Paragraph 6 of Trump’s peace plan for Gaza states as follows:

Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.

There does not seem to be any limitation with regards to what Hamas members are eligible to receive amnesty for. This would seem to mean, then, that even Hamas members who are guilty of torture, hostage taking, or other war crimes or crimes against humanity would be eligible for amnesty if they ‘commit to peaceful co-existence and decommission their weapons.’

This does not accord with international law. The Red Cross makes clear that while a government can grant a general amnesty to the members of groups that have rebelled or fought against it, when it comes to atrocity crimes no amnesty is possible. This is because every government has an obligation to prevent, put a stop to, and punish war crimes and crimes against humanity should that be needed. No government, or in this case coalition of governments signing the Gaza peace agreement, can bargain away this obligation. Furthermore, no amnesty is binding on the International Criminal Court, which would maintain jurisdiction and be able to prosecute atrocity crimes regardless.

The problem, of course, is that there is often a tension between justice and peace. On the one hand, peace requires some modicum of justice- any arrangement in which longstanding injustice is entrenched or ignored will not endure. But on the other hand, a single-minded focus on justice will likely get in the way of peace. If the enemy knows it faces prosecution, it will likely refuse to lay down its arms. To actually achieve peace usually requires an element of forgiveness and willingness to let go of trying to right at least some past wrongs.

It is unclear whether any Hamas members will actually try to avail themselves of this amnesty. But it still raises an important question about how far we are willing to go in offering forgiveness.

The case in favor of negotiating a ceasefire arrangement was overwhelming. If Hamas insisted on a blanket amnesty as part of the deal, was agreeing to it the right thing to do? Was it better to make an agreement that ends end suffering in the present, even if it means potentially letting Hamas members responsible for the most heinous crimes permanently evade punishment?

Or are there some crimes that cannot be forgiven, no matter what? Are there some crimes that are worth more fighting, more suffering, and more death in the here and now in order to make sure they are punished? Is amnesty for atrocity crimes actually the more dangerous path, because it increases the chances atrocity crimes will be repeated in the future? I’m interested to hear your thoughts.