The guns may fall silent, but the harder question will remain: who answers for the dead? As ceasefire negotiations in late 2025 hinge on Hamas surrendering its weapons, the deeper challenge of post-conflict Gaza is not just disarmament but accountability. Without a mechanism to address war crimes on both sides, the cycle of violence that has defined Gaza for decades is likely to repeat. This article explores the thorny issue of accountability, why it’s being postponed, and what models might offer a path forward.
The Disarmament Dilemma
Hamas’s conditional willingness to disarm in exchange for a ceasefire has been a central pillar of every major peace framework floated by Qatar, Egypt, and the US. Yet even if that happens, it would only solve the military question. The deeper, more intractable problem is accountability. Over 45,000 Palestinians have died in the Israeli campaign that followed Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack, which killed about 1,200 Israelis and took 250 hostages. Those numbers cry out for justice, but no formal mechanism—no tribunal, no truth commission, no reparations framework—has been established for either side.
Why Accountability Keeps Getting Postponed
The logic of “pragmatic sequencing” has dominated diplomatic efforts. The argument goes: first secure a ceasefire, deliver humanitarian aid, and stabilize the security situation. Justice can come later. This was the approach in the Dayton Accords for Bosnia, where war criminals remained in power for years to ensure peace. But the risk is that “later” never comes, and grievances fester. In Gaza, each prior round of conflict—2008-09, 2012, 2014, 2021—ended with ceasefires but no accountability, and violence returned with greater intensity.
The ICC as a Flashpoint
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants in May 2024 for Hamas leaders and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, alleging war crimes including starvation as a method of warfare. But the ICC’s reach is limited. The US has shielded Israel from ICC jurisdiction, and neither Israel nor Hamas recognizes the court’s authority. The warrants are symbolic, not operational. They set a precedent but offer no immediate avenue for justice in Gaza itself.
Models from History: What Could Work?
History offers contrasting templates. South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission prioritized restorative justice over punishment, allowing victims to confront perpetrators in exchange for amnesty. The Nuremberg Trials imposed punitive justice on defeated leaders. Rwanda’s gacaca courts engaged local communities in judging lower-level perpetrators. None maps neatly onto Gaza, where the power imbalance between Israel and Hamas is immense, and the international community is deeply divided.
The Palestinian Authority’s Credibility Gap
The PA, slated to play a central role in post-war governance, is itself a problem. Polls show a majority of Palestinians want President Abbas to resign. Its historical corruption and human rights abuses, documented by Amnesty International and HRW, went unaddressed under the Oslo framework, eroding any trust in its ability to deliver accountability. A post-war PA that cannot offer justice will be seen as a collaborator, not a liberator.
Structural Accountability: Beyond Individual Guilt
Some argue that individual criminal accountability is less important than addressing the structural conditions that enabled the conflict: the blockade, occupation, settlement expansion, and the collapse of the two-state framework. In this view, accountability should focus on institutional reform, economic justice, and ending the siege. Without such structural change, any tribunal would be a band-aid on a festering wound.
The Road Ahead: No Easy Answers
There are no easy answers. Demanding accountability upfront makes negotiations impossible—neither Hamas nor Israeli leadership can agree to terms that would see them prosecuted. But deferring it indefinitely risks rewarding violence and delegitimizing any new government. The international community remains divided, with the US shielding Israel and the Global South pushing for UN mechanisms. As the dust settles, the challenge will be to build a process that acknowledges victims on both sides, addresses structural drivers, and offers a credible path to justice—without which the next round of violence is all but certain.
Disarming Hamas is only the beginning. The harder task is building a system of accountability that can break the cycle of violence. Without it, the dead will have no voice, and the living will have no reason to believe that peace is possible. The world must find a way to deliver justice not just for one side, but for all victims—or watch Gaza burn again.
Summary
- Accountability mechanisms for war crimes on both sides are absent, risking future cycles of violence.
- The ICC has issued warrants for Hamas and Israeli leaders, but they are symbolic and lack enforcement.
- Historical models like South Africa’s TRC and Nuremberg offer different approaches, but none fit Gaza’s complex power imbalance.
- The Palestinian Authority’s credibility crisis undermines its role in post-war governance and accountability.
- Structural accountability addressing blockade, occupation, and economic injustice is as important as individual criminal justice.
FAQ
Q: Why hasn’t there been a war crimes tribunal for Gaza?
A: No formal mechanism has been established due to political divisions, the US shielding Israel, and the practical difficulty of prosecuting both state and non-state actors. The ICC has issued warrants but lacks enforcement power.
Q: Can Hamas disarm and still be held accountable?
A: In theory, yes, but Hamas leadership views accountability for October 7 as a non-starter for survival. Any post-war government that tries to prosecute Hamas faces potential backlash or renewed violence.
Q: What role can the Palestinian Authority play in accountability?
A: The PA’s role is complicated by its unpopularity and historical failures. To be credible, it would need to reform itself and demonstrate a commitment to justice, which seems unlikely given its current leadership.
Q: Is accountability a precondition for peace?
A: Some argue yes, that without justice, grievances will fester. Others argue for sequencing: first peace, then accountability. History shows that delay often leads to no accountability at all, perpetuating cycles of violence.
Q: What could a realistic accountability process look like?
A: A hybrid model could include a truth commission to document abuses, reparations for victims, and targeted prosecutions for the most serious crimes, combined with structural reforms to address the blockade and occupation. But such a process requires international support and political will that is currently lacking.