From “deep regret” to accountability: what Netanyahu’s statement and Guterres’ demand mean after the Nasser hospital strike

By Ephraim Agbo 

When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Israel “deeply regrets” what he called a “tragic mishap” after strikes hit the Nasser hospital in southern Gaza, that phrase did more than express sorrow. It set the frame for how the Israeli government plans to manage political fallout, legal exposure and international pressure — while a United Nations demand for a “prompt and impartial inquiry” from Secretary-General António Guterres crystallised the principal counter-narrative: words are not enough without independent, transparent verification. The strike — which Palestinian health officials and multiple international outlets report killed at least 20 people, including five journalists and several medical workers — is therefore a case study in how modern conflicts produce immediate humanitarian catastrophe and then a longer contest over facts, law and political legitimacy.

The immediate facts

According to major wire reports, the Nasser Medical Complex in Khan Younis was struck in a sequence that witnesses and footage described as a “double-tap” (an initial explosion followed by a second strike as rescuers and journalists gathered). Local health authorities and international press organisations say at least 20 people were killed, including five journalists from international and regional outlets. Israel’s military acknowledged carrying out strikes in the area and Netanyahu pledged an internal investigation while stressing that Israel does not target journalists or medical staff.

Why Netanyahu’s “deep regret” matters politically

A head-of-government expression of sorrow serves several immediate functions:

• Damage control: It signals awareness of the international outcry and attempts to blunt diplomatic backlash while the state gears up a technical response (an inquiry, legal reviews, talking-points). That wording is calibrated — regret + “tragic mishap” — to acknowledge harm without admitting unlawful intent.
• Preserving legal posture: Saying an incident was a mishap keeps open the distinction between negligence and a deliberate war crime; it also fits the pattern of an actor promising to investigate before any judicial or independent fact-finding has run its course. This matters because intent — and whether precautions were taken — is central to legal assessments under international humanitarian law.
• Domestic audience management: Netanyahu must balance international censure with domestic supporters who prioritise military objectives against Hamas. The regret formula is designed to reduce diplomatic costs without signaling a change in operational strategy.

Why the UN call for an “impartial” inquiry raises the stakes

Secretary-General Guterres’ public demand for a “prompt and impartial inquiry” shifts attention from rhetoric to process. An impartial probe would need to be independent of the parties to the conflict, allow access to the site and to witnesses, publish methodology and findings, and make evidence available for external scrutiny. The UN’s statement frames the strike as not only a human tragedy but a potential violation of protections afforded to medical facilities and journalists under international humanitarian law.

Legal contours: what international law protects and what investigators will look for

International humanitarian law (IHL) treats hospitals and medical personnel as protected objects and persons; journalists, as civilians carrying out professional missions, are also protected so long as they do not take direct part in hostilities. Investigators will therefore seek to establish:

1. Whether the hospital (or parts of it) constituted a military objective at the time of strike — i.e., was it being used for combatant purposes that would lawfully deprive it of protection?
2. Whether the attack complied with proportionality and precautions obligations — were feasible warnings given, was the target verified, were non-lethal alternatives considered?
3. The timing and sequence of strikes — “double-tap” patterns that hit rescuers and reporters can be especially problematic if they were foreseeable and avoidable.

If breaches are found, they can amount to serious violations of IHL and may trigger international criminal investigations or interventions, depending on political will and jurisdictional routes.

Credibility problems with internal military inquiries — why many demand independent probes

Promises to investigate are necessary, but they are not sufficient to restore trust. International human-rights groups and UN panels have repeatedly criticised domestic military investigations in the Israel–Palestine context for structural limitations: lack of independence, narrow mandates, slow timelines and low rates of prosecution. That historical pattern is the reason many states, NGOs and the UN insist on either an independent international probe or transparent oversight mechanisms that meet international standards. The immediate question now is whether Israel’s inquiry will be open, timely and subject to outside verification.

Humanitarian and information consequences on the ground

Beyond law and politics, the concrete effects are devastating:

• Medical capacity shrinks. Nasser served large civilian populations; damage to infrastructure or the death of staff further reduces emergency and routine services in a context where malnutrition, infectious disease and trauma care needs are already acute.
• Independent reporting weakens. Killing journalists — whether by accident or design — reduces the ability of the outside world to independently verify events, increasing reliance on second-hand or partisan accounts and creating an information vacuum.
• Humanitarian access is further constrained. Aid organisations will be more reluctant to operate in areas perceived as unsafe, and donors and governments may condition assistance on protective measures that are currently lacking.

What to watch next

For anyone following this story — journalists, policymakers, legal monitors, aid agencies — the credibility of Israel’s promised inquiry should be tested against specific benchmarks:

1. Speed and transparency: Will the inquiry publish a clear timeline, methodology and interim findings? Will it allow international observers or forensic specialists to access the site?
2. Scope: Does the probe examine command decisions and targeting processes, or is it limited to “technical” aspects and operator error? The broader the mandate, the more meaningful the results.
3. Accountability outcomes: Will the process lead to changes in policy, disciplinary action, criminal referrals or reparations where wrongdoing is established? A mere report without consequences will not satisfy international demands for justice.
4. Independent corroboration: Will UN bodies, reputable NGOs (MSF, HRW, Amnesty) or forensic experts be able to verify findings or produce parallel inquiries? Independent corroboration raises or lowers confidence in the official narrative.

Words are the start, not the finish

Netanyahu’s expression of “deep regret” and a promise to investigate are important diplomatic gestures. But in a conflict marked by repeated, high-profile civilian harm and a history of contested domestic probes, those gestures cannot stand alone. António Guterres’ demand for a prompt and impartial inquiry rightly reframes the issue: an investigation must be demonstrably independent, methodical and transparent if it is to serve both accountability and deterrence. Without it, the tragic human loss at Nasser risks becoming another chapter in a long pattern of harm, grievance and contested narratives — with consequences for civilians, journalists and the international legal order well beyond the immediate battlefield.