A disarmament deal remains uncertain
However, this proposed roadmap links the removal of Hamas’s arsenal directly to an Israeli withdrawal and the handover of power to a new Palestinian administration, a sequence of events that remains deeply disputed by all parties involved.
The core friction point lies in the order of operations. In contrast, Hamas insists that weapons surrender and troop withdrawal must happen at the same time. This standoff is not merely a procedural disagreement; each side fears fulfilling its obligations first without securing immediate returns.
A future peace settlement cannot simply erase the obligation to investigate alleged war crimes or other serious violations, regardless of which side eventually withdraws or disarms.
Disarmament does not erase alleged crimes
The application of international humanitarian law is independent of a conflict’s final outcome. Responsibility for actions is determined by conduct rather than the subsequent decision of an armed group to lay down its arms. Consequently, a peace agreement cannot automatically cancel the duty to probe allegations of war crimes or other severe breaches of the law.
This principle was underscored in a 2026 report from the United Nations human-rights system. The document called for accountability regarding serious alleged violations committed by Israeli officials and forces, while simultaneously demanding that Hamas, its armed wing, and other Palestinian armed groups face similar scrutiny.
Specifically, Hamas’s attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and other alleged criminal acts must be investigated under the same rigorous standards applied to allegations concerning Israeli operations. These include claims regarding attacks on civilians, restrictions on humanitarian aid, forced displacement, and the extensive destruction of civilian infrastructure. International law loses its fundamental meaning if it is enforced selectively against only the weaker or defeated party.
Israel rejects the allegations
Tel Aviv maintains that its military campaign constitutes a legitimate act of self-defence following the Hamas-led assaults on October 7, 2023. The Israeli government has firmly rejected accusations of genocide and asserts that its forces operate in strict accordance with international humanitarian law while striving to minimise harm to civilians.
While these denials must be acknowledged in any fair assessment of the situation, a government’s rejection of allegations against itself does not serve as a substitute for an independent investigation. Legal responsibility must be determined through evidence, due process, and credible judicial institutions, rather than relying solely on political declarations from either side.
International proceedings remain unresolved
The legal landscape remains active with significant cases pending before major international bodies. The genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel continues before the International Court of Justice. Records indicate that proceedings and written submissions continued during 2026, meaning no final ruling on the central allegations has yet been delivered.
Simultaneously, the International Criminal Court has pursued cases concerning alleged crimes committed throughout the conflict. In November 2024, its judges issued arrest warrants for Benjamin Netanyahu and former Israeli defence minister Yoav Gallant after rejecting Israel’s jurisdictional challenges at that stage of the proceedings.
It is crucial to remember that an arrest warrant is not a conviction, and the accused retain the right to challenge the allegations through the established legal process. These ongoing judicial actions highlight that the matter is far from settled, regardless of any political agreements reached on the ground.
Peace and justice should not be treated as opposites
While this concern regarding negotiation dynamics cannot be dismissed entirely, there is a distinct difference between compromising on political arrangements and granting permanent immunity for alleged international crimes.
The question the world must answer
However, disarmament must not be used as a mechanism to close the record on Gaza.
Accountability must apply equally to Hamas, Israeli officials, and anyone else credibly accused of violating international law. The legal standard cannot change depending on the identity or military strength of the accused.