Your point about the Nazis not being signatories to the ICC Statute of Rome is historically accurate, as the ICC was established much later in 2002. The Nuremberg Trials were indeed a response to the defeat of Nazi Germany, where the Allied powers took the initiative to hold trials for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. Here's how this historical context might relate to the current discussion:

• Historical Precedent: The Nuremberg Trials set a precedent that even leaders of a defeated state, not bound by any prior international criminal court agreements, could be held accountable for international crimes. This was based on the principle that certain acts are so heinous they violate fundamental norms of international law, which are binding on all states under customary international law.

• Current Situation: In the case of Israel, while it is not a signatory to the Rome Statute, the principle of universal jurisdiction for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity could still apply. The international community, through various mechanisms like the UN Security Council, could theoretically establish a tribunal or support legal proceedings similar to Nuremberg if there were a consensus that such crimes were being committed.

• Legal Pathways:

  • International Court of Justice (ICJ): The ICJ can adjudicate disputes between states, as seen with South Africa's case against Israel. While not a criminal court, its findings can influence international opinion and policy.
  • International Criminal Court (ICC): Although Israel is not a member, the ICC could potentially investigate if a situation were referred by the UN Security Council or if Palestine's statehood status allows for jurisdiction over actions in Gaza.
  • Ad Hoc Tribunals: Similar to the tribunals for the former Yugoslavia or Rwanda, an ad hoc tribunal could be established, though this would require significant political will and international agreement.

• Moral and Ethical Stance: Just as the Allies took a moral stance by prosecuting Nazi leaders, the international community faces a similar ethical imperative today. The discussion about accountability for actions in Gaza reflects a call for justice akin to that post-WWII, emphasizing that no state or its officials should be above international law when it comes to such severe human rights violations.

• Challenges: Unlike the post-WWII scenario, where there was clear military defeat, the situation with Israel is part of an ongoing conflict with complex geopolitical dimensions. Achieving the kind of international consensus needed for a Nuremberg-like trial or tribunal would be fraught with political, diplomatic, and legal challenges.

In conclusion, while the analogy to Nuremberg is potent in its call for justice, the path to achieving such accountability in the modern context, especially without a clear military defeat, involves navigating international legal frameworks, political diplomacy, and the global moral consensus. The Nuremberg Trials remind us that justice can be pursued even against non-signatories, but it requires a unified international effort and legal innovation within current frameworks.