A possible agreement requiring Hamas to surrender its weapons has renewed hopes that Gaza’s long and devastating conflict could finally move towards an end.
But ending armed resistance is only one part of the challenge.
The larger question is whether disarmament will be followed by genuine accountability—or whether international law will again be pushed aside for the sake of securing a political agreement.
A disarmament deal remains uncertain
The latest proposed roadmap links the disarmament of Hamas with an Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the transfer of authority to a new Palestinian administration.
However, implementation remains deeply disputed. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said Israeli forces will not withdraw until Hamas has been completely disarmed, while Hamas has reportedly demanded that disarmament and withdrawal occur together.
That disagreement is not merely procedural. Each side fears fulfilling its obligations first and receiving nothing in return.
Even if mediators overcome that obstacle, removing Hamas’s weapons would not settle the legal questions created by years of violence, mass displacement and destruction.
Disarmament does not erase alleged crimes
International humanitarian law applies during a conflict regardless of who eventually wins, loses, withdraws or disarms.
A future peace agreement cannot automatically cancel the obligation to investigate alleged war crimes or other serious violations. Responsibility is based on conduct—not on whether an armed group later agrees to surrender its weapons.
A 2026 report from the United Nations human-rights system called for accountability for serious alleged violations committed by Israeli officials and forces, while also demanding accountability for Hamas, its armed wing and other Palestinian armed groups.
That principle matters.
Hamas’s attacks against civilians, hostage-taking and other alleged crimes must be investigated. The same standard must apply to allegations involving Israeli attacks on civilians, restrictions on humanitarian assistance, forced displacement and the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure.
International law loses its meaning when it is enforced only against the weaker or defeated party.
Israel rejects the allegations
Israel maintains that its military campaign was an act of self-defence following the Hamas-led attacks of October 7, 2023. It has rejected allegations of genocide and says its forces operate in accordance with international humanitarian law while attempting to minimise civilian harm.
Those denials must be included in any fair assessment.
However, a government rejecting allegations against itself is not a substitute for an independent investigation. Legal responsibility should be determined through evidence, due process and credible judicial institutions—not political declarations from either side.
International proceedings remain unresolved
The genocide case brought by South Africa against Israel remains before the International Court of Justice. The court’s case record shows that proceedings and written submissions continued during 2026, meaning no final ruling on the central allegations has yet been delivered.
The International Criminal Court has also pursued cases concerning alleged crimes committed during 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. An arrest warrant is not a conviction, and the accused remain entitled to challenge the allegations through the legal process.
These proceedings demonstrate why accountability cannot simply disappear from negotiations.
Peace and justice should not be treated as opposites
Supporters of a rapid agreement may argue that demanding prosecutions could complicate negotiations or discourage leaders from accepting a ceasefire.
That concern cannot be dismissed entirely. Peace negotiations often require difficult compromises.
But there is a difference between compromising over political arrangements and granting permanent immunity for alleged international crimes.
A durable settlement should include independent investigations, protection of evidence, cooperation with legitimate courts, compensation for victims and guarantees that violations will not be repeated.
Without those measures, Gaza may receive a temporary pause without receiving justice.
The question the world must answer
Hamas laying down its weapons could remove one major obstacle to ending the conflict. It could also create an opportunity for Palestinian civilian government, reconstruction and the return of displaced families.
But disarmament must not be used to close the record on Gaza.
Accountability must apply 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.
The real test will not simply be whether Hamas surrenders its weapons.
It will be whether the international community is prepared to pursue justice after the weapons have been laid down—or whether international law will surrender as well.