A legal perspective on the day after in Gaza

Discussing the “day after” in Gaza should not be limited to clearing the rubble or reconstruction. Rather, it is a moral and legal question that imposes itself on the region and the entire international community. The day after should involve trials, similar to the Nuremberg trials that followed World War II after the persecution of Jews in Germany and Poland.

In Nuremberg, the evidence was based on bones, clothing, and survivor testimonies. In Gaza, the evidence is photographed and documented in audio and video, on every mobile phone, recording the systematic genocide that the Israeli occupation committed against Palestinians.

What has happened in Gaza since 7 October, 2023, cannot be described as war, as wars have rules. What has happened and is happening is a genocidal war, with clear intent and systematic action. It is an unprecedented humanitarian and legal tragedy in the modern era. In order for the international system to regain its balance, real accountability is essential, one that restores justice to the victims and puts an end to the policies of impunity.

The Nuremberg trials were not just a trial of Nazi-era leaders; they established new legal values, most notably the principle of individual responsibility for international crimes and the eradication of immunity for anyone, regardless of their position. This is what the “day after” in Gaza should look like.

Israeli impunity: Genocide, occupation and apartheid

The actions of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, which included the most extremist members of Israeli society, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, surpassed Hitler’s brutality, employing the most modern tools of genocide. Gas ovens were not used, but rather advanced American bombs to incinerate people and farms before the lenses of the world’s cameras, in a live broadcast documenting the deliberate mass killing of civilians, the use of starvation as a weapon of war, and the systematic destruction of hospitals, schools, and camps for the displaced. All of these actions are war crimes, as defined by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).

Live documentation of genocide is also a form of state terrorism, as defined by law. Terrorism is not limited to killing but includes spreading terror and intimidating people with the threat of a similar fate. When the Israeli defence minister said he was “fighting human animals”, he wasn’t just referring to the residents of Gaza, but to all Arabs, as evidenced by the slogans of Israeli demonstrators chanting “Death to the Arabs.”

Israel’s Defence Minister Yaov Gallant: ‘We are fighting human animals’

Yaov Gallant has ordered the complete closure of the Gaza Strip, including a ban on the entry of food, water, fuel or access to electricity. pic.twitter.com/4v3GN4RYfJ

— Middle East Monitor (@MiddleEastMnt) October 9, 2023

The real “day after” cannot merely be a political or humanitarian phase; it must be a legal and moral moment, separating the victim from the killer, holding them accountable rather than equating them.

“October 7” has been spun by the West as Israel’s “September 11,” even though the victims of America’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan are hundreds of times more in number than the victims of September 11, 2001. However, this date has been used to justify the genocide of Palestinians and the policies of ethnic cleansing and settlement.

October 7 cannot be separated from the context of the comprehensive military occupation that has been ongoing for decades. Under international law, resistance to occupation, including the use of force against military targets, is a legitimate right, as defined by the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocol I of 1977, which went into effect in December 1978.

The Israeli response after October 7 went beyond the limits of law and humanity, using excessive and destructive force against civilians, destroying infrastructure, and imposing a blockade and starvation lasting nearly two years. This is the collective punishment of an entire nation. It is morally and legally unacceptable to liken acts of resistance under occupation to these widespread crimes.

The major question today is not one regarding rebuilding Gaza, but rather regarding justice for Gaza. The Arab world can move forward through three main avenues: the International Criminal Court, which has jurisdiction over the Palestinian territories and opened an investigation in 2014 but faces political pressure that obstructs justice. This requires international support to expedite the investigation and ensure accountability.

The second avenue is establishing a special international tribunal – such as in Yugoslavia and Rwanda – to prosecute the crimes committed in Gaza within an independent and binding legal framework.

The third is activating the principle of universal jurisdiction, so that criminals can be tried before courts in countries that permit it, such as Belgium and Spain. This is a realistic avenue that has proven effective in previous cases.

Justice is not limited to governments, as it requires Arab civil society to document crimes, collect evidence, and submit files to support accountability processes. There is no peace without justice.

The anti-justice camp claims that accountability hinders “peace” efforts, but past experience proves that settlements which are not based on justice do not produce lasting peace, but merely temporary ceasefires. In Rwanda, reconciliation did not begin until accountability was achieved, and in Bosnia, stability was achieved only after the trial of military leaders.

Justice and the law are the foundations of the Palestinian state that Arabs aspire to establish. There is no state without a legal system. The “day after” in Gaza is not a moment of physical reconstruction, but rather a legal and moral moment. If the world fails to serve justice to the victims of the genocide in Gaza, it will make the idea of ​​peace between Arabs and Israel difficult.

READ: UN rights chief: Deadly attacks on Gaza aid sites ‘unconscionable’

This article first appeared in Arabic in Al-Sharq Al-Awsat on 2 June 2025

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.