MADRID - As Israel continues its bombardment of Gaza, destroying infrastructure and flattening homes in the West Bank, many signatory nations of the Geneva Conventions and the Genocide Convention are still supplying oil to Israel. According to legal experts, this commercial relationship could implicate them as accomplices in the severe crimes being committed against the Palestinian people.

An investigation by Oil Change highlights how the ongoing and increasing provision of oil is fueling the genocide against Palestinians. Based on data published in March, the investigation reveals that despite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion in January, which suggests that Israel is likely committing genocide and that Palestinians in Gaza have plausible claims under the Genocide Convention, countries and companies continue to supply Israel's war machinery. Additionally, in July, the ICJ declared that the occupation of Palestinian territory is illegal. This analysis underscores the persistent complicity of these countries and companies.

Since the start of the airstrikes on Gaza in October, four tanker ships carrying jet fuel for U.S. combat aircraft have been sent to Israel, primarily for military use. Nearly 80% of the jet fuel, diesel, and other refined petroleum products supplied to Israel by the U.S. in the past nine months were delivered after the January ruling.

The United States remains a key provider of jet fuel to Israel, crucial for its military operations. Shipments come from the Valero refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas. Between October 21, 2023, and July 12, 2024, 65 shipments of crude oil and refined products were delivered to Israel, with 35 of these (54%) occurring after the ICJ’s January 26, 2024, ruling which affirmed plausible rights for Palestinians in Gaza under the Genocide Convention.

The investigation also reveals that countries such as Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Gabon, Nigeria, Brazil, the Republic of Congo, and Italy have supplied 4.1 million tons of crude oil to Israel, with nearly half of these shipments made after the ICJ's ruling.

From a corporate perspective, private oil companies and their investors are implicated in this complicity through their operations and stakes in projects supplying oil to Israel. These companies provide 66% of the oil Israel receives, with six major international firms—including Chevron (8%), BP (8%), ExxonMobil (6%), Shell (5%), Eni (4%), and TotalEnergies (5%)—accounting for more than half of this supply. According to some legal scholars, these companies could be held responsible for complicity in acts of genocide in light of the ICJ’s ruling.

Following the release of these findings, several UN experts and international law specialists have called for an energy embargo to prevent further human rights violations against the Palestinian people. Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in the occupied Palestinian territories, emphasized that, under international law, states have an obligation to prevent genocide and uphold the Geneva Conventions. Albanese warned that, concerning the shipment of jet fuel from the U.S., there are substantial grounds to suspect violations of the Genocide Convention, given the failure to comply with the ICJ’s January ruling and its provisional measures.

From an international law perspective, it is essential to recall that the International Court of Justice (ICJ) established in the Bosnia v. Serbia case that a state can be deemed complicit in genocide if its organs were aware that genocide was ongoing or imminent. In such cases, assistance provided to the perpetrators of criminal acts may facilitate the commission of those acts. Therefore, the obligation to refrain from complicity begins when a state becomes aware of a serious risk of genocide. The ICJ’s order on January 26, which identified a “real and imminent risk of irreparable harm to rights that the Court deems plausible,” indicates that states are now aware of the risk of genocide in Gaza.

States must consider that their military or other forms of assistance to Israeli operations in Gaza could imply complicity in genocide, according to the Genocide Convention. Similarly, corporations and their executives could be directly responsible for acts of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

Article VI of the Convention stipulates that "persons" can be held responsible for genocidal acts, encompassing both individual businesspersons and corporations as legal entities. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) does not have jurisdiction over legal entities, company personnel, as individuals from States Parties to the Rome Statute, may fall under its jurisdiction. According to Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute, the ICC has the authority to prosecute those who facilitate the commission of crimes, including through the provision of means.

The prohibition against committing genocide is a non-derogable norm, applicable to all parties, including corporations. In armed conflict situations, additional international humanitarian law and international criminal law norms apply to corporations and individual business leaders, who must assess whether their activities contribute to severe human rights violations or international crimes.

Weapons, ammunition, vehicles, and other military supplies, including spare parts, technology, and fuel, are fundamental to the operations of Israel's air force, ground forces, and navy. Consequently, these supplies play a critical role in violations of international humanitarian law and genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza.

This issue extends beyond just petroleum. For instance, Caterpillar, a U.S. company specializing in construction, mining, and engineering, is supplying Israel with D9 armored bulldozers. These machines are essential for the ground invasion of Gaza and the destruction of Palestinian civilian buildings and other infrastructure along the Gaza Strip border. In February, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk condemned the Israeli military’s destruction of all buildings within a kilometer of the Israel-Gaza border to create a “buffer zone,” stating that this does not conform to the strict “military necessity” exception under international humanitarian law. Türk also emphasized that the “extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out in an unlawful and arbitrary manner, constitutes a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention and a war crime.”

Companies supplying these resources and their personnel could face accusations of complicity in genocide and other international crimes, both in their home countries and in international tribunals. Specifically, companies providing jet fuel and oil to Israel may be offering material support to the Israeli military, fully aware of the foreseeable harmful effects, and thus could be held responsible for complicity in war crimes, genocide, and other violations of international law. David Boyd, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and the Environment, warned: “Countries and companies that have continued to supply oil to the Israeli military since the International Court of Justice’s decision are contributing to serious human rights violations and could be complicit in genocide.”

Companies and states must immediately suspend any activities or financial ties that may contribute, directly or indirectly, to the ongoing crimes committed by Israeli authorities. They must also halt any operations for which they cannot implement effective measures to prevent or mitigate negative impacts. Companies whose products, services, or activities are directly linked to serious human rights violations in Gaza have a responsibility to act swiftly and in accordance with international legal standards.

In this context, countries and major oil companies supplying fuel for Israel’s war machinery are indirectly implicated in the ongoing genocide against the Palestinian people. By providing fuel for the Israeli military and conducting numerous arms sales, the United States, in particular, must be held accountable for potential violations of international law.