Before leaving office in January, former U.S. President Joe Biden mediated a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas. This deal was intended to have three separate phases in order to reach a conclusive end to the war however, only the first phase was fulfilled. Earlier this week Israel relaunched airstrikes against Hamas, ultimately abandoning the ceasefire deal and reinstating combat. The U.S. has been involved in the conflict between Israel and Palestine for decades, looking back to the Oslo Accords in 1993 and the Taylor Force Act. In 2023, they joined France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom in a joint statement that expressed “steadfast and united support of the State of Israel.” On January 20th this year, the U.S. State Department reported that the White House stands for equal measures of freedom, security and prosperity for both Israel and Palestine – charging continued involvement in the matter. Read on to learn about the details of the initial January deal, where negotiations currently stand between Israel and Hamas, and a brief analysis of Hamas’ strategy that initiated the war on October 7th, 2023.
THE JANUARY DEAL
Israel and Hamas reached a ceasefire agreement at the beginning of this year, quickly beginning phase one of a long journey to a hopeful end to the war. On January 18th, the day before the first phase began, Netanyahu had stated “We reserve the right to return to war, if necessary, with the backing of the United States” (AP News). This was a warning to Hamas and stood as a point of caution as the ceasefire deal began. It was originally agreed upon that Hamas would release around 30 living hostages that had been taken on October 7th. In response, Israel was to release around 1,800 Palestinian prisoners and begin to pull back from the Gaza Strip. From January 19th to March 1st, this phase was completed and Israel pulled back to a buffer zone to allow humanitarian aid to be delivered to the war-torn area.
Phase two was then supposed to begin, requiring the release of the rest of the living hostages and Palestinian prisoners. It also required Israel to fully withdraw its’ forces from the Gaza border by Egypt. However, Netanyahu refused to act on this point and abandoned the ceasefire agreement by returning to war just as he said they might prior to January 19th. AP News reported that the U.S. has supposedly backed Netanyahu’s decision to break away from the deal, as some speculate whether this is because Netanyahu is seeking to draw new terms of negotiation with President Trump (the recent terms having been implemented during Biden’s administration).
AIRSTRIKES & TRUCES
Presently, Israel has proposed a truce with Hamas with the following conditions: Hamas is to have a 7-week extension to release the remaining half of the hostages, with a promise to negotiate a lasting ceasefire. The militant group has refused the proposed truce, stating that the terms are different from the January deal and has instead proposed that they reinstitute phase two from the original deal. Now, the two groups are in a stalemate as Israel has cut off electricity and humanitarian aid from the strip in order to pressure Hamas into releasing the remaining hostages. No truce has been established.
Hamas has responded to Israel’s actions by calling on mediation and the holding of accountability from the United States, Egypt and Qatar for Israel “violating and overturning the ceasefire” (Arab News, Pakistan). U.S. envoy Witkoff stated that Hamas is “publicly claiming flexibility while privately making demands that are entirely impractical without a permanent ceasefire” (BBC). Netanyahu is also facing a contradiction of pursuits. While chasing after the definite annihilation of Hamas and a conclusive deal for the hostages, he is backed into his own corner by not reaching a permanent ceasefire. Essentially, Israel is pursuing a double win scenario on their part that many sources say is simply not achievable.
THE STATE OF PLAY
*Before continuing, let it be known that I am no expert in the study of terrorism or strategic warfare. The following information is merely a summary of my preliminary research*
While Netanyahu must address this conflict of priority interest, readers must understand that Hamas has nothing more to lose than a single card: the remaining hostages. This card alone is something they do not break a sweat over, as the militant group has proven since October 7th. In an attempt to cast a shadow over Israel’s attacks, Hamas as cried out to expose the attack on “defenseless civilians”. However, Netanyahu has not taken this attempted condemnation lightly as he has responded that Israel is fighting Hamas, not Gaza civilians. Arab News in Pakistan reported the Israeli President saying in conjunction with numerous calls for evacuations, “But when Hamas fights in civilian dress, from civilian houses, and from behind civilians, it puts civilians in danger, and they pay a horrible price.”
Certainly, Hamas has proven to be anything but a rookie when it comes to terroristic strategy and tactics. Claiming to look out for civilians merely proves to be a ruse intended to evoke emotion, triggering wrongful condemnation from outside and irrelevant entities. Looking to instigate fear and intimidation, terrorist groups oftentime act in public on account of supposed retribution or rather, revenge.
In Hamas’s case, the attacks on October 7th check all of the boxes for sadistic terrorism. They targeted what is considered to be a “soft target”, usually a large crowd where there may be a mass amount of casualties, increased levels of attention, and the culmination of intense chaos all around. Large crowds and gatherings present vulnerability. Seeking to challenge the authority of Israel in an effort to gain retribution for Palestine, Hamas did not merely attack civilians – they put on a demonstration for Israel. One important factor that must not be ignored is the strategy of provocation. Knowing that Israel’s military and government is powerful, Hamas instigated a strong response from Israel so the conflict would escalate to a war between an entire nation and one militant group. From an outside and hazy perspective, this conflict appears largely unfair and exacerbated by comparing the size of Israel’s full military to Hamas. This strategy of provocation is intended to prompt sympathy and a sense of injustice, all fueled by a façade.
WHAT NOW
Even then, Netanyahu faces severe backlash from humanitarian aid groups and organizations. Earlier this month, Doctors Without Borders condemned Israel for their airstrikes on the Nasser Hospital. The International Federation of the Red Cross updated their bipartisan response last January that called for more humanitarian access, the release of hostages, and the protection of civilians, hospitals and humanitarian workers. Nonetheless, the humanitarian and moral concern across the board is validated within any geopolitical conflict. One’s opinion about whether it ought to have a say in casting blame is up to the reader’s discretion.
Will there be a lasting truce? Will Netanyahu give up the fight for a double win? How should the U.S. plan to respond in the coming months? How might this continue to effect international diplomacy? Should increased measures be taken to condemn Hamas? That is for you to decide.
RESEARCH
AP News
Arab News
BBC
NPR
Doctors Without Borders
IFRC
US Dept. of State
Milestones in the History of U.S. Foreign Relations – Office of the Historian
US Foreign Affairs
International Centre for Counter-Terrorism
Travel.State.Gov
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs