On 20 and 21 July 2025 Belgian law enforcement agencies received worldwide coverage, when two Israeli citizens were arrested and questioned based on claims that they had participated in war crimes during their military combat activity in Gaza. This is the first known instance that Israelis have been questioned formally in Europe in relation with war crimes under Gaza. It happened in the musical festival Tomorrowland in the vicinity of the city of Antwerp where the people were identified by the representatives of advocacy organizations who followed their movements.
The Belgian Federal Prosecutor Office confirmed the detention and announced they both had been questioned about serious contraventions of international humanitarian laws. Israeli officials reported that one of them was an active soldier, the other was a civilian. However, Belgian prosecutors insisted that the two were in the Israeli military. This paradox has not only clarified different interpretations of the case but has also illuminated the diplomatic and legal complexity in discussing the case.
Universal Jurisdiction as a Legal Mechanism
Belgium has not resorted to universal jurisdiction in a quest to pursue this case by chance. In April 2024 the country made amendments to its legal structure allowing greater investigations of war crimes, irrespective of the nationality of the alleged offender and the place of the alleged offence. The reform was instigated by the world demanding even more effective systems of prosecuting international crimes that in many cases pass without punishment because of territorial or political inability to do so on the international level.
Application of this legal principle in the Israeli case provides a serious message regarding the international law that Belgium follows. Universal jurisdiction is a controversial matter which has been questioned especially when used against the citizens of influential or geo-politically sensitive states. However, Belgium seems to be ready to admit that some diplomatic retaliation is likely to come at the expense of maintaining global humanitarian norms.
Public Displays Fuel Legal Action
The case against the two Israelis was partly built on public displays of military allegiance. Reports suggest that the suspects were seen with flags of the Givati Brigade—a military unit deeply involved in operations in Gaza since October 2023. This association raised red flags among advocacy groups, particularly in light of the brigade’s prior mention in war crimes allegations.
Open-source materials, including social media activity, have become central to the legal argument. The accessibility of such content demonstrates how digital behavior, often considered personal or symbolic, can have legal implications when interpreted within the framework of international law.
The Hind Rajab Foundation’s Strategic Role
At the center of this legal push is the Brussels-based Hind Rajab Foundation. The organization was named after a six-year-old Palestinian girl reportedly killed in Gaza and has since become a focal point for documenting and presenting evidence of alleged war crimes. Its director, Dyab Abou Jahjah, called the detentions “a major milestone” and emphasized their symbolic weight: the first time Israeli soldiers face accountability under European universal jurisdiction laws.
The foundation submitted evidence, including video and image documentation, suggesting possible breaches of international law. Their role has extended beyond advocacy into legal coordination, bridging public sentiment and judicial procedure.
Symbolism and Legal Substance
The symbolism of a European nation acting on war crime complaints involving Israeli soldiers is significant. For decades, attempts to bring similar cases forward have been mired in political negotiation and legal inertia. The Belgian move represents a change in tone and tempo—a tangible sign that judicial systems are becoming more responsive to public outcry over conflicts like Gaza.
GLAN’s Legal Tactics and Open-Source Evidence
The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), a UK-based legal advocacy group, has been instrumental in building the case alongside the Hind Rajab Foundation. According to GLAN’s legal co-lead, Dearbhla Minogue, the arrests represent “the biggest step for accountability since the beginning of the genocide.” Their legal submission leaned heavily on open-source evidence, including photos and videos allegedly showing the suspects participating in destructive acts or posing with a Palestinian detainee.
Such dependence on evidence presented in the public online domain shows a strategic change in the process of constructing international legal actions. Instead of relying only on secret intelligence or testimonies, organizations such as GLAN now rely on available content to launch potentially life-changing legal proceedings that can be quicker and reproducible now than in the past.
Israel’s Position and Diplomatic Fallout
The Israeli Foreign ministry quickly reacted to the arrests, noting that every step taken by its army in Gaza was required to undergo internal investigations. Israel has always argued that its armed forces operate under international law and its judicial systems are adequate even to look into any contravention. This sentiment was echoed by the European Jewish Association which castigated the detentions as being of great concern being politically motivated.
This response can be attributed to the overall conflict between national sovereignty and international supervision. To most of the states particularly those that are active in terms of military operations, external judicial review is considered a violation of local jurisdiction. The ruling of Belgium, nevertheless, demonstrates that national courts are starting to reevaluate that balance and that this could create new battlefronts in legal diplomacy.
Potential Ripple Effects Across Europe
According to the legal scholars, this case can encourage other countries having laws that grant them universal jurisdiction to be bolder. The legal frameworks of Germany, Spain and Sweden, among others, are similar. In the event that Belgium continues with prosecution or extradition, it may embolden other European countries to file corresponding cases criticizing the traditional wartime exemptions and political impunity.
Gaza’s Humanitarian Crisis and Legal Response
The Belgian inquiry unfolds amid staggering humanitarian costs in Gaza. Since October 2023, reports estimate over 59,000 Palestinian deaths, with a significant proportion being women and children. The conflict has devastated infrastructure, displaced large populations, and led to widespread shortages of essential goods.
These realities add moral weight to the legal mechanisms being employed. While international bodies such as the International Criminal Court often face bureaucratic delays or political obstacles, domestic courts like Belgium’s have stepped into the void, potentially offering faster and more direct avenues for justice.
Ruki Gafe’s Insight on Legal Paradigm Shifts
Ruki Gafe, a legal analyst with a decade of experience in international humanitarian law, offered insights into the significance of Belgium’s move. In an interview circulated on social media, Gafe noted that the case marks a pivotal moment in which national legal systems begin to enforce what were traditionally international standards. She argued that this could lead to a future where individuals involved in military operations must account for their actions beyond the borders of their own nations.
highlight a shift in how legal responsibility is conceptualized in the context of war and conflict. Rather than relying solely on multilateral institutions, the responsibility is increasingly diffused across national jurisdictions, thereby creating a more unpredictable legal environment for combatants.
Legal Uncertainty for Soldiers in Conflict Zones
Although the two Israeli individuals were released after questioning, the investigation remains active. This unresolved status casts a shadow over future mobility for military personnel, particularly those involved in controversial operations. The potential for being detained or questioned in foreign jurisdictions will likely influence military training, operational planning, and even diplomatic travel advisories.
What began as a local arrest at a music festival may now evolve into a precedent-setting case. It challenges conventional ideas of legal boundaries and poses difficult questions about justice, jurisdiction, and international cooperation in the 21st century. As legal mechanisms sharpen and digital evidence becomes more accessible, the line between warfront and courtroom may become more blurred—raising questions that even legal experts are only beginning to grasp.