By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
Why Did the Israeli Occupation Violate the Truce?
Three key factors are driving Netanyahu and his extremist government to breach the ceasefire agreement, reject its second phase, and continue the war:
First: An attempt to impose a new security equation and reach a settlement on Israeli terms, after failing to achieve the war’s declared objectives—namely, crushing Hamas and the resistance, occupying the Gaza Strip (GS), freeing Israeli captives, imposing Israel’s vision for the Strip’s future, and securing settlements around GS. Instead, Hamas succeeded in setting the terms. From day one, it—along with the broader resistance—seized the initiative, rendering the question of “the day after” irrelevant. Furthermore, Hamas led the prisoner exchange negotiations effectively, projecting a dignified and sophisticated image that won global admiration and provoked the frustration of the Israelis.
This left Netanyahu and his government deeply frustrated, despite Israel’s vast military capabilities and its considerable ability to exert political, economic and military pressure on GS. This includes tightening the blockade, blocking essential goods, and continuing military aggression and targeted assassinations. However, given Israel’s arrogant behavior and tendency to break agreements, it sought to retry what it had failed to accomplish during the 471-day war.
Second: This factor is tied to the internal Israeli environment, where Netanyahu sought to preserve his alliance with Religious Zionism and retain Bezalel Smotrich, who had threatened to withdraw from the government and bring it down if Israel entered the second phase of the deal. Furthermore, Netanyahu also aimed to reinstate Itamar Ben-Gvir, who had previously resigned due to the deal. He relied on this alliance to push through key agendas, including the government’s budget, the dismissal of the government advisor, the removal of the Shabak chief, and the reshaping of the judicial system…among others.
Third: Netanyahu viewed the US support provided by Trump to breach the ceasefire and resume the war as an opportunity to shift the balance of power on the ground and impose new realities that would force the resistance to accept Israeli terms. He also saw the Arab world—weak, passive, and, in parts, complicit—as a favorable environment for his actions. The Palestinian Authority’s (PA) passivity and its leadership’s ambition to replace Hamas and disarm it further emboldened him.
Since violating the ceasefire, Israel has imposed a tight siege on GS, blocking the entry of essential supplies. It has continued its massacres against civilians, regained control of the Netzarim corridor, and established a new one south of Khan Yunis known as the Morag corridor. It has displaced the residents of Rafah, expanded several occupation points, and assassinated leaders of Hamas and other resistance groups. Israel has also raised its demands regarding prisoner exchanges and reneged on its commitment to end the war or fully withdraw from the Strip. In addition, it has reignited calls for the displacement of Gaza’s population and made the disarmament of Hamas and other resistance factions—and Hamas’s removal from the Palestinian political scene—key conditions.
Possible Scenarios:
First Scenario: A temporary Israeli military and political escalation aimed at securing quick gains under short-term US cover, before being compelled to return to negotiations and proceed with the second and third phases of the agreement.
This scenario assumes that US support is limited to a few weeks, and that the international community—including key European allies of Israel—refuses to legitimize a breach of the truce, instead holding Israel responsible for violating the ceasefire and continuing its campaign of massacres. Domestically, opinion polls indicate that 70% of Israelis support advancing to the next phase of the agreement, while growing segments of the public accuse Netanyahu of prioritizing his personal political agenda over the state’s broader interests. Moreover, the prolonged campaign—spanning 471 days of war and atrocities—has proven ineffective, with Netanyahu’s strategy draining both the Israeli military and economy.
Meanwhile, the resistance, guided by its principled stance and accumulated experience, remains steadfast. It will not relinquish its weapons, nor accept any compromise on the independence of Palestinian decision-making or its subordination to the occupation. It is committed to continuing the fight until the war ends, Israeli forces withdraw, the siege is lifted, and a dignified prisoner exchange is achieved.
Second Scenario: Israel enters a zero-sum confrontation—a war of attrition—regardless of its duration or the military, economic and political costs. The war persists as long as the internal Israeli environment is unable to unseat Netanyahu and his coalition, US backing remains intact, and the Arab and international arenas remain ineffective, unable to impose meaningful constraints on the occupation.
Israel will seek to raise the bar by ensuring, in one form or another, the continued presence of its occupation. It will aim to preserve what it considers its “right” to strike the resistance and its leaders at will, to resolve the captives issue at minimal cost, to dismantle the armed capabilities of Hamas and the broader resistance, and to eliminate Hamas from Palestinian political life. It will exploit the issues of displacement and starvation as leverage to achieve, at minimum, the disarmament of Hamas—possibly with international and Arab pressure, and even the support of the PA, as many official actors share Israel’s goal of neutralizing the resistance.
This scenario hinges on Netanyahu and his coalition’s ability to stay in power, the military’s capacity to withstand prolonged attrition, and the resistance’s ability to endure in a struggle aimed at the eradication and “enslavement” of the Palestinian people, with the ultimate goal of closing dossier on the Palestine issue. In this context, the resistance appears to have no choice but to continue until the end.
However, this scenario has yet to gain strong internal support within Israel. Even the new Israeli Chief of Staff, Eyal Zamir, who was initially enthusiastic just weeks ago, now seems uncertain. He recently acknowledged that defeating Hamas and the resistance could take months, or even years.
Third Scenario: The continued Israeli stalling and refusing to engage in the necessary steps to end the war, fully withdraw from GS, and exchange prisoners. This scenario would sustain a level of tension, siege and “systematic” starvation, alongside ongoing limited military strikes and assassinations. The objective is to avoid full-scale war, reduce occupied areas, and minimize direct confrontation to limit losses, while maintaining strategic control points. This approach would be used to pressure the resistance into agreeing to a new ceasefire.
The first and third scenarios seem the most likely, based on the current available information, and Netanyahu may be conflating them. The second scenario, while not as strong, has a higher likelihood and could be considered if Netanyahu sees increasing signs of success. However, Hamas and the resistance’s ability to endure—backed by popular support—along with growing global pressure to end the war, the expiration of US backing, the issue of captives, and Israel’s state of exhaustion, will likely force Netanyahu, albeit reluctantly, to step down from his position and negotiate a deal that satisfies the resistance. This aligns more closely with the first scenario.
As is well known, and based on the experience of decades, the resistance will remain resolute in upholding its principles and preserving its weapons. At the same time, it will be determined to end the aggression and alleviate the suffering of the Palestinian people as swiftly as possible. Therefore, it is expected that the resistance will adopt a flexible approach in tactical matters, working toward agreements that serve the broader interests of the Palestinian people.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 19/4/2025
Leave A Comment