Imran Khalid
A lesser-known dimension of Israel’s ongoing occupation of Palestine since 1967 is the systematic destruction of the Palestinian people’s economic resources and means of livelihood. One of the most important sources of income for Palestinians is olive cultivation – so much so that the olive tree is regarded as one of Palestine’s national symbols. Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish captured this symbolism in his famous words: “Here we remain, as long as thyme and olives remain.”
Beyond its symbolic value, the olive tree is the main source of income for nearly 80,000 Palestinian families. According to UN data, about 48% of the agricultural land in the West Bank and Gaza is covered with olive trees. Olive production contributes around 14% to the Palestinian economy. About 93% of harvested olives are used for olive oil production, while the remainder is used to make soap, table olives, and pickles.
Usurpation of olive trees: Israel’s assault on nature and identity
Recently, Israeli settlers in the West Bank prevented Palestinians from harvesting olives, an essential source of livelihood, and destroyed 13,000 olive trees. Such actions, either directly committed or condoned by Israeli authorities, are known and documented as systematic practices.
According to various international reports, Israel has destroyed around 800,000 olive trees over the past 20 years, and more than 2.5 million trees since 1967.
Palestinians face great difficulty in harvesting and protecting their olive trees. Since the Oslo Accords, Israel has exercised full control over 60% of the West Bank and requires Palestinians entering these areas to obtain a “permit issued by Israeli authorities.”
Farmers are therefore forced to secure permission to access their own land, but this permit system is largely arbitrary. There are no clear criteria specifying what conditions Palestinian applicants must meet to obtain a permit.
Even when they provide ownership documents and pass “security” checks, permits are often issued only to the person named on the deed, excluding other family members from entering the land. The permits are typically short-term, and each time they expire, farmers must reapply without any guarantee of renewal.
According to UN data, nearly half of permit applications are rejected on arbitrary grounds, turning the system into a policy of harassment and attrition. The same restrictive policy applies to bringing in agricultural necessities such as tractors, equipment, and fertilizers.
Over time, many Palestinians who once cultivated other crops have converted their land into olive groves, since olive trees can survive even without intensive care.
How Israel’s seizure of olive trees violates international law
The destruction of olive trees in the occupied Palestinian territories occurs almost every year. Thousands of trees are destroyed annually during Israeli military operations or through attacks by settlers. Such incidents are rarely taken seriously or investigated by police or other public authorities.
Israeli soldiers frequently fail to protect Palestinians from settler attacks and, in many cases, act against the Palestinians themselves when they try to defend their land and trees.
In fact, the destruction of Palestinian farmlands and olive trees violates international law. Even Israel’s own Supreme Court has recognized the illegality of arbitrary practices in the “Morar v. IDF Commander” case.
In that case, Palestinian farmers appealed to the Israeli Supreme Court after a military commander denied them access to their farmland. The commander claimed the closure was intended to “protect Palestinian farmers from settler harassment.” The plaintiffs argued, however, that Israeli settlers systematically harass, assault, and damage the property of Palestinian villagers, while the Israeli army fails to intervene to stop this violence or take necessary measures to protect Palestinians and their agricultural products.
The court ruled that the army must take steps to prevent settler violence, stating that the proper way to protect Palestinian farmers from harassment is for Israeli military authorities to implement necessary security measures and impose restrictions on the settlers responsible for unlawful actions. Nevertheless, Israeli authorities continue to disregard their own court’s ruling and persist with arbitrary practices.
Under international humanitarian law, causing environmental damage as a military tactic is prohibited. The law stipulates that “care shall be taken to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term, and severe damage during armed conflict.” This protection includes prohibiting methods or means of warfare that are intended – or expected – to cause such damage, as these may endanger the health or survival of the population.
Palestinian territories have been under Israeli occupation since 1967. This ongoing occupation constitutes a “continuing act of aggression,” and under the provisions of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, imposes obligations on the occupying power.
The occupying power is responsible for ensuring a secure environment that allows the local population to meet its daily needs, and must protect civilians against looting and destruction of property.
Moreover, the damages caused by Israel – an apartheid regime – to the environment and to olive trees are considered war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.
UN Security Council resolutions also emphasize that Israel must refrain from harming the environment and is obligated to prevent settler provocations. Israel has repeatedly violated these obligations and continues to act in breach of international law.
It is known that Israel’s policy of destroying olive trees aims both to make its occupation permanent and to clear land for the establishment of future settlements. Therefore, Israel’s environmental crimes should be added to the cases currently being pursued against it at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect our editorial policy.
