A series of Israeli airstrikes devastated the Gaza Strip on Tuesday, resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians. This offensive marks a significant shift in Israeli policy, as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decided to depart from a ceasefire agreement with Hamas that was established earlier in January. This decision places Netanyahu in the middle of conflicting pressures, as hostages’ families urge negotiations with Hamas for their release, while his far-right political coalition favors the continued military engagement aimed at dismantling the militant organization.
By choosing to halt the ceasefire, Netanyahu aligns with the latter viewpoint, a decision that has received backing from the U.S. administration led by President Donald Trump. Both Israel and the United States attribute the reignited conflict to Hamas’ failure to release additional hostages before any peace negotiations, an action not outlined in the original ceasefire terms. Israel has accused Hamas of plotting further attacks, although no concrete evidence has been presented, while Hamas denies these claims.
Despite the recent attacks being met with no immediate military retaliation from Hamas, the group has long pushed for meaningful discussions around the next steps of the ceasefire, which involve prisoner exchanges and an eventual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Such discussions were scheduled for early February, but the likelihood of these talks resuming has dwindled significantly.
The original ceasefire deal, reached with the endorsement of both outgoing and incoming U.S administrations, aimed to de-escalate the tension resulting from Hamas’ October 2023 assault that left significant casualties and hostages in its wake. The first phase of the agreement saw the release of Israeli hostages in exchange for the freeing of numerous Palestinian prisoners and the partial withdrawal of Israeli forces, coupled with a surge of humanitarian aid to the region.
Despite accusations of violations from both sides, the truce held during its initial phase. The subsequent phase, however, has always been fraught with complexity, with Netanyahu expressing skepticism about an enduring peace without the destruction of Hamas’ military capabilities. The sentiment was echoed in his statements where he emphasized the need to resume military operations post any pause.
If Netanyahu were to advance towards a permanent ceasefire, it would likely lead to a significant political dilemma, potentially ending his long-standing leadership. His coalition’s far-right factions have already threatened to defect if progress towards peace is prioritized over military action. Resuming conflict thus secures their continued backing.
The military option, as pursued by Netanyahu, seeks the ultimate goal of eliminating Hamas, but paradoxically, the militant group has endured months of intense conflict and remains influential within Gaza. Critics argue that should international forces take nominal control post-conflict, Hamas could still maintain significant influence or rebuild its military strength.
In opting to break the truce, Netanyahu announced Israel’s acceptance of a modified proposal, requiring Hamas to release a fraction of the hostages for an extension of the ceasefire. Hamas rebuffed the offer and sought immediate discussions on the agreed terms for phase two, offering gestures like the release of an American-Israeli hostage to encourage negotiations.
Amidst efforts to coerce Hamas into agreement, Israel enforced a blockade on essential supplies to Gaza and conducted targeted strikes, culminating in a devastating wave of attacks. U.S. President Trump, who initially took credit for the January ceasefire, has since advised Israel on hostages and constitutional relocation proposals for Gazans, met with international condemnation.
The U.S., backing Israel’s tactical decisions, illustrated the complexity and enduring dynamism shaping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
