The ongoing conflict in Gaza and the aftermath of the October 7 Hamas attacks have drawn renewed attention to the question of how genocides conclude and the prospects for justice and accountability. Historical precedent indicates that genocides typically end either when perpetrators achieve their objectives or when they are halted by military force, followed by some form of reckoning. Yet, the situation in Gaza raises concerns about a different, more troubling trajectory.

Reports indicate that Israel’s military operations in Gaza have resulted in an estimated 70,000 deaths, predominantly civilians, with close to 200,000 others wounded. The extensive destruction of infrastructure, medical facilities, and essential services has compounded the humanitarian crisis affecting nearly two million Palestinians confined to a fraction of the Gaza Strip’s territory. Since the cease-fire that took effect on October 10, Israeli forces have come to control approximately 70 percent of the area.

Following the cease-fire, a 20-point plan led by former U.S. President Donald Trump and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council on November 17 has shifted focus toward Gaza’s demilitarization and reconstruction. This plan envisions oversight by a transitional technocratic Palestinian administration and an international Board of Peace chaired by Mr. Trump. The initiative includes proposals for multibillion-dollar redevelopment projects, aimed at creating a “New Gaza,” which critics argue may marginalize Palestinians by relegating them to service and labor roles amid increased foreign economic and military presence.

Calls to hold Israeli leadership accountable for alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity have faced significant obstacles. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alongside a Hamas official who was later killed. However, the United States has actively sought to undermine the ICC, and political support for Israel—including at the UN Security Council—limits enforcement options. A separate case brought by South Africa at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) accusing Israel of genocide is pending, but the enforcement of any ruling remains uncertain as long as Israel retains powerful allies.

Economic interests also play a role in this dynamic. Israel’s arms industry reportedly reached record export figures last year, partly fueled by the “battle-testing” of weapons in Gaza. Key international partners, including Germany and the United Kingdom, maintain defense and diplomatic ties with Israel while facing accusations related to their roles in funding or supporting military actions. Some European governments have suspended arms sales, but overall military cooperation and commercial relations persist.

The proposed reconstruction effort, under international supervision and heavy Israeli security influence, may further restrict Palestinian autonomy and reshape Gaza’s social and economic landscape. Observers express concern that the plan could solidify Israeli territorial control, facilitate new Israeli settlements, and transform Gaza into a commercial hub dominated by foreign investment and governance structures divorced from local community interests.

Human rights advocates warn that neglecting justice for Gaza’s Palestinian population and allowing impunity for actions that may meet the legal definition of genocide risks setting a dangerous precedent. This could undermine the international legal framework established after World War II to prevent and punish genocidal crimes. Some experts suggest that the Gaza case may embolden other states or actors to pursue similar policies, expecting to avoid accountability while capitalizing on the aftermath.

While Israel faces growing international isolation and criticism, supporters argue that its unique strategic alliance with the United States and the historical context of the Holocaust have insulated it from consequences faced by other states accused of mass atrocities. The evolution of the Gaza situation, therefore, is closely watched as a potential indicator of whether international norms against genocide will be upheld or eroded in the coming years.