Helicopters fly low over Tel Aviv, casting shifting shadows over a crowd of hopeful faces. Freed hostages inside press their hands against the windows. Meanwhile, in Gaza’s rubble, buses transporting Palestinian prisoners cross a border marked by devastation. On the global stage, world leaders convene, exchanging handshakes and claiming triumph. This spectacle of peace appears carefully orchestrated.
Beneath the surface, a more intricate and violent reality unfolds. Despite the celebrations, the ceasefire is already marred by bloodshed. According to the Gaza Media Office, Israeli forces have killed 97 Palestinians and violated the truce 80 times since its inception. A series of airstrikes on October 19, triggered by the deaths of two Israeli soldiers, posed a severe challenge to the agreement, resulting in numerous casualties and serving as a stark reminder to Palestinians that the quietude following bombings offers only temporary and uncertain respite. In this delicate pause, justice remains conspicuously absent.
For the people of Gaza, the calm following two years of bombardment brings both relief and accusation. While the guns have fallen silent, the aftermath paints a picture of profound loss. Over 67,000 Palestinian lives have been extinguished. Entire generations lie buried beneath the ruins of their homes, schools, and hospitals. Despite the Trump administration’s ambitious twenty-point peace plan pledging a “de-radicalized, terror-free zone” and a “Gaza Riviera,” survivors return to a desolate landscape where even the earth seems to mourn.
**Political Triumph and Strategic Ambiguities**
In the Israeli Knesset, US President Donald Trump is met with a standing ovation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hails him as “the greatest friend the State of Israel has ever had in the White House.” The peace plan itself is a political masterpiece—rich in spectacle, cautious in its uncertainties.
The accord establishes an international “Board of Peace” led by Trump, with former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair among its members. It pledges to reconstruct Gaza through a team of experts known for creating “thriving modern miracle cities.” The rhetoric brims with potential, yet remains rooted in practicality. Gaza is set to be overseen by a “technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” under global supervision, while Hamas is excluded.
A crucial clause emerges towards the end: “While Gaza redevelopment progresses… the conditions may finally be ripe for a credible path to Palestinian self-determination and statehood.” The use of the word “may” holds significant political weight, offering a possibility without a guarantee. Notably, the agreement neglects to address the ongoing international legal proceedings.
**The Gradual Wheels of Justice**
While political leaders proclaim an end to the conflict, international law operates at a different pace. At the International Court of Justice (ICJ), where South Africa has accused Israel of breaching the Genocide Convention, time moves slowly. Israel secured a six-month extension, extending the deadline to January 2026. A hearing on the merits may not occur until 2027, emphasizing that international justice adheres to a timeline incongruent with political urgency.
At the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes individuals, progress has been swifter but faces unique challenges. The ICC prosecutor issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant for crimes against humanity, including murder and the war crime of starvation. Similar warrants were issued for Hamas leaders.
However, a critical obstacle arises: the ICC lacks its enforcement arm. It relies on member states to apprehend wanted individuals. When Netanyahu visited Hungary—an ICC member state—he remained unarrested. Hungary has since announced its intent to withdraw from the court. This underscores how political realities often supersede legal accountability.
These parallel processes—the swift political resolution and the gradual judicial procedures—illustrate differing approaches to conflict resolution. One aims to halt immediate bloodshed, while the other seeks to prevent future injustices. The question remains whether the temporary fix will be mistaken for a permanent solution.
**The Role of the Global South in Preventing Forgetfulness**
For Bangladesh and other Global South nations, this juncture presents both a challenge and an opportunity. History has shown a recurring pattern where political resolutions are lauded while accountability is indefinitely postponed. The peace plan fosters “institutional amnesia,” creating a framework where physical reconstruction necessitates legal oblivion.
The provision in the Trump plan granting Hamas members “amnesty” upon committing to peaceful coexistence starkly contrasts with the ICC’s arrest warrants for Hamas leaders. This discrepancy is not just legal but moral; can peace built on unaddressed violence endure beyond a temporary truce?
Global South nations must utilize their collective diplomatic influence to ensure that the ICJ and ICC processes continue unimpeded by the political momentum of the peace agreement. These cases underscore the principle that international law applies equally to both powerful and powerless nations.
As the Board of Peace commences its operations, Global South voices must demand transparency