The Gaza ceasefire, brokered with difficulty, was poorly enforced and ultimately undermined by Netanyahu’s actions, aided by U.S. support.
Despite the high hopes attached to the Gaza ceasefire agreement, which aimed to pause hostilities, exchange hostages, and allow humanitarian aid, its enforcement was weak from the start. Israel delayed prisoner releases, disrupted celebrations, and repeatedly violated the terms, while U.S. backing strengthened Netanyahu’s position to derail the process. As Israel resisted progressing to the next phase, it sought alternative plans that favored its interests, leading to renewed hostilities and the ceasefire’s collapse—while Hamas was blamed for its failure.
As Israel’s brutal attacks on Gaza—initiated after October 7, 2023—entered their fifteenth month, a long-awaited ceasefire and hostage exchange agreement, brokered by the U.S., Qatar, and Egypt, finally took effect on January 19, 2025.
The ceasefire was structured into three six-week phases. In the first phase, hostilities would cease, Israeli forces would withdraw from densely populated areas, humanitarian aid would enter Gaza, displaced Gazans would be allowed to return to their homes, Hamas would release 33 hostages, and Israel would free a set number of Palestinian prisoners.
Starting on the 16th day, negotiations for the second phase—requiring Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza—were to commence. Once the hostage exchanges were completed, the third phase, focusing on Gaza’s reconstruction and development, would begin. These terms were guaranteed by the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar. However, the agreement lacked clear consequences for Israeli violations, despite Israel’s well-documented history of disregarding agreements. The only assurance that Israel would not resume its attacks after securing the hostages was a verbal commitment given to the U.S.
What Did the Ceasefire Achieve?
While this ceasefire could not bring back the nearly 60,000 Palestinians massacred by Israel, it was critical in halting the bloodshed—if only temporarily—and in allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza, where people were suffering from hunger, thirst, and freezing temperatures.
For Hamas, it was the only way to secure the survival of hostages held in tunnels under relentless Israeli bombardment. Despite its advanced military technology, Israel had managed to rescue only a handful of hostages. Additionally, having expanded its military operations to the West Bank, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen, Israel was stretched thin. This ceasefire provided the Israeli army with a crucial opportunity to regroup.
Israel’s Deception Unfolds
From the outset, Israel signaled its unwillingness to honor the agreement. It delayed the release of Palestinian prisoners, used force against those celebrating the prisoners’ return, and created crises over Hamas’ televised hostage handovers. Israel also violated the ceasefire by deploying surveillance drones over Gaza and allowing snipers to shoot at Palestinians attempting to return home.
The hostage exchange process further exposed stark contrasts between Hamas and Israel. While Hamas released hostages in good physical and mental condition, Israel returned Palestinian prisoners who had been subjected to torture—many of whom were maimed or mentally broken. Some Palestinian prisoners even lost limbs due to mistreatment. Meanwhile, freed hostages expressed gratitude toward Hamas fighters for their humane treatment, while Palestinian detainees left Israeli prisons with an intensified hatred for their captors.
Israel’s Resistance to the Second Phase
The first phase of the fragile ceasefire formally ended on March 1. However, talks for the second phase, which were due to begin on February 4, were deliberately stalled. Netanyahu, emboldened by Trump’s unwavering support during his U.S. visit and Trump’s extreme vision for Gaza’s future, obstructed the negotiations. Instead of continuing with the already-established agreement, Palestinians were now pressured to accept either Trump’s plan, which called for the forced displacement of Gazans, or an alternative proposal by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff.
Israel’s reluctance to withdraw from Gaza—especially from the Saladin (Philadelphi) Corridor on the Egypt-Gaza border—was no secret. Although Israel had initially agreed to this withdrawal, its real objective was to expel Palestinians entirely after securing the hostages. Rather than adhering to the agreed plan, Israel sought to impose a new framework through Witkoff, limiting negotiations to hostage exchanges while keeping Gaza’s fate uncertain. However, Trump’s comments on Gaza, Egypt, and Jordan—implicitly involving Saudi Arabia—complicated the process, requiring these countries to either align with Trump’s vision or oppose it.
Egypt’s Plan vs. Trump’s Proposal
Neither Hamas nor Egypt and Jordan—expected to absorb displaced Gazans—accepted Trump’s plan. In response, Egypt drafted an alternative proposal that prioritized Gaza’s reconstruction while ensuring that its population remained on their land. This proposal was presented at the Arab League summit in Cairo on March 4. Though imperfect, it was unanimously endorsed as a more rational and viable alternative to Trump’s plan. The summit called on all relevant parties and the UN Security Council to implement it. The plan was welcomed by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, the UN, the Council of Europe, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the African Union. Hamas even declared that it would relinquish its administration of Gaza if the plan were enacted, addressing a key Israeli demand.
Despite the rare unity within the Arab world, Israel sought to sabotage Egypt’s plan. It dismissed the proposal with baseless claims and worked to sway the U.S. away from supporting it.
U.S.-Hamas Contact and Israel’s Backlash
A surprising turn of events followed: for the first time in 30 years, the U.S. administration directly engaged with Hamas, opening negotiations over both hostage exchanges and the ceasefire’s extension. When Trump’s special envoy for hostage affairs, Adam Boehler, contacted Hamas officials to discuss the release of American hostages, Israel reacted furiously, arguing that Boehler was undermining its interests.
Boehler later defended his actions, stating:
“We are the United States, not agents of Israel. We have our own interests. We established communication. I wanted to start negotiations in an extremely fragile situation. I simply asked Hamas, ‘What is your position?'”
This statement infuriated Israel, as direct U.S.-Hamas contact sidelined Israeli influence in the negotiations. Israel feared that if the U.S. continued engaging with Hamas, the process could take a direction unfavorable to its objectives. As a result, Israel sought immediate measures to sever U.S.-Hamas communication and prevent Hamas from making demands of the U.S.
Netanyahu Broke the Ceasefire, But Hamas Took the Blame
To break U.S.-Hamas negotiations, Israel needed to ensure the ceasefire’s collapse. The easiest way to achieve this was to restart its attacks on Gaza, forcing Hamas to disengage from talks and pushing the U.S. to stand firmly behind Israel.
At dawn on March 18, as Gazans were having their pre-dawn meal (sahur), Israel launched a fresh wave of airstrikes across Gaza, while tanks and artillery shelled makeshift tent camps where displaced civilians had taken refuge. In just 4.5 hours, 404 Palestinians were killed, and 561 were wounded.
Israel resumed its massacres exactly where it had left off, slaughtering 404 Palestinians—many of them women and children—in a single day, under the watchful eyes of the international community. As always, Israel swiftly deflected blame onto Hamas. The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs released a statement claiming,
“Israel resumed its operations in Gaza because Hamas demanded the release of hostages and the extension of the ceasefire.”
This deliberate distortion of reality once again demonstrated Israel’s strategy of shifting blame, even as it continued its relentless campaign of destruction in Gaza.
