guise of national security or self-defense. Israel’s military operations, particularly in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, raise serious concerns under international law, including violations of the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and customary international law.

This article provides a legal analysis of Israel's actions through the lens of international treaties, conventions, and case law, highlighting the implications of state terrorism in the occupied Palestinian territories and beyond.

Legal Definition of State Terrorism

While international law does not have a universally agreed-upon definition of state terrorism, it is generally understood as the use of unlawful violence by a government against civilians to spread fear or achieve political dominance. The 1994 UN General Assembly Declaration on Measures to Eliminate International Terrorism (A/RES/49/60) explicitly condemns “State-sponsored or State-perpetrated terrorism” and urges adherence to international humanitarian and human rights law.

The 1997 International Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (UNGA Res. 52/164) criminalizes attacks against civilians, defining terrorism as acts “intended to cause death or serious bodily injury to civilian when the purpose of such an act, by its nature or context, is to intimidate a population or compel a government or international organization to act or abstain from acting.”

Israel's military campaigns, particularly in Gaza, have been accused of aligning with this definition, given their impact on civilians, infrastructure, and governance structures.

Targeted Killings: Violations of International Law

Israel has a long-standing policy of targeted assassinations, which it claims are necessary for national security. However, under international law, extrajudicial killings violate multiple legal frameworks:

1. Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) (1966) prohibits arbitrary deprivation of life, stating, “No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.” The UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) has affirmed that targeted assassinations violate this right unless they occur in an armed conflict and comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
2. The UN Principles on the Effective Prevention and Investigation of Extra-Legal, Arbitrary, and Summary Executions (1989) require that any use of lethal force by the state be subject to judicial review. Assassinations without due process, such as drone strikes in Lebanon in February 2025 targeting Hezbollah figures, violate these principles.
3. Case Law: Nicaragua v. United States (1986, ICJ)-The International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that state-sponsored assassinations and acts of violence against another state's territory violate the principles of non-intervention and sovereignty under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Israel’s repeated attacks in Syria and Lebanon could be interpreted under the same framework.

Collective Punishment in Gaza: War Crimes under the Geneva Conventions

Israel’s military blockade of Gaza, its bombing of civilian infrastructure, and mass displacement of Palestinians have been described as collective punishment-a war crime under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), which states:

“No protected person may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.”

Further legal violations include:

• Siege and Starvation Warfare:
• Article 54 of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the Geneva Conventions prohibits the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. Reports from the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) indicate that the Israeli blockade has led to severe shortages of food, medical supplies, and clean water, exacerbating a humanitarian crisis.
• Indiscriminate Bombing and Proportionality Violations:
• Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I prohibits indiscriminate attacks that fail to distinguish between civilian and military targets.
• Case Law: Prosecutor v. Milan Martić (ICTY, 2007) ruled that indiscriminate attacks on civilian areas constitute war crimes. Israel’s 2024 airstrikes, which targeted hospitals, schools, and refugee camps, raise similar legal concerns.

Lebanon and the Violation of Sovereignty

Israel’s military actions in Lebanon, particularly drone strikes targeting Hezbollah officials and civilians, constitute violations of state sovereignty and international law. Key legal principles include:

1. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter:

• The prohibition of the use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state.
• Case Law: Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (ICJ, 2005) confirmed that military incursions without host-state consent constitute an act of aggression.

2. Violation of Lebanese Airspace:

• The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation (1944) (Article 1) guarantees every state complete sovereignty over its airspace.
• Israel’s unauthorized military flights over Lebanon have been condemned by UN Security Council Resolution 1701 (2006), which reaffirmed Lebanon’s territorial integrity.

Failure of International Accountability

Despite numerous documented violations, Israel has largely evaded legal accountability due to political shielding by Western allies, particularly the United States. Several international mechanisms exist to address state terrorism, but enforcement remains weak:

• UN Security Council Inaction: The U.S. has repeatedly vetoed resolutions condemning Israeli actions, preventing punitive measures.
• International Criminal Court (ICC) Jurisdiction:
• The ICC has jurisdiction over war crimes, but Israel is not a signatory to the Rome Statute (1998). However, in 2021, the ICC ruled that it has jurisdiction over crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territories, allowing potential investigations into Israeli officials.
• Case Precedent: Prosecutor v. Omar al-Bashir (ICC, 2009) established that even non-signatory states can face ICC scrutiny for crimes against humanity.

Conclusion: Upholding International Law Against State Terrorism

The legal framework governing state terrorism is clear, yet enforcement mechanisms remain weak when politically some actors like Israel are involved. The systematic use of targeted killings, collective punishment, and military aggression against sovereign nations demands legal scrutiny.

If the global community is serious about combating terrorism-whether by state or non-state actors-it must uphold international legal standards consistently. Israel’s actions must be subject to the same legal frameworks applied to other nations accused of war crimes and terrorism. The credibility of international law depends on its impartial enforcement.

As cases continue to be brought before international courts, the legal community must push for genuine accountability, ensuring that no state is above the rule of law.

Mahdi Soleimani, Political Analyst

 (The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)