The Gaza Tribunal as a Response to the Gaza Genocide
EDITORIAL, 22 Sep 2025
#917 | Richard Falk – TRANSCEND Media Service
The Gaza Tribunal is a civil society initiative that seeks justice-driven outcomes to human wrongdoing that are not being addressed by national governments or international institutions. These tribunals offer the people of societies throughout the world an opportunity to express transnational objections to the most notorious international crimes and to encourage solidarity with the suffering and abuse of victims, regardless of nationality. Above all, a peoples tribunal seeks to draw attention to the enforcement, accountability, and complicity gaps in situations where severe failures of the established international order challenge deeply the moral conscience of humanity.
Recourse to a peoples’ tribunal of this character was first undertaken in the middle of the Vietnam War by two world famous intellectuals, Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre. Its procedures and findings were dismissed at the time by governments and media as lacking the force of law that could only be achieved by recourse to national and international courts. Unlike standard judicial procedures peoples’ tribunals perform as partisan undertakings that do not pretend to be neutral and do not offer the accused party a fair process allowing for the presentation of defensive arguments by the alleged perpetrator of international crimes. In contrast, all proceedings before the ICJ or ICC project images of political and normative neutrality as integral to the credibility of their legal assessment of legal responsibility.
The Russell Tribunal and every subsequent peoples’ tribunal that has been established in the intervening 50 years has never purported to judge the guilt or innocence of the partes, but to legitimate opposition to certain patterns of behavior, to clarify and document the criminality of accused parties, and to encourage civil society activism as justified ‘enforcement’ of international law and morality from below. The central goal of this unauthorized process is to promote as objectively as possible the exposure of the constituents of abusive behavior on the part of the accused state(s) and setting forth action initiatives and policy recommendations directed at the membership of global civil society, as well as making judgments of the policies and practices of national governments and international institutions. Such civil society tribunals also encourage accountability for the main perpetrators and complicit actors, making a maximum effort to connect persuasively the crime to the alleged criminals.
The best of these tribunals also develop a permanent archive that would offer objective interpretations of evidence, including survivor and expert witnessing, denying all claims of impunity. The resulting archive of such salient controversial occurrences has a potentiality to contribute positively to future citizen education about the events free from state propaganda, not papering over the crimes of the past but highlighting them. The Russell Tribunal inspired many subsequent efforts throughout the world. The organizers of such populist institutions are invariably motivated by sentiments of moral outrage and a politics of empathy for the victims of governmental behavior that is violative of international law, especially breaches of fundamental provisions of the UN Charter and widely shared ethical values. It should be noted that the geographic spread of such initiatives extends to every world civilization.
Each recourse to a peoples’ tribunal is quite naturally sensitive to the distinctive circumstances of the particular case. The Gaza Tribunal was formed in 1994 against this background, with a particular sensitivity to the urgency of reacting to genocide, ‘the crime of crimes.’ The context in which Israel’s policy toward the attack on October 7 unfolded, especially in its first 18 months enjoyed the geopolitical shielding and material support of the world’s leading liberal democracies, situated in Europe and North America, as well as Australia and New Zealand. This web of complicity with Israel’s genocide quite significantly included all important breakaway British colonies that turned out to be ‘the success stories’ of settler colonials, apartheid, and genocidal behavior.
Israel on its side also benefited from a self-censoring mainstream media that heavily filtered the daily spectacle of atrocities and accompanying dehumanizing language used by Israeli leaders to be objectively reported. To this day the media, world leaders, and even the top echelon of UN civil servants refrain from endorsing any pro-Palestinian populist initiatives, and even from referring to Israel violence in Gaza as ‘genocide.’ There was almost no governmental and institutional opposition to Israel’s behavior in Gaza months passed. When South Africa made its historic submission to the ICJ in late 2023 dramatically charging that Israel was acting in Gaza in violation of the Genocide Convention of 1948 the international discourse became more critical of Israel, but still Western leaders and UN officials, let alone liberal critics of Israel in the US and Europe refuse to name the prolonged Gaza ordeal (spilling over to the West Bank) as genocide. These ‘safe’ crtics content themselves with being advocates of a Gaza ceasefire accompanied by the release of remaining hostages and language that includes the demonization of Hamas.
The Gaza Tribunal formed more than a year ago in response to months of failure by the UN and other political actors to expose and end the ongoing Palestinian ordeal in Gaza. This ordeal resulted from Israel and its supporters defiant disregard of international law and the majority views of the governments and peoples in the world. A defining instance of this defiance was the refusal to comply with the Interim Rulings of the ICJ in 2024 that went so far as to attach the word ‘plausible’ to allegations of genocide and to order Israel to stop interfering with the international delivery of humanitarian aid. One problem with waiting for the ICJ’s final judgment is that it is not expected for at least two years, and that seems too long to provide any meaningful relief to the Palestinians in Gaza, although it should become required reading for all future law students. The Gaza Tribunal plans its final session in Istanbul between October 23-26, which will include a verdict rendered by a Jury of Conscience and a reasoned judgment on the question of genocide and issues of accountability and complicity. But if Israel pays no attention to the ICJ or ICC what makes anyone other than an idealistic fool think it would pay attention to the findings and recommendations of the Gaza Tribunal.
Such cynical reactions miss the point, purpose, and goals of a peoples’ tribunal. In our case it takes for granted the refusal of Israel to give any attention other than words of derision to the Tribunal to avoid giving its actions a scintilla of credibility. Israel is smart enough not to engage with any critical judgment of it guilt by way of substance. For one thing, Israel’s counter-arguments would be so weak if they stuck to the substance that they would be more likely resort to accusations that the Gaza Tribunal is itself unlawful and biased, even viciously antisemitic. The primary audience for the Gaza Tribunal is transnational civil society, including the responsible independent voices in the media.
Its short-term goal is to legitimate allegations of genocide, a task made much easier in recent months by the meticulous reports of the UN Special Rapporteur, Francesca Albanese, and the release a week ago by the UN Commission of Inquiry on Gaza of its lengthy report that confirmed that Israel’s conduct in Gaza since October 7 violated the Genocide Convention in numerous respects. With such backing, an expected verdict along similar lines by our tribunal’s Jury of Conscience will undoubtedly add to the growing global consensus that Israel has become a pariah or rogue state. This negative branding makes it more politically feasible to insist that Israel needs the pressure of sanctions and boycotts to induce compliant behavior. Punitive costs must be imposed on Israel to improve prospects of curtailing present patterns of criminality that involve a denial of basic Palestinian rights, and also set forth future standards for accountability.
We appeal to all persons of global conscience to join us in this effort of the Gaza Tribunal to bring punitive justice to Israel and offer overdue restorative justice to the Palestinian people. We must not be silent or sit on our hands while the Palestinian tragedy is reaching such grotesque extremes, and vigilance will be vital even after the violence stops to prevent from the perpetrator of genocide to shape future arrangements. Here close to the site of the UN it is still time to enact bold and courageous responses within its framework of responsibilities and capabilities. Above all, it is legally possible for urgent UN action in the form of creative and committed invocations of the Uniting for Peace procedures and Responsibility to Protect norm. The Gaza Tribunal would welcome and ardently support these other kindred moves as initiatives that uphold the mission undertaken by the UN 80 years ago, and rekindle its promises to humanity with respect to peace, human rights, equitable development, and respect for international law.
__________________________________________
Modified text of UN side event remarks, 19 Sep 2025
Prof. Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, TRANSCEND Media Service Editorial Committee Member, Albert G. Milbank Professor Emeritus of International Law at Princeton University, Chair of Global Law, Faculty of Law, at Queen Mary University London, Research Associate the Orfalea Center of Global Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Fellow of the Tellus Institute. He directed the project on Global Climate Change, Human Security, and Democracy at UCSB and formerly served as director the North American group in the World Order Models Project. He also is a member of the editorial board of the magazine The Nation. Between 2008 and 2014, Falk served as UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in Occupied Palestine. His book, (Re)Imagining Humane Global Governance (2014), proposes a value-oriented assessment of world order and future trends. His most recent books are Power Shift (2016); Revisiting the Vietnam War (2017); On Nuclear Weapons: Denuclearization, Demilitarization and Disarmament (2019); and On Public Imagination: A Political & Ethical Imperative, ed. with Victor Faessel & Michael Curtin (2019). He is the author or coauthor of other books, including Religion and Humane Global Governance (2001), Explorations at the Edge of Time (1993), Revolutionaries and Functionaries (1988), The Promise of World Order (1988), Indefensible Weapons (with Robert Jay Lifton, 1983), A Study of Future Worlds (1975), and This Endangered Planet (1972). His memoir, Public Intellectual: The Life of a Citizen Pilgrim was published in March 2021 and received an award from Global Policy Institute at Loyala Marymount University as ‘the best book of 2021.’ He has been nominated frequently for the Nobel Peace Prize since 2009.
JOIN THE BDS-BOYCOTT, DIVESTMENT, SANCTIONS CAMPAIGN TO PROTEST THE ISRAELI BARBARIC GENOCIDE OF PALESTINIANS IN GAZA.
DON’T BUY PRODUCTS WHOSE BARCODE STARTS WITH 729, WHICH INDICATES THAT THEY ARE PRODUCED IN ISRAEL. DO YOUR PART! MAKE A DIFFERENCE!
7 2 9: BOYCOTT FOR HUMAN JUSTICE!
Tags: Crimes against Humanity, Ethnic Cleansing, Gaza, Gaza Tribunal, Genocide, Israel, Justice, Palestine, USA, War crimes
This article originally appeared on Transcend Media Service (TMS) on 22 Sep 2025.
Anticopyright: Editorials and articles originated on TMS may be freely reprinted, disseminated, translated and used as background material, provided an acknowledgement and link to the source, TMS: The Gaza Tribunal as a Response to the Gaza Genocide, is included. Thank you.
If you enjoyed this article, please donate to TMS to join the growing list of TMS Supporters.
This work is licensed under a CC BY-NC 4.0 License.
One Response to “The Gaza Tribunal as a Response to the Gaza Genocide”
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.
Reminder: The leadership of Hamas ordered and then it’s militant members carried out an unprovoked killing of some 1200 Israeli civilians and then seized over two hundred hostages many of them since have died in captivity. No reason, what so ever, can or should be used to whitewash this atrocity against humanity. Nor hide its ugly truth.
That said, the current leadership/government of Israel, NOT Israel, chose the wrong way to respond to this crime which was apparently sanctioned by the international community. Professor Falk’s editorial rightfully and significantly points this out. But, “Genocide” out of the gate? I respectfully disagree with this very unhelpful characterization. But this doesn’t mean I approve of what that Israeli government has done and has been doing either. If we want to pursue the continued labeling and use of genocide, then we have many parties to punish in addition to “Israel”.
The real issue is War itself, which is and has been for a long time a sanctioned and legitimized form of resolving conflicts and, I’m afraid it uses all sorts of human atrocities to attain its goal. We can’t whitewash war, including acts of “political violence”, in name of anything simply because war ITSELF is human genocide and all those who still find themselves committed to it participate in this atrocity.
That said, Israel has a moral and human obligation to cease it’s war against Hamas and the international community has a moral and human obligation to go after the Hamas leadership for the criminals they are and bring them to justice.