Before addressing, from the perspective of international law, the crimes of the Zionist regime and the possible solutions and legal remedies at the international level, it is important first to examine how this regime was formed and then consider the legal and international consequences that apply to it.
In the history of international law, the drafting of the 1945 UN Charter marked the beginning of what became known as the era of decolonization—an era shaped through the initiative of the United Nations. In 1960, with the resolution on decolonization, this process formally began. Under the supervision of the UN Trusteeship Council, the Security Council, and the General Assembly, it was established that countries under colonial rule or territories whose autonomy had not been secured should, with the cooperation of the colonial powers, be granted independence. In fact, the term used was that the country should be returned to its rightful owners. The people of that country were to own their destiny, determine it both internally and externally, and achieve independence.
In many parts of the world, this process succeeded — in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. Colonial powers such as France, England, and others eventually yielded, and under the UN system of decolonization, new states declared their independence. The rightful owners of those lands became the legitimate states. Examples include Algeria, Ghana, and others, as well as countries in our own region such as Jordan and Lebanon.
But in the case of Palestine — where Palestinians, including followers of different Abrahamic religions, had lived for centuries as the rightful owners of the land in peaceful coexistence and with a high degree of tolerance — the process was different. British colonialism, which controlled Jordan and Palestine, instead of including Palestine in the decolonization process, provided intelligence support, military assistance, and other destructive and terrorist means to Jewish immigrants — Zionist immigrants, in fact — who had fled Europe after the events of the time. These groups were brought into Palestinian lands, and the process of recognizing and declaring an independent Palestinian state was disrupted. Instead, the Israeli regime was established, and the consequences of this continue to this day.
From its inception, since it was based on seizure, conquest of territory, and the use of force and terrorist acts, the regime quickly began occupying the lands of the rightful owners. Two wars followed — the second, in 1967, being far more significant, as the Arabs suffered a heavy defeat. Territories in Egypt, the Sinai Desert, the Golan Heights in Jordan, parts of Syria, and various areas within Palestine itself came under occupation.
At that time, the UN Security Council issued a binding resolution that used the term "occupier" for the regime based in the occupied territories. The resolution required this regime to withdraw to its previous borders—though even those earlier boundaries were disputed. Yet to this very day, as we speak, this binding resolution continues to be violated.
From the perspective of international law—particularly under the 1960 decolonization resolution, along with other international legal principles including the Geneva Conventions (especially Common Article 3 regarding self-determination)—nations recognized under international law have the right to resist. They may engage in armed struggle against any force that obstructs their decolonization or right to self-determination.
This is why the Palestinian Liberation Movement emerged, alongside other resistance organizations with Palestinian and Islamic orientations that have fought—and continue to fight—against the occupiers. Groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, with their political offices and military wings, operate under this legal framework. International law explicitly grants them the right to resist the occupation regime and take action to reclaim their lands. Some legal scholars even argue that preemptive action against occupying, racist regimes constitutes legitimate self-defense—a rare exception in international law.
The Israeli regime embodies all these condemned characteristics. First, it is fundamentally racist—structured around a specific race and ideology where Zionist-infused Judaism serves as its foundation. Second, it is a foreign implant: Prime Minister Netanyahu, this regime's criminal leader, wasn't even born in "Israel" (a non-existent entity at his birth)—he was born in Poland, like many other settlers.
They are imported populations without indigenous ties to the land—many of Russian or African origin, arriving with Zionist ideology. They fabricated a so-called "state" that fails to meet the Montevideo Convention's criteria: a legitimate nation requires indigenous roots and historical connection to the land—not colonization of an already inhabited territory.
Those who came into Palestinian territory entered a land with rightful owners: the Palestinian people, who were under British colonial rule in terms of foreign affairs. They were under a Mandate Council—first during the League of Nations era, then under the United Nations.
Now, the next point: racism, foreignness, and colonialism. These elements came within the colonial system, were supported by it, and still persist. Together, they justify the right of the people of the land to resist the racist occupier and foreign regime. Liberation movements such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad, therefore, have recognized international rights and obligations.
The question is whether the Zionist regime can carry out large-scale actions against the Palestinian people and call it “self-defense” or “legitimate defense.”
As defined in Article 51 of the UN Charter, legitimate defense is conditional: it must be in response to a prior attack, limited by urgency, proportionality, and necessity, and used only to repel that aggression.
So, in the context of Palestine, can the actions of the Palestinian people against the Zionist regime be called preemptive aggression that justifies self-defense? The answer is no. Any action against an occupier or colonizer is itself a form of defense, not an attack.
Another point: since the Zionist regime is an occupying power—and this is recognized in the 1967 UN Security Council resolution—can it, even under the claim of self-defense, violate the Four Geneva Conventions? Doing so amounts to committing war crimes. Any violation of the Geneva Conventions can result in war crimes or crimes against humanity.
This leads to the central question: has the Israeli regime crossed into committing clear crimes? The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, which established a court with complementary jurisdiction, is relevant here. At present, Netanyahu is being prosecuted by this court, though international attention remains limited and political obstacles persist.
The essential point is that specific elements must be present for prosecution. In the case of Netanyahu and the Zionist regime, these elements are visible. Their actions reflect the deliberate targeting of a defined group—the Palestinian people in Gaza—with the goal of ethnic cleansing, elimination, and eradication. This intent is evident in both the statements and the actions of the regime.
This is happening while we face extreme inaction from the United Nations—especially the Security Council, the High Commissioner for Human Rights, and others who are paralyzed and incapable of fulfilling their responsibilities. We often hear the UN Secretary-General say that war has rules. Yet, no rules are being respected there—nor have they ever been.
Even if we assume—for the sake of argument—that the regime is acting in some form of defense, it has in no way observed proportionality. Just look at the images coming out of Gaza today—no commentary is needed. Do you see any distinction being made? None. There is no distinction between military and civilian targets. Large numbers of women and children have been killed. People are living in tents because the buildings are already destroyed. This proves they have disregarded the principle of distinction—one of the key tenets of humanitarian law. Violating it amounts to a war crime, yet they persist.
It is the duty of the High Commissioner and of the Red Cross—as a global organization which, though non-governmental, is highly influential and issues humanitarian law directives—to safeguard humanitarian rights during armed conflicts. They must follow up on these violations and seriously demand accountability. They should pressure the United Nations to act. The negligence we are witnessing has left international law without credibility, due to the actions of this regime.
Furthermore, the regime’s crimes extend beyond its own borders. For example, its actions against us during the imposed 12-day war are undoubtedly cases of aggression and war crimes. According to Article 39 of the UN Charter, when the Security Council confirms such violations, it must take decisions—whether to impose sanctions or to respond collectively under Articles 41 and 42. When crimes of aggression and war crimes are confirmed, they also fall within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court under the Rome Statute. The question is whether the ICC has fulfilled its mandate and truly pursued accountability in these cases.
Beyond that, the attacks against us were not only acts of aggression but also crimes under the Geneva Conventions and Red Cross directives. You know well that even if a military person is targeted, if they are not engaged in combat and are in a civilian area, striking them is a crime—a crime against humanity. Yet the regime has targeted both civilians and military personnel indiscriminately, even at times when no active conflict existed. This is undoubtedly a crime against humanity.
What makes it worse is that, even assuming aggression alone, which we have already proven, the regime has committed a range of crimes—a collection of grave violations and breaches of peremptory norms of international law—leaving no space for justification or non-compliance.
The invasion and attack themselves violate the fundamental prohibition on the use of force—an indisputable breach of peremptory norms, amounting to both a crime and an act of aggression. Even more egregiously, this aggression targeted highly sensitive facilities—those under the strictest supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Safeguards. These facilities, due to their radioactive nature, pose catastrophic and irreversible risks to human life and the environment. Their safeguards exist precisely to prevent genocide and crimes against humanity. Yet, during the invasion, these very sites were attacked—deliberate strikes on locations with devastating humanitarian consequences, constituting yet another crime against humanity.
To hold the perpetrators accountable, we must turn to the mechanisms available:
First, on the issue of aggression—while the Security Council has failed to act decisively on Gaza and our case, the "Uniting for Peace" resolution remains a viable path. This resolution, which proved effective in the Korean crisis, can be activated through diplomatic pressure, bypassing the paralyzed Security Council via the General Assembly.
Second, the regime’s actions—in Gaza, across the region, and within our own borders—must be recognized as state terrorism. This is not mere violence but organized terrorism: systematic planning, intelligence operations, and deliberate and indiscriminate attacks.
Take, for example, the assassinations of our scientists and the attacks in Ghods Square, Tajrish, Tehran. What possible justification exists for targeting civilians, striking Tehran’s water supply, and inflicting terror on a defenseless population? These were not military operations—they were massacres designed to spread fear and deny basic rights. Such acts are unambiguous crimes against humanity, carried out through terrorism—not random violence, but calculated, organized terror.
Addressing the issue of organized terrorism requires more than political statements; it demands the activation of existing international mechanisms. The global community already has a legal framework — often referred to as the terrorism regime — that must be put into operation. The UN Security Council should engage with this framework extensively, ensuring that acts of terrorism and associated crimes are properly documented.
At the same time, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights must pay greater attention to crimes that have escalated in Gaza. According to legal experts, what began as a humanitarian crisis has long surpassed the threshold of genocide. Today, the situation in Gaza constitutes clear crimes against humanity. The scale of destruction, the intensity of attacks, and the staggering number of casualties demonstrate that these actions are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic pattern of violence.
The ongoing operations are carried out indiscriminately and with increasing brutality. The level of devastation cannot be described merely as an attempt to eliminate a specific group — that stage was crossed months ago. What is unfolding now represents a blatant violation of international law, breaching every principle of human rights, humanitarian law, and the provisions of the Rome Statute.
In this context, documentation becomes the most urgent and effective tool. By recording evidence and maintaining consistent correspondence with international institutions, the crimes can be brought into sharper global focus. Moreover, governments should be encouraged to join existing legal complaints. Several states have already supported South Africa’s case at the International Court of Justice regarding violations of the Genocide Convention. Pressure should also increase on the International Criminal Court’s prosecutor to address new dimensions of these crimes, which threaten not only the Middle East but the stability and security of humanity as a whole.
The international community cannot afford silence. Documentation, collective legal action, and persistent engagement with global bodies remain essential steps in confronting these unprecedented crimes.
By Seyed Hossein Mousavifar, Assistant Professor of International Law at Ferdowsi University of Mashhad
This article was presented at the conference on “Israeli State Terrorism” held on the occasion of the Iran’s National Day of Fight against Terrorism, organized by Habilian Association.