The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, which had held for nearly two months, came to an abrupt end yesterday as Israeli airstrikes targeted Gaza, resulting in over 400 reported casualties, according to health authorities. Israeli officials stated that this was just the beginning of renewed military operations, marking a significant escalation in the ongoing conflict.
Both sides have accused each other of violating the ceasefire agreement that had been in effect since January. The breakdown highlights deep-seated tensions and conflicting objectives that have made diplomatic progress difficult.
The collapse of the ceasefire stems from irreconcilable differences between the two parties. Israel is pursuing two primary goals: securing the release of hostages and dismantling Hamas’ control in Gaza. However, these objectives are in direct conflict, as military action against Hamas puts the remaining 59 hostages in greater danger.
Hamas, on the other hand, views these hostages as critical bargaining tools. The group has refused to release more captives without a firm commitment to a permanent ceasefire and Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza. Israel, however, has made it clear that it will not withdraw while Hamas remains in power, leading to a diplomatic impasse.
The initial ceasefire phase, which began on January 19, facilitated an exchange of hostages for Palestinian prisoners. However, the second phase—intended to establish long-term peace—has stalled due to these fundamental disagreements.
Egyptian and Qatari mediators have attempted to bridge the divide. Their proposal included Hamas releasing Israeli-American hostage Edan Alexander along with the remains of four American hostages in exchange for a 50-day ceasefire extension. This period would have allowed for additional hostage releases and further negotiations toward a permanent resolution.
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff recently visited the region, advocating for a phased approach where hostages would be released before discussions on ending the war. However, Witkoff has criticized Hamas for what he described as public flexibility but impractical private demands tied to a permanent ceasefire. Hamas, in turn, insists that it is merely upholding the original terms of the ceasefire agreement, while Israeli officials have signalled their unwillingness to withdraw from key strategic areas in Gaza, undermining the agreement’s second phase.
The situation is further complicated by regional tensions. Iran-backed Houthi militants in Yemen, who support Hamas, have launched attacks on international shipping routes and fired strikes at Israel. In response, U.S. forces targeted Houthi positions, leading to further escalation in the Red Sea region. Witkoff has suggested that Hamas should take note of these developments, hinting at potential broader military consequences.
Domestically, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government faces internal turmoil. The recent dismissal of Israel’s domestic security chief follows the departure of two other senior security officials in recent weeks. Some analysts suggest that the intensification of military operations could also serve to shift attention away from Netanyahu’s ongoing legal and political challenges.
Hamas has accused Israel of abandoning the ceasefire agreement and warned that the fate of remaining hostages is now uncertain. However, the group has stopped short of declaring a full-scale war, instead calling for international intervention.
As violence escalates, the central question remains whether a resolution can be reached that satisfies both sides. With neither party willing to compromise on core demands, the conflict continues to take a devastating toll on civilians and hostages alike. International mediators face significant challenges in their efforts to bridge the divide and prevent further suffering in the region.
