The recent arrest warrant of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Benjamin Netanyahu, Yoav Galant, and Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri marked a significant moment in the history of Palestine/Israel. First, it breathed new life into the international criminal justice system, a critical (and often controversial) component of broader systems of international accountability. The system has faced accusations of systemicbias, particularly against leaders from the Global South, and has enduredattacks and sabotage from major global powers, notably the U.S. and Russia. The issuance of this warrant was a step in the right direction, though its actual effects remain uncertain.
Western-allied countries should not be exempt from accountability.
Second, it sent a much-needed message that Western-allied countries should not be exempt from accountability. Whether countries in the West, including Germany, Austria, and the U.S., will continue to shield Israel and its leaders diplomatically and legally, despite growing calls for action over violations of human rights, international humanitarian law and the Genocide Convention, remains an open question. Statements from some world leaders underscore the Global North’s uneasy relationship with the concept of historical justice, particularly when it implicates them or their allies. This reluctance to accept accountability and confrontdouble standards is not new, especially concerning crimes committed by European nations during and after colonialism. However, this time it pertains toa genocide unfolding in real-time, broadcast live to the world.
Third, it was also a reminder to us all that the key ingredient in a lasting, peaceful and dignified coexistence between all the people in South West Asia and North Africa (SWANA) is justice. While it is too early to predict the outcome of this international criminal proceeding, it is evident that a justice-oriented approach is the only plausible path to addressing the harm inflicted upon Palestinians by decades ofsystemic violence, racial discrimination and apartheid, displacement and dispossession.
Fourth, and particularly in the aftermath of Hamas’ attack on Israel on October 7, the warrants underscore the importance of addressing the profound fear, pain and loss experienced by many Israeli citizens. However, this cannot be achieved by perpetuating cycles of violence through the collective punishment and silencing of Palestinians and pro-Palestinian voices. If Israel and its staunch supporters truly seek security for everyone in the region,ethnic cleansing and genocide cannot be the solution to a problem rooted in the forced displacement and dispossession of the indigenous Palestinian population. In the face of questions about the “day after,” the suffering and pain of all people involved cannot be deferred to a later date. People and their dignity must come first.
An honest and radical commitment to truth and reconciliation is essential for Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side or together.
Transitional justice, which emerged after the atrocities committed during the Second World War, has since played a pivotal role in post-conflict situations, such as post-apartheid South Africa. Properly designed, it offers valuable analytical and practical frameworks for addressing the past and ending cycles of violence and discrimination. Whether through retributive or restorative measures, on an international or local scale, or through a combination of these approaches, an honest and radical commitment to truth and reconciliation is essential for Palestinians and Israelis to live side by side or together.
Matiangai V.S. SirleafdescribesPalestine as a “litmus test for transitional justice,” arguing that appeals to universal principles must be divorced from the hypocritical, often racialized, and selective application of the rule of law. The latter was starkly evident throughout 2024, including inthe contextof multiple ICJ orders regarding provisional measures on Israel and the responses to the ICC arrest warrants by European states, such as France, which openlycontradictedtheir previous stances on similar situations. Despite these concerns, mechanisms of transitional justice hold promise if they are led by the victims of injustice and dispossession and remain sensitive to the diverse contexts and narratives involved.
The ‘peace process’ and the folly of only looking forward
History and the pain of dispossession cannot be wished away as mere nuisances to be addressed later. Attempting to negotiate a complex issue in a space filled with unresolved grief and pain, compounded by stark power asymmetries – particularly given the unconditional military and diplomatic support of the U.S. for Israel and the increasingly uncertain backing of regional Arab nations for Palestinians – is challenging. However, this difficulty only underscores the importance of creating integrated spaces where deeply human emotions are acknowledged as central to discussions of peace.
Referring to the work of ASJ Park and Judith Butler, Brendan Ciaran Browneemphasizesthat efforts to recover truth in the context of violent dispossession and displacement must engage with “grief” as a political resource, driving “an agenda of decolonizing structural justice.” Such an approach fosters trust in the process and ensures that individuals and communities believe their long-term interests are genuinely prioritised. Expecting Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate without addressing their pain, mistrust, and trauma is unrealistic.
Transitional justice must be designed by and for the people it seeks to serve.
Peace processes must empower those most affected to feel ownership and ensure their narratives are acknowledged. Transitional justice must be designed by and for the people it seeks to serve, as only they truly understand the scars they bear and the need for collective healing. TheBADIL Resource Centre for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights argues that framing peace and reconciliation in this way is crucial for success; a perspective echoed by progressive Israeli activists and organizations such asZochrot. The latter maintains that true peace can only follow the decolonization of land, allowing all its inhabitants and refugees to “live without fear of deportation, oppression, or prevention of return.”
Unfortunately, many calls for resolving the conflict and initiating peace negotiations avoid addressing political reconciliation and meaningful restitution. This is often because “dealing with historical injustices,” such as the right of return for Palestinians or reparations for past crimes (especially the ones committed during the early days of the conflict),is seen as too contentious. These omissions perpetuate the ongoing cycles of violence and dispossession.
The early days of the state of Israel's were characterised by the displacement of the indigenous Palestinian population from their villages, towns and livelihoods and the creation of a new state and a new political order by the incoming population. Widely known as the “Nakba,” this process was marked by land appropriation, the suppression of native claims and the restructuring of society to privilege the new population while marginalizing and expelling the majority of the original inhabitants. The acknowledgement of this aspect of the Palestinian experience is central to the necessary reckoning with histoy and "truth recovery," both of which are indispensable for any meaningful transitional justice process.
The lack of acknowledgment of these realities has been a significant failing of the so-called peace process to date. This omission has led to the frequent dismissal of the ‘two-state solution’ as either unworkable or a“trap” for ongoing subjugation and dispossession. As pointed out byNadim Khoury, Israel and its allies have often avoided or sidelined issues such as apologies and reparations for historical crimes and injustices as “backward-looking.” Yet these unresolved matters - particularly the right of return for Palestinians as recognized by international law, including General Assembly Resolution 194, and the land from which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly displaced - are pivotal to achieving lasting peace.
Dispossession, violent land appropriation and creation zones of exclusion, far from being a relic of the past, continue in the form ofexpandingsettlements in theillegally occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Syrian Golan Heights. Since October 2024,Israeli officials have even begun openly advocating for resettlement in Gaza. Moreover, the memory of the Nakba remains vivid among Palestinians worldwide, as deeply ingrained and enduring as the trauma of the Shoah within Jewish communities globally.
A radical change of course is essential. For Palestinians, the ability to express their narrative without fear of erasure or dispossession and to actively shape their future is fundamental to their dignity and security. Given the historical power imbalance, the Palestinian narrative, in all its diversity, requires special safeguarding.
The brutal Hamas attack on Israeli communities on October 7 has surely complicated matters, especially in an environment where, as argued byGur-Ze’ev and Ilan Pappe, “the struggle over control of the memory of victimization [was already] a matter of life and death.” The prominent Jewish-American scholar Naomi Klein clearlydemonstrateshow the stories told by Israel (especially since October 7) about “Jewish victimhood [are] providing the rationale and cover story for the shattering violence and colonial land annexation now on such stark display.” However, the Israeli state’s approach to historical memory predates these recent events. Mechanisms such as the 2011 Nakba Law and the 2014 Jewish Nakba Law (“Memory Laws”), asanalysedby Yifat Gutman and Noam Tirosh, reveal an active effort to prioritize one group’s memory over another’s and to dismiss claims for recognition and redress. These efforts expose a deliberate strategy of avoiding the truth, perpetuated by a state occupying an indigenous people and denying their rights to dignity and self-determination.
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk has aptlystated,
“Justice is a prerequisite for ending cycles of violence and for Palestinians and Israelis to be able to take meaningful steps towards peace.”
Justice must be pursued in a way that ensures peace is not imposed on Palestinians during moments of historic vulnerability, as hasoccurredrepeatedly since 1991. Only through this approach, can the collective memory of both Palestinians and Jews be preserved and respected.
Transitional justice and decolonisation: Establishing equality and dignity for all
In post-colonial and post-apartheid contexts, removing physical occupation and formal discrimination is just one of many steps needed to achieve long-term reconciliation, coexistence, and prosperity. Israel and Palestine are no exceptions.
Transitional justice,definedas “an innovative way to manage a post-conflict situation through dealing with the past,” must not create artificial divisions between historical and present injustices, particularly in a context of ongoing dispossession and apartheid. Acknowledging the continuity of these experiences is essential for any meaningful process of restorative or retributive justice. Complementing universalist principles with grassroots organizing, indigenous knowledge systems, survivor stories, and pluralist perspectives isequally critical to ensuring justice frameworks resonate with those they aim to serve.
Finally, proposing transitional justice as a path forward does not require endorsing either a one-state or a two-state solution. Instead, it essentially acknowledges the diversity of visions for the future within both Palestinian and Israeli societies. What remains clear is that any resolution – whether it entails liberation through national sovereignty or collective belonging to a shared land – must involve reckoning with the past and achieving reconciliation.
The events of October 7 serve as a stark reminder that justice is indispensable for achieving lasting peace. Without justice, peace remains an illusion. Far too many lives have been lost and shattered over decades of occupation and violence. Unfortunately, the current geopolitical reality is fraught with uncertainties and turbulence, with the Trump administration posing significant challenges to efforts aimed at permanently resolving the ongoing catastrophe (Nakba) faced by Palestinians in Gaza, the West Bank, and beyond. Recent remarks by the U.S. President suggesting the need to “clean out” Gaza of Palestinians, or by Elise Stefanik, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, asserting Israel’s “biblical right” to the West Bank, are at best reckless and, at worst, indicative of serious obstacles facing peace advocates worldwide. Now, more than ever, it is essential to redouble efforts, think creatively, and integrate justice and reconciliation into a meaningful, decolonial peace process.