Gaza Ceasefire Collapse: A Miscalculation of Power and Politics?
Table of Contents
- 1. Gaza Ceasefire Collapse: A Miscalculation of Power and Politics?
- 2. The Fragile Hope of a Ceasefire
- 3. U.S. Policy and the Ceasefire’s Demise
- 4. Hamas’s Strategic Blind Spots
- 5. The Road Ahead: More Conflict, Less clarity
- 6. How can international actors effectively address the underlying causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too achieve a long-term peaceful resolution?
- 7. Gaza Ceasefire Collapse: An Interview with Dr. Anya Sharma
Analyzing the strategic missteps and political realities leading to the resumption of conflict in Gaza, March 2025.
By Archyde News Team
The Fragile Hope of a Ceasefire
In early 2025, a glimmer of hope emerged in the seemingly intractable conflict between Israel and Hamas. A ceasefire, brokered by international mediators after months of intense fighting, offered a potential path towards de-escalation. However, the agreement was fraught with challenges from the outset, and by mid-March, the fragile peace had shattered, plunging the region back into violence.
The initial agreement stipulated a phased approach. The first phase focused on the exchange of Israeli hostages held by Hamas for the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel.It also included a temporary halt to hostilities, allowing much-needed humanitarian aid to enter Gaza. The second phase, more enterprising and far more contentious, envisioned a “total withdrawal of israel’s forces” from Gaza – and an end to the war.
Almost instantly, doubts surfaced regarding the long-term viability of the agreement. Critics questioned israeli Prime minister Benjamin netanyahus commitment to the second phase, suggesting he had “no personal or political intentions” of fulfilling it. This skepticism was fueled by the perceived political advantages a continued conflict offered Netanyahu, potentially shielding him from domestic challenges and legal scrutiny.
U.S. Policy and the Ceasefire’s Demise
The Trump administration’s stance further complex matters. Statements expressing a desire to “take over Gaza” carried the implication that “Palestinians living there would have to leave,” raising concerns about displacement and undermining the prospects for a sustainable peace. Such rhetoric, reminiscent of ancient U.S. interventions perceived as insensitive to local populations, fueled mistrust and heightened tensions.
Hamas, keenly aware of these geopolitical realities, faced a tough choice. Despite the evident risks, the group appeared to believe that engaging in the ceasefire, however precarious, was their only viable option. Holding onto the remaining Israeli hostages, estimated at “about 59 people” with “perhaps less than half of them still alive,” remained their key source of leverage, tied directly to the accomplished implementation of the ceasefire’s second stage.
Furthermore, participation in the ceasefire offered Hamas a chance to maintain its grip on power and claim a significant victory: the “release of thousands of jailed Palestinians.” This mirrors historical instances where militant groups have leveraged prisoner exchanges to bolster their legitimacy and public standing.
Hamas’s Strategic Blind Spots
Beyond the external pressures, Hamas’s miscalculations played a significant role in the ceasefire’s failure. The group seemingly underestimated the limited time it had to negotiate a lasting settlement.
This misjudgment stemmed, in part, from the belief that Israeli public opinion favored a comprehensive hostage deal. Indeed,polls indicated that “a majority of the public favors an end to the war” in exchange for the release of all Israeli hostages.
The opening of a direct communication channel between the U.S. and Hamas, facilitated by “Trump’s hostage envoy,” Adam Boehler, also contributed to this perception. This unprecedented engagement, focused on the release of “dual U.S.-Israel citizen Edan alexander,” might have led Hamas to believe that the U.S. was willing to exert greater pressure on Israel to reach a long-term agreement. Though,as history frequently enough demonstrates,initial overtures do not always translate into sustained policy shifts.
Despite ongoing negotiations involving U.S.,Qatari,and Egyptian officials – aimed at “extend[ing] the first phase” – warning signs were evident. U.S. envoy Witkoff, “blaming Hamas” for the collapse of the extension proposal, explicitly stated that “Hamas is making a very bad bet that time is on its side. It is indeed not.”
Hamas also misjudged the internal dynamics within Israel. the group appears to have overemphasized the significance of “the fractures within” the Israeli security establishment, including Netanyahu’s “intent to fire” the chief of Israel’s internal security agency, Ronen Bar. Hamas likely interpreted these internal conflicts as a sign that Gaza was “immune from any immediate resumption to the fighting.”
However,these security shake-ups,rather than indicating weakness,served to consolidate Netanyahu’s power by removing dissenting voices.
Hamas’s self-assessment of its position may have been overly optimistic. The group “present[ed] the group as triumphant” during the initial ceasefire, showcasing its ability to force Israel to the negotiating table. The “repeated propaganda displays” during hostage handovers, while intended to project strength, ultimately “angered Israeli public opinion” and hardened the resolve of Israeli political and security officials.
The Road Ahead: More Conflict, Less clarity
The resumption of full-scale war appears to suit Netanyahu’s political interests, as it “keeps his far-right coalition members happy,” “makes new elections less likely,” and “keeps him safe from the looming criminal charges he would have to face once out of office.” This pattern of political leaders potentially prioritizing personal gain over broader peace efforts resonates with similar instances in U.S. political history.
For Palestinians in Gaza, however, the renewed conflict promises only further suffering. Hamas, meanwhile, appears “more adrift than ever,” with a “clear rift” between its political leadership (based in Qatar and Turkey) and the head of the military wing in Gaza, “Mohammed Sinwar,” whose brother, Yahya, “mastermind of the Oct. 7 attacks,” was “killed by Israel” last fall. This internal division, coupled with the lack of a “long-term strategy for alleviating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza,” casts a shadow over the region’s future.
the following table summarizes the key reasons the ceasefire failed, offering a concise overview for U.S. readers interested in understanding the complexities of the situation.
| Factor | Description | U.S.Implication |
|---|---|---|
| Netanyahu’s Political Calculations | Suspicions that Netanyahu prioritized personal political gain over a lasting ceasefire. | Highlights the challenges of relying on individual leaders for consistent foreign policy. |
| Trump Administration’s Stance | Rhetoric suggesting a long-term occupation of Gaza. | Demonstrates how shifts in U.S.policy can destabilize fragile peace processes. |
| Hamas’s Miscalculations | Overestimation of its leverage and underestimation of Israel’s resolve. | Illustrates the dangers of misreading geopolitical signals and internal political dynamics. |
| Internal Divisions within Hamas | Rift between political and military leadership on long-term strategy | Presents challenge for the U.S. when engaging with groups with unclear leadership goals |
How can international actors effectively address the underlying causes of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict too achieve a long-term peaceful resolution?
Gaza Ceasefire Collapse: An Interview with Dr. Anya Sharma
Archyde News: Welcome, Dr. Sharma.Thank you for joining us to discuss the recent collapse of the Gaza ceasefire. As a Senior Analyst at the Institute for Middle East Studies, your insights are invaluable. To start, what were the major factors that led to the failure of the ceasefire in early 2025?
Dr. Sharma: Thank you for having me. the breakdown was multifaceted. Primarily,there were important miscalculations on both sides. Netanyahu’s political priorities seem to have taken precedence over a lasting peace, as mentioned in the reports, while Hamas overestimated its leverage and underestimated israel’s resolve. Moreover,the Trump governance’s stance earlier in the conflict contributed a lack of trust,making a sustainable agreement even more tough to achieve.
Archyde news: The article highlights that many observers suspected Netanyahu of not being fully committed to the second phase of the ceasefire. Could you elaborate on the significance of this perception?
Dr. Sharma: Absolutely. If key leaders are not deeply committed to the total agreement, a lasting peaceful agreement collapses under the weight of its own internal contradictions. The reports suggest that Netanyahu may have seen a political advantage in maintaining the conflict.This erodes all trust, making it an unfeasible environment to resolve the crisis.
Archyde news: The role of Hamas’s internal divisions is described. How critical were those divisions in the overall failure?
Dr. Sharma: The internal rift between the political leadership within Hamas and the military wing presents significant challenges. According to reports, a military leader such as Mohammed Sinwar operates with a different set of interests than those of Hamas’s political leadership. This divergence in strategy undermined their negotiating position and made it harder to achieve consensus on crucial issues.
Archyde News: The article refers to U.S. envoy involvement as an element that, in some ways, gave Hamas a false sense of their position.Given the evolving dynamics of the U.S. position in this region, how do you see that impacting any prospect for a sustainable resolution?
Dr.Sharma: The U.S. has to be extremely careful in this region. Initial diplomatic attempts were often perceived as a willingness to compromise key principles, and this may have been misunderstood by Hamas.Given the vrey sensitive geopolitical dynamics in any peace negotiation,a comprehensive understanding is vital to the region’s long-term stability. History tells us that that a shift in policy from the White House may have led to an impasse, which had several negative outcomes.
archyde News: Dr. Sharma, what are the potential long-term implications of this renewed conflict, and what role can international actors play in mitigating the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza?
Dr. Sharma: The future is unluckily bleak.For Palestinians, it means continued hardship within Gaza. For Hamas, it means possible isolation. The table in the article provides several clear insights U.S. policy. Regarding the international community, there needs to be consistent diplomatic pressure, unconditional humanitarian aid, and a focus on addressing the underlying causes of this conflict so that each negotiation actually gets results in a solution long term. What are your readers’ thoughts on the role of international actors? We would love to receive any comments for potential ideas!
Archyde News: Dr. Sharma, thank you for your time and insightful analysis
