Connect with us

World

Israel’s October 7 tribunal: Show trial of Palestinians or justice?

Published

on

Israel’s October 7 tribunal: Show trial of Palestinians or justice?

Israel approved the establishment of a special military tribunal to try Palestinians accused of participating in the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attack on Israel earlier this month, and will give the body the power to impose the death penalty.

But analysts, campaigners, and international organisations – including the United Nations – have all questioned whether there will be any real justice delivered by the tribunal, and instead consider it a way of seeking revenge on imprisoned Palestinians.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

The impact of the October 7 attack, in which 1,139 were killed and 250 abducted, was amplified in Israel through endless repetition of videos of the attack.

Al Jazeera’s own investigation unit has found that stories of atrocities committed on October 7 – some of the false – were used to justify the genocide launched on Gaza after the attack, which has so far killed more than 72,600 Palestinians.

Some Israeli parliamentarians have made their positions clear on what they hope will be the result of the televised trials of an estimated 300 detained Palestinians.

Advertisement

Many of those detained are civilians, human rights groups say, including prominent figures like hospital director Dr Hussam Abu Safiya. Palestinian detainees have also been physically abused and raped, with dozens dying in Israeli prisons.

According to Justice Minister Yariv Levin, one of the co-sponsors of the bill that established the tribunal, the legislation was “one of the most important moments of the current Knesset [parliament]”.

“One can feel that we are doing the right thing by finding a way to unite at this moment, even though we are on the eve of elections and despite all the disagreements that exist,” Levin added, referring to the cross-party support for the bill.

Victor’s justice

UN Human Rights Chief Volker Turk publicly called for the legislation establishing the tribunal to be repealed, saying that justice could not be delivered by any process that failed to meet international standards.

The International Bar Association (IBA) raised concerns about the possibility of a fair trial. “This risk [of a lack of a fair trial] is heightened by reports of coercive practices in security-related cases, which can amount to torture or other ill-treatment and lead to unreliable information, false confessions, wrongful convictions, and serious miscarriages of justice,” the IBA said.

Advertisement

Rights groups, such as Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, and the Israeli rights group B’tselem, have also condemned the legal framework underpinning the bill.

“People in Israel need justice, but I don’t know if this it, or if the Israeli state as it currently stands is capable of delivering it,” Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow with Chatham House, said, referencing the filmed abuse of international Gaza flotilla activists by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir that went entirely without punishment within Israel. “I don’t have any sympathy with the Nukhba [members of the Hamas military wing that reportedly led the October 7 attack], but justice has to be as much about ourselves and our humanity as them and what they did. I worry that this might be vengeance.”

Palestinian? Guilty

Israeli politicians have consistently blamed all Palestinians for the October 7 attack.

Addressing the press just days after the attack, Israeli President Isaac Herzog laid the blame for the assault on all of the men, women, and children of Gaza, telling reporters: “It is an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true”.

Advertisement

Over the years since, equating Palestinians with “terrorists” by government ministers such as Ben-Gvir, or his fellow far-right politician, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, have become routine.

Even attempts by Palestinian politicians in the Israeli parliament to speak in Arabic in the lead up to the passing of the tribunal legislation were enough to elicit howls of “shame” from the public gallery, who appeared to immediately equate speaking Arabic with supporting “terrorism”.

“We know that Israeli officials blame all of Gaza for October 7,” Hassan Jabareen, the founder of Palestinian legal rights organisation Adalah, told Al Jazeera.

“Their president, a supposed moderate, even said it. Gaza is Israel’s collective enemy. This isn’t new,” he said, referencing legislation that existed before October 7 that allowed the Israeli military to shoot people in Gaza without legal culpability.

“Now we have a military tribunal that is allowed to hand down the death penalty based on secret evidence, where the indicted aren’t present throughout the hearings, and none of the typical systems of fairness are applied, and who voted for this? A huge majority in the Knesset did.”

Advertisement
Israel has killed more than 72,600 people in Gaza since October 2023 [Jehad Alshrafi/AP]

Dodging blame

Support among Jewish Israelis for the tribunal, and any form of punishment meted out to Palestinians from Gaza, is overwhelming.

But that does not mean that the Israeli government will be able to escape scrutiny for its own role in failing to stop the October 7 attack, and public pressure for an inquiry into the government’s actions on that day continue.

Speaking earlier this month, Rom Bralavski, a former captive held in Gaza, called on all members of the parliament to step down because of the October 7 attack. “Take responsibility, and get out of our lives,” he said.

“The blood of everyone murdered on October 7 is on your hands,” he added. “And just before you go, establish the state commission of inquiry that would investigate what exactly happened here, so it never happens again.”

Will the televised trials of those accused of carrying out the October 7 attack, and their potential execution, be enough to deflect such calls?

Advertisement

Potentially. But even if they don’t, says political analyst Ori Goldberg, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not particularly concerned about winning back his opponents.

“Netanyahu’s past the stage where he really cares,” Goldberg said. “This is how he operates, and it seems it’s how we allow him to operate. It’s always one more gamble, one more stunt, one more day’s grace to be won.”

World

Video: 13 Civilians Killed in Pakistani Airstrikes in Afghanistan

Published

on

Video: 13 Civilians Killed in Pakistani Airstrikes in Afghanistan

new video loaded: 13 Civilians Killed in Pakistani Airstrikes in Afghanistan

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Afghanistan on Wednesday ended a period of calm, threatening a return to what Pakistan previously called an “open war” between the neighbors.

By Alisa Shodiyev Kaff

June 11, 2026

Continue Reading

World

Starmer in ‘seismic’ crisis, UK defense chief quits before high-stakes Trump NATO summit

Published

on

Starmer in ‘seismic’ crisis, UK defense chief quits before high-stakes Trump NATO summit

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey resigned Thursday after clashing with Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s government over military spending, dealing the British leader a setback weeks before a critical NATO summit to include President Donald Trump.

Healey’s departure stemmed from a dispute over the delayed Defense Investment Plan (DIP) — the government’s long-promised roadmap for military investment and readiness — and as NATO allies face renewed pressure from Trump to boost defense spending.

“John Healey’s resignation is a seismic moment for the government and the Ministry of Defense,” Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) Senior Associate Fellow Ed Arnold told Fox News Digital.

“For the government, it creates a sequence of political headaches in terms of a replacement, and trying to get the Defense Investment Plan published.”

Advertisement

BRITISH PM KEIR STARMER MOVES UK MILITARY INTO ‘WAR-FIGHTING READINESS’

Britain’s Defence Secretary John Healey speaks with British and Norwegian naval personnel at the unveiling of the Atlantic Bastion programme in Portsmouth, Britain, on Dec. 4, 2025. (Peter Nicholls/Pool via Reuters)

Healey had been in intense, late-stage negotiations with Starmer and Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves over the scale and timelines of the DIP.

Starmer reportedly refused to set out a timeline to reach 3.5% of gross domestic product (GDP) on defense by 2035 — a promise he made to Trump at last year’s NATO summit — and would not commit to a firm date for reaching 3%.

Instead, Starmer offered Healey a deal to spend 2.68% of GDP on defense by 2030, up only marginally from 2.6% next year, Reuters reported.

Advertisement

“You have been unable, and the Treasury has been unwilling, to commit the resources that the nation needs to defend the country,” Healey wrote to Starmer in his resignation letter, warning that the financial constraints would “make the country less safe,” the outlet reported.

NATO CHIEF URGES MEMBERS TO ‘TURBOCHARGE’ DEFENSE PRODUCTION AS HE PAINTS PICTURE OF A WORLD BOUND FOR WAR

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, U.S. President Donald Trump and Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer pose with NATO country leaders during the NATO Heads of State and Government summit in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025. (Ben Stansall/Pool via Reuters)

“If the delay to the Defense Investment Plan was already undermining the government’s credibility on defense, John Healey’s resignation has blown a hole in its side,” Professor Kevin Rowlands of the RUSI defense and security think tank told Fox News Digital.

“The immediate consequence is not just political embarrassment for No. 10, but a significant loss of planning certainty at a time when the British Armed Forces, the Ministry of Defense, and industry really need clarity on what will be funded, and when,” he added.

Advertisement

The political fallout is expected to reverberate across the Atlantic, where Washington has increased pressure on European allies to fulfill their defense obligations. Trump has frequently criticized NATO alliance members as “free riders.”

On June 3, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also told the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the upcoming Ankara summit would be the “most important meeting” in NATO’s history because there are some things “that need to be cleared up and fixed.”

He added, “The United States is still in the NATO alliance, and we’ll be there.”

TRUMP EFFECT FORCES GERMANY TO REPRIORITIZE DEFENSE AS NATION PLAYS CATCH-UP IN MILITARY SPENDING

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer increased the military presence in Cyprus following an Iranian drone strike early Monday, Feb. 24, 2026. (Kin Cheung / POOL / AFP via Getty Images))

Advertisement

However, U.S. officials have made it clear that patience is wearing thin.

“Ahead of next month’s NATO summit, POTUS has been clear: Allies must fulfil their commitment to spending 5% of GDP on defense,” U.S. Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker posted on X this week.

Furthermore, a U.S. official noted that a U.K. funding package far lower than 18 billion pounds ($23 billion) would send a highly “negative” signal to Trump ahead of the Ankara meeting, according to The Times.

Starmer has pledged to lift spending to 3% in the next Parliament but Healey’s exit has exposed that the current strategy leaves the U.K. lagging behind key allies. By comparison, Germany plans to spend 3.7% of its GDP on defense by 2030.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

“Healey knows the threats we face, he knows the capabilities and shortfalls the armed forces have, and if he believes that the financial settlement is not enough to keep the country safe — to the extent that he cannot honorably stay in post — then we are in trouble,” Rowlands added.

“While the impact will mainly be felt on Whitehall, the international implications are severe with a NATO summit just three weeks away,” Arnold noted.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Russia ‘lost standing’ despite ‘a breather’ from higher oil prices, IMF chief says

Published

on

Russia ‘lost standing’ despite ‘a breather’ from higher oil prices, IMF chief says

Published on

After two years of strong performance driven by a shift to a war economy, Russia’s economic situation is weakening, IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva told Euronews.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

And although the IMF raised its forecast for Russia’s 2026 growth in its April outlook from 0.8% to 1.1%, Georgieva told Euronews this did not reflect the full picture of the economic weakening.

Advertisement

“The higher oil prices do give a breather to Russia,” Georgieva said, arguing the hike cannot offset the bigger hit to Russia’s economy.

“They have depleted their buffers dramatically,” Georgieva said. The oil price windfall “appears to be used to rebuild buffers rather than to inject more investment into the economy,” she explained.

“Growth has slowed down significantly. Now we are projecting 1%. Before the war, their potential growth was 1.6%,” Georgieva pointed out.

The IMF managing director also told Euronews that it is important to consider other economic indicators to better understand Russia’s current economic situation.

“Inflation is high. That means that interest rates are high, almost 15%.”

Advertisement

The IMF does not expect to see “material impact on growth in Russia,” Georgieva said. “It is a country whose medium (and) long-term prospects have worsened significantly.”

She listed three grounds on which the prospects have worsened. The first is losing people.

“A country that was in a demographic decline to begin with now lost so many young people for a terrible reason,” Georgieva explained.

The second factor is the sanctions, specifically the way they “bite a lot on the technology front.”

“What we see in the oil and gas sector in Russia, there is a tremendous problem with lack of technological renewal that is restricting the ability of the sector to expand,” she said.

Advertisement

And the third is the fact that “Russia lost standing.”

“That translates into many tangible and non-tangible losses. I mean, just think of the young Russians that could have built relations with Europeans and others and did not because of the war,” Georgieva stated.

“So, on the whole, Russia is coming crippled,” she concluded.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending