The Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Was Never Going to Last

Palestinians are among the rubbles of their houses in Khan Yunis, Gaza, on Tuesday, March 18, after Israel launched a wave of airstrikes. Credit - Abed Rahim Khatib—Anadolu/Getty Images
The ceasefire between Israel and Hamas negotiated in mid-January seems to have been written on tissue. It frayed midway through the first of three phases, when Israel declined to negotiate for the second phase. Since then, it was only a countdown until the first hours of Tuesday morning, when the Israel Defense Forces executed a swift and punishing series of airstrikes throughout Gaza.
By Thursday, the IDF's ground operation got underway with a three-part pincer move, operating in the north of Gaza, in the Strip's midriff around the Netzarim corridor (from which it had redeployed as part of the deal), and in Rafah in southern Gaza.
At least 400 Gazans were killed on the first day of strikes, in what was one of the deadliest single-day tolls of the war, the Associated Press reported. The toll climbed to as many as 700 by Friday, according to Palestinian health officials. Social media is awash in photos of dead babies. The IDF says it is routing out terror infrastructure and picking off specific Hamas military and political leaders; Palestinians say they are taking down anyone in the vicinity. Hamas and the Houthis have revived rocket fire at Israel.
Where is all this leading? Ironically, it was much easier to predict where things would go two months ago, when the ceasefire deal was agreed, than it is now.
From the moment the details of the agreement became known, analysts gave the deal a poor prognosis.
The first phase involved the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, while the two sides suspended the fighting and Israel withdrew from heavily populated areas and from the Netzarim corridor. The second phase was to include a sustainable ceasefire and full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, and further hostage and prisoner release. The third phase would have ended the war and seen the release of the remains of Israeli captives and Palestinians.
But there were two signs that the deal would never reach beyond its first phase.
Read More: A Roadmap to Lasting Peace Between Israelis and Palestinians
The first was that leaders of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's most important coalition partners, the Religious Zionist and Jewish Power parties, made clear that they would bolt the coalition if the fighting stopped—they want to capture and resettle Gaza. When the deal was finally signed, Itamar Ben Gvir, who runs Jewish Power, resigned from Netanyahu's government, weakening his coalition. Betzalel Smotrich, who runs the Religious Zionist party, remained in government but insisted that Israel must restart the war or he too would leave—which would mean scrapping either the deal or the government.
The second was Israel's history of decision-making, particularly when it comes to Palestinians: Phased deals don't usually work. Case in point is the phased, conditional Oslo peace process during the 1990s that Palestinians saw as a path to an eventual Palestinian state and a permanent end to the conflict, neither of which materialized.
Did Hamas want to complete the current ceasefire deal more than Israel? Most likely yes. Gaza is in ruins, nearly 50,000 people have been killed in the war, and polls show that Palestinian hostility toward Hamas has risen. The group holds two main cards for credibility among Palestinians: forcing Israel to release Palestinian prisoners, and being the only Palestinian faction able to end the war. Beyond that, Hamas' only recourse to staying in power is brute force.
The first phase of the ceasefire went through. But then Israel declined to open negotiations for the second phase, after Trump took office and began talking about expelling 2 million Palestinians in Gaza. Netanyahu became emboldened to resist the second phase; Trump's Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff began negotiating that phase seemingly from scratch, introducing a new ceasefire plan different from the one both sides agreed to in January.
Now Netanyahu is facing an avalanche of domestic political crises. There is a budget deadline this month that could sink his government; mass street protests have resumed, with tens of thousands calling for a new ceasefire and criticizing Netanyahu for failing to get the remaining hostages home.
Israelis on some level have known more conflict was coming. A February poll by the Institute for National Security Studies found just 40% thought the deal would reach the second phase; more thought the chances were low (46%).
Yet no one knows what happens next. How long will this resurgent war go on? Israel hasn't been able to eliminate Hamas nor secure the release of most hostages through military pressure throughout the war—why would it be able to do so now? Do exhausted Israeli reservists have the morale for a forever war, and does a forever war lead to a complete military re-occupation of Gaza, alongside the continued expansion of settlements and de facto annexation in the West Bank? If the Israeli government has answers, it's not saying.
For its part, will Hamas accept a U.S.-backed 'bridge plan' to restore the ceasefire and extend it into April, to allow time for continued negotiations? Or will Israeli demands to simply release all hostages and oust Hamas under heavy military pressure work this time around?
There is a better path: ending the occupation through Palestinian self-determination and statehood, possibly anchored in regional normalization deals between Israel and Arab states. That would guarantee Israel's security and contribute greatly to a more peaceful Middle East.
But those with the power to make peace a reality, apparently prefer to make war.
Contact us at letters@time.com.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Yahoo

33 minutes ago

• Yahoo

'Perilous hour': World reacts after U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

Israel hailed President Donald Trump's decision to bomb three Iranian nuclear sites as an action that would "deny the world's most dangerous regime the world's most dangerous weapons." But the United Nations and many countries around the world called for swift de-escalation while others criticized the attacks. Trump said that the strikes June 22 "totally obliterated" Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities and that Iran had to "make peace" or face more, "far greater" attacks. In response, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi warned of "everlasting consequences." A recorded statement from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu congratulated Trump for taking what he described as a "bold decision" that "will change history." The reaction from other world quarters was more restrained and called for Iran to return to the negotiating table. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer acknowledged that Iran's nuclear program was a "grave threat to international security." He also said a "diplomatic solution" was needed to "end the crisis." Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba said it was "crucial" there be "a quick de-escalation of the conflict." The European Union's top foreign policy official, Kaja Kallas, urged "all sides to step back, return to the negotiating table and prevent further escalation." There were stronger words from longtime U.S. adversaries Venezuela and Cuba. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel characterized the U.S. bombing as a "dangerous escalation" that "seriously violates the U.N. charter and international law and plunges humanity into a crisis with irreversible consequences." Yvan Gil, Venezuela's foreign minister, said his country "firmly and categorically condemns the bombing." U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was "gravely alarmed" by the use of U.S. force on Iran. "There is a growing risk that this conflict could rapidly get out of control − with catastrophic consequences for civilians, the region, and the world," Guterres said in a statement. "At this perilous hour, it is critical to avoid a spiral of chaos. There is no military solution. The only path forward is diplomacy. The only hope is peace." Trump's decision to directly attack Iran alongside Israel comes more than a week after Israel started attacking Iran with a view to destroying its nuclear enrichment facilities. He did so without congressional authorization. 40,000 reasons to worry: U.S. troops in Middle East vulnerable to counterattack There has been been no independent assessment of Trump's assertion that U.S. bombers destroyed Iran's three major nuclear sites at complexes in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan. "Now that the strikes have come, Tehran faces a stark dilemma: retaliate and risk a wider war, or pause to consolidate at home," said Burcu Ozcelik, a senior research fellow in Middle East security at the Royal United Services Institute, a London think tank that specializes in military affairs. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: World reacts after U.S. bombs Iranian nuclear sites

Boston Globe

38 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Anti-war demonstrators rally against Iran strikes in Boston

'[Trump's] unilateral action threatens to embroil the United States in another costly war in the Middle East, just like George W. Bush did with his attack on Iraq,' Garvey said in a statement. 'His unconstitutional action endangers people across the region and American service members dangerously deployed there. Congress must stop these illegal actions immediately.' Advertisement The rally is being backed by a coalition of more than two dozen advocacy groups, including anti-war, left-wing, pro-Iran and pro-Palestinian organizations. This is a developing story. Dan Glaun can be reached at

New York Post

43 minutes ago

• New York Post

Vance: ‘No interest in boots on the ground' — but bracing for poss. sleeper-cell attacks in US

Vice President JD Vance on Sunday insisted the US has no interest in putting boots on the ground in Iran — while admitting the administration is bracing for potential terror attacks from sleeper cells in America. 'We're not at war with Iran. We're at war with Iran's nuclear program,' Vance told NBC's 'Meet the Press.' 'We have no interest in a protracted conflict. We have no interest in boots on the ground,' he said. 'We didn't blow up diplomacy. 'We only took this action when it was clear, as the president said, that the Iranians were tapping us along,' the vice president said of the US strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities Saturday. 'The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump's lead and give peace a chance if they're serious about it. I guarantee you, the president of the United States is,' Vance said. 4 Vice President JD Vance on Sunday warns Iran against retaliation. NBC 4 The Pentagon laid out a timeline for how 'Operation Midnight Hammer' unfolded against Iran on Saturday. Dept of Defense The vice president insisted Iran's network of terrorist proxies in the region is already washed up, as is its nuclear program, though comprehensive damage assessments haven't been finished. After announcing the successful military campaign late Saturday, Trump dramatically warned that any retaliation from Iran 'will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed' during the strikes on its Fordow, Natanz and Esfahan nuclear sites. Vance reiterated that warning and underscored that 'it would be the stupidest thing in the world if they' seek retribution. He also indicated that the US has been battening down the hatches just in case. 'We're, of course, doing everything that we can to keep our people safe. I think that we're prepared in the event that the Iranians do retaliate,' Vance said — before later warning about possible sleeper cells in the US. 'Unfortunately, we know that a lot of people who we don't have full accounting of were let in over the last four years under the Biden administration,' Vance said. Also among the fears of reciprocation from Iran is that Tehran could target US bases and other military assets in the Mideast or close off the Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway through which about 20% to 25% of the world's oil consumption flows. 4 Vance joined President Trump in the Situation Room to monitor the strikes Saturday. The White House/X Vance said it would be 'suicidal' for Iran to try to shut the strait, particularly given the havoc that would wreak on its already beleaguered economy. But he reiterated that 'our biggest red line is the Iranian nuclear weapons.' Vance, throughout his tenure as an elected official, has staked out a staunch anti-war position. He had long been skeptical of protracted US aid to war-torn Ukraine. In March, a leaked Signal message chat revealed that he was privately apprehensive about Trump's strike against the Houthis in Yemen. Despite that, Vance was adamant Sunday that Trump is being prudent with his use of military force and that preventing Iran's theocratic regime from obtaining a nuke is within America's core interests. 'The president has actually been one of the fiercest critics of 25 years of failed foreign policy in the Middle East, which is why he did what he did: a very precise, a very surgical strike tailored to an American national interest,' Vance said. 'I don't fear that this is going to become a protracted conflict because I think that we have a president who knows what's in America's interest.' The vice president also juxtaposed Trump's use of military action against Iran with how past presidents have dealt with conflicts in the tumultuous region. 4 Top military officials are still assessing the damage done to the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant and other facilities. MAXAR Technologies 'I certainly empathize with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East,' he stressed. 'I understand the concern. But the difference is that back then we had a dumb president.' Shortly after news of the strikes broke, a chorus of Democrats called for Trump to be impeached, accusing him of exceeding his military authority. Even some Republicans, such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), called the airstrikes unconstitutional. Vance, a former Ohio senator, shrugged off those concerns and stressed that 'the president has clear authority to act to prevent proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.' Earlier this year, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard testified before the House and Senate intelligence committees that the US intelligence community assessed that 'Iran is not building a nuclear weapon.' She later accused the media of misconstruing her words. 'They were way too close to a nuclear weapon for the comfort of the president of the United States, which is why he took this action,' Vance said of the Iranians. 'We had a narrow window of opportunity. 'We might not have been able to carry out this attack six months down the road,' he added. 'It would have been irresponsible, I think, for the president not to take the action that he did. 'What happens next is up to the Iranians,' Vance assessed at another point in the interview.