What often follows devastating armed conflict are silence, amnesia and a desire to return to the status quo ante bellum. The more powerful party has little incentive to engage in reconstruction, contrition or negotiation about a political settlement.
Alternatively, a more aggressive model of justice demands that the losing side be held to account in a legal proceeding. This model of retribution, which has deep biblical roots, is an animating principle of the current international legal order. Its advocates might point out that it can deliver justice by punishing those who committed heinous crimes. This indeed was the premise of the Nuremberg trials of 1945-46 in which the political and military leaders of Nazi Germany met their fate in an extraordinary legal setting. But the retributive model has serious liabilities as well. It embodies the principle of victor’s justice in which the culpability of the winning side is never questioned (and which betrays a decidedly Western bias, given that the overwhelming majority of those convicted in international legal courts are African).
These questions arise urgently in the wake of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza. What does justice look like there? The recent return of the hostages introduces a new degree of normality into Israeli society, allowing it to release the collective breath that it has held since Oct. 7, 2023. And yet, Gaza lies in ruins. Towns and cities are razed to the ground, thousands upon thousands are homeless, and the final death toll is still being tallied as bodies are being removed from the rubble.
Silence and amnesia simply won’t do. One cannot and must not ignore the state of devastation. It would be a total moral abdication.
But the retributive model of justice may not be the optimal path to follow. This was the route of the International Criminal Court when it issued indictments against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, as well as Hamas leaders Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif and Ismail Haniyeh last November. It is understandable why the international legal system would proceed against these two groups of leaders. There is sufficient evidence to charge all of them with major war crimes.
So why not demand that the Israeli and Hamas leaders be called to answer for their crimes? There is a pragmatic response. All of the indicted Hamas leaders are dead, and the Israeli leaders operate within a web of Western and specifically American impunity. They will not be compelled to make their way to the Hague.
But there is another way to look at the question of accountability. Legal retribution is a highly imperfect means of attaining justice. This point has been made clearly by Mahmood Mamdani, the distinguished political theorist (and father of New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani). In his book “Neither Settler nor Native,” he offers a critique of the classic example of retributive justice, Nuremberg. He argues that, in fact, Nuremberg entailed a number of major miscarriages of justice: It reinforced a regime of winners and losers, did little to repatriate Jews to their homes in Europe, and, in indirect fashion, imposed new burdens on a people (Palestinians) not responsible for the crimes for Nazism.
Mamdani’s provocative suggestions invite us to consider alternatives to the path of legal retribution. For example, the model of reparation. Gaza cries out for repair, in material, economic, political and moral terms. With the return of the hostages, it is necessary for Israelis — and strong supporters of the state of Israel — to step out of the web of trauma, grief and rage in which they have been located since 2023 to recognize the full scale of the destruction wrought by the Israeli army on Gazans. This will be hard.
The task would be made easier if there were some meaningful expression of contrition by those responsible for the initial attack against Israel. But we can’t wait for that moment. The time has come for Israelis to recognize that they are the much stronger party — and that their own privilege has entailed the Palestinians’ misfortune since 1948. Above all, they must confront, acknowledge and apologize for the devastation that their army, on the orders of their political and military leaders, has wrought on Gaza.
Words are necessary but not sufficient for reparation. As various countries in the regime prepare to engage in the massive work of reconstructing Gaza, Israel cannot be absent from this project. Nor, for that matter, can Jews worldwide who have been supportive of Israel for decades. It is a matter of ethical obligation for them to sign onto this massive economic undertaking; but it is also an investment in a better life for all who live between the river and the sea.
Almost two years ago, I called for a Marshall Plan for Gaza. The need has become exponentially greater today. The return of the hostages and a pause in the killing and destruction have opened a narrow window of opportunity. The world cannot tarry in getting a peacekeeping force on the ground and commencing the massive work of reconstruction. Israel and the many Jews who support it should mobilize their resources and commit to the idea of a Marshall Plan. It will be an essential act of moral and economic reparation that can go a long way toward building a viable future for and with Palestinians.
David N. Myers teaches Jewish history at UCLA.
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author argues that instead of pursuing legal retribution through international courts, the focus should shift toward reparation and reconstruction. The author contends that while the Israeli leadership and Hamas leaders have sufficient evidence of war crimes against them, a purely retributive justice model is impractical and historically ineffective, noting that all indicted Hamas leaders are deceased and Israeli leaders operate within Western impunity protections.
The author emphasizes that Israel and the Jewish diaspora have an ethical obligation to lead Gaza’s reconstruction as an act of moral and economic reparation. This stems from recognizing that Israel is the much stronger party and that Palestinian misfortune has been tied to Israeli policies since 1948. The author argues that Israel must acknowledge and apologize for the devastation wrought by its military operations in Gaza.
The author proposes a Marshall Plan-style reconstruction effort, similar to the post-World War II initiative that rebuilt Europe. The author maintains this represents not only a moral imperative but also a practical investment in a viable future for all who live in the region and a pathway to building sustainable peace between Israelis and Palestinians.
Different views on the topic
Some scholars have questioned whether a Marshall Plan approach adequately addresses deeper political divisions requiring resolution. Peter Beinart’s recent work argues that the two-state solution framework underlying most reconstruction proposals may be insufficient, proposing instead a single-state model that would balance equality for all citizens with support for Palestinian and Jewish collectives.[2] This perspective suggests that reconstruction efforts divorced from fundamental political restructuring may prove inadequate.
Additionally, Palestinian governance structures have challenged the premise that international or Israeli actors should lead reconstruction. The Palestinian Authority announced its readiness to “take full responsibility for the Gaza Strip” alone, with Arab states urging the United States to press Israel to allow the Authority to govern Gaza independently.[1] This position reflects skepticism about external leadership in reconstruction efforts and suggests that Palestinian self-determination in governance should precede reconstruction initiatives.
Furthermore, some perspectives emphasize that current devastation represents only the latest phase in a longer history of Palestinian displacement and suffering predating the recent conflict.[3] This framing suggests that reconstruction without addressing the structural and historical injustices underlying the conflict may prove insufficient for achieving genuine justice and lasting peace.