March 18 was the day when the Gaza ceasefire received a tumultuous end. The world woke up to Israel launching a fresh wave of attacks on the Palestinian populous with more than 400 killed in a single night. The second round of ceasefire talks that had garnered attention for being the decisive point that would determine an end to the hostilities and would ensure the release of hostages, failed. To understand why this fragile peace withered and finally collapsed, examining the complex geopolitics and the role of both leaderships is critical.
A breakdown of the first round of talks is necessary to understand the current scenario and ceasefire breakdown. The brutal conflict had received some respite in January when US-backed Israel and Hamas agreed to the first round of phased-out negotiations in which it was agreed that 25 Israeli hostages and 1800 Palestinian prisoners would be released.
While this phase was meant to last until March 19, many of the provisions of the complete release of all captives on both sides was yet to be decided and hinged upon the upcoming second round of negotiations.
However, given that despite the first round of talks being initially brokered by the US and various Middle Eastern nations, mutual distrust has broken any likelihood of the new round of talks taking place.
One of the significant causes of the breakdown includes the role of the US leadership that egged on the Israeli leadership to renege on its ceasefire promises. International actors like America’s President Trump initially took credit for bolstering the ceasefire efforts but soon soured going as far as to threaten Gaza civilians and giving the ‘last warning’ to Hamas to release the hostages. Given that Trump has been open about its full support for Israeli actions post the agreement and has also been dismissive of Palestinian lives even going as far as calling for their ‘permanent relocation’ in order to rebuild Gaza according to his ‘Riviera’ vision, this has only served to weaken the prospect of peace. Netanyahu no longer feels pressured to uphold his international promises unlike under the Biden administration.
Director of Middle Eastern Studies at University of San Francisco, Stephen Zunes claims that in the first place, both Trump and Netanyahu have no plans of giving up Gaza due to their desire to invest and turn it into a concrete paradise that aligns with securing Israel’s security in the Middle East. He states that the idea hinges upon initially having Hamas and Israel agree upon a joint proposal which will soon be called into revision and then the US will put forward a new proposal that will consequently be rejected by Hamas so that the international responsibility and blame can go on Hamas for stalling ceasefire efforts.
Trump and Netanyahu are also of the opinion that even if the war is to end and hostage deal is secured, withdrawing from the Gaza strip would only serve to compromise Israel security since it is their belief that Hamas will not be eradicated but instead gain further popularity and have legitimate leadership in Palestine.
Since there have been no negotiations over the future of Palestinian leadership and instead there have been calls by Israel and US to even change the regional demography by expelling Palestinians, it seems that any prospect of Hamas returning to Gaza will not be appreciated. To prevent this likelihood, both have agreed and adopted the course of action where military engagement continues instead of a ceasefire being secured.
Furthermore, the role of the Israeli leadership needs to be examined. Netanyahu has been accused not only at the international front but even by its own Israeli populous of creating obstacles in achieving a lasting peace to the hostage issue. Despite the absence of written guarantees, Hamas was keen to secure the release of the last 59 remaining hostages as agreed upon in January and was committed to the second phase of the negotiations. Instead, Hamas accused Netanyahu of bad faith after the latter not only refused to allow the passage of humanitarian aid, food and fuel to Gaza in the hopes to pressure Hamas and even refused to withdraw from the Gaza’s strategic corridor at Egypt’s border as agreed upon in the first phase.
Netanyahu also changed the terms of the conditions as stipulated in the first phase stating that only a further extension of a seven-week truce would be agreed upon after release of half the hostages instead of a complete ceasefire. Netanyahu submitted this new US proposal that called for a vague continuation of ceasefire talks despite Hamas being committed to an end to the genocide. By creating ‘impractical demands’ in private, the hope is to make Hamas appear as the ‘irrational actor’ in public who are sabotaging the peace talks.
The reason behind this is that Netanyahu faces pressure from his far-right coalitions and risks losing support among varying factions such as the Finance Minister Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. Both oppose all forms of poltical settlement with Hamas. Their support is vital if Netanyahu hopes to retain his poltical standing and any form of negotiations in round two ceasefire talks would risk him losing their backing as they would accuse any end to the war as a loss for Israel. This poltical calculus has played a key role in reminding Netanyahu of his lack of domestic support at home especially given that Israel’s security was compromised during his regime and all hold him accountable for his failure of not being able to obtain a hostage deal. Hence, he decided to opt for renewed military action to maintain his coalition’s stability instead of hostage negotiations.
It is important to understand that the already lack of trust between Hamas and Israeli leadership has also fizzled out all confidence of a ceasefire prospect. Hamas has already accused Israel of making use of the hostage situation as a pretext to engage in hostilities, escalate regional violence and genocide. The absence of clear communication lines and instead the reliance on mediation done by other international actors like the US who remain partial in their decisions and follow their own regional agendas makes any ceasefire outcome next to impossible. Direct communication is vital instead of relaying interests by third parties.
Conclusively, the Gaza ceasefires collapse can be attributed to the complex blend of geo-strategic interests and political maneuvering. The role played by Trump and Netanyahu has been significant in undermining peace efforts while the absence of meaningful dialogue between Hamas and Israeli leadership has led to conflicting agendas that has only created a further divide on the likelihood of a permanent ceasefire. Hence as Palestinian civilians continue to be bombed, the likelihood of a future peace once again remains elusive.
The writer is our Editorial Assistant and internal affairs analyst.
