The world has greeted the new ceasefire agreement between Israel and the Palestinians with cautious optimism. However, beneath the diplomatic courtesy and carefully selected words lies an unpleasant fact: this agreement is built on sand. The ceasefire, hailed by world leaders as a breakthrough, is no more than a temporary pause in a war that shows no signs of coming to an end. Four primary lethal factors guarantee its collapse, and the resumption of hostilities is not a matter of if, but when.
The hostage gambit and Netanyahu’s endgame
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu faces an impossible political equation. He promised the Israeli public nothing less than the absolute destruction of Hamas. He has failed to accomplish that mission spectacularly. The moment Israeli hostages and recovered remains return to Israel, Netanyahu will be faced with a stark decision between his own political survival and holding to an agreement that yields neither victory nor security.
As one unnamed senior Israeli official said to journalists, “The pressure to finish what we started will be intolerable once our citizens are home.” The words, stripped of diplomatic nicety, reveal Israel’s accurate strategic timeline: a ceasefire as a pause, not an end. The calculation Netanyahu makes is grimly simple; his political fortunes are directly tied to Hamas’s destruction, making the group’s survival an existential threat to his leadership.
Netanyahu’s coalition, a patchwork of zealots and opportunists, has wagered its legitimacy on total victory. His critics in Israel see this truce as nothing more than political theatre to buy him time. For a man fighting both for his job and to stay out of prison, restraint is not really an instinct. The ceasefire provides cover only to bring back the hostages before returning to military action inevitably.
The disarmament deadlock
Israel’s insistence on the complete disarmament of Hamas is predicated upon a fundamental misunderstanding as well as wilful misrepresentation of Hamas’ nature and resolve. Hamas has stated, time and again, that disarmament will come after the achievement of a Palestinian state. This is not obstinacy rhetoric; it is existential logic.
Unlike conventional armies with tanks, warplanes, and arsenals that can be counted and surrendered, Hamas’s strength lies in decentralised networks of fighters with light weapons, improvised explosives, and intimate knowledge of Gaza’s terrain. Hamas does not view itself as an army that can be disarmed but as people defending their homeland.
Even if the rockets were piled up and erased tomorrow, the technological expertise and the determination to rearm would remain. Disarmament without statehood is, for Hamas, less of a concession than a surrender. The demand that Hamas surrender its defensive capabilities while Israel enjoys absolute military superiority — including nuclear ambiguity and US guarantees — exposes the lop-sidedness at the heart of the deal contrived to get the oppressed to sign their own defeat.
The guarantee that never was
The most glaring weakness of the agreement, perhaps, is that it includes no enforceable guarantees whatsoever. President Donald Trump, for all his self-congratulatory announcements of “peace in the Middle East,” has conspicuously refused to provide American backing for the implementation of the accord.
The omission is not accidental. Trump’s administration has instinctively parroted Netanyahu’s hardline approach, employing the same rhetoric of “eradication” and “final victory.” In practice, this has meant providing uncritical diplomatic cover and serving as a veto-wielding shield at the United Nations. Without American pressure to maintain the ceasefire, Netanyahu encounters no significant constraint preventing him from resuming military operations whenever it suits his political interests.
If President Trump genuinely intended to end the war in the Middle East, he possesses a straightforward tool: acknowledging Palestinian statehood and pledging American support for its realisation within a specified timeframe. However, Trump’s approach tends to be deal-oriented rather than changing the destiny of the region. His foreign policy, a combination of ego and donor arithmetic, has habitually handled Palestinian aspirations as a chip to be bargained, rather than a cause to be promoted. The pro-Israel lobby and high-dollar campaign donors will ensure that such recognition will never be offered.
Trump’s policy of lecturing on peace while waging war is almost theatrical. His “peace plans” are photo-op announcements, not historic pledges. Netanyahu plays along, knowing the script by heart. Together, they sing an old duet: ‘Release the hostages, declare a humanitarian victory, and resume the campaign.’ Hamas leadership knows the performance very well but bets on growing Israeli public exhaustion and international pressure to restrict Netanyahu’s choices in the long term.
The poison of revenge
Strategic considerations aside, the most lethal of all forces: revenge. Hamas has accomplished what most deemed impossible — humiliated one of the world’s most technically advanced militaries, outwitted its intelligence services, and transformed Israel from a Western darling into the most hated country on the planet.
For Netanyahu, this is not only a political setback but an existential affront. His identity — the self-proclaimed “Mr Security” — has been exposed as hollow. The Israeli Defence Forces, long lionised as invincible, now appear vulnerable, even rattled. World opinion has turned decisively against Israel’s operations in Gaza, and the once-ironclad support of Western capitals is noticeably snapping.
A ceasefire that leaves Hamas intact, still armed, and claiming victory is a mortal threat to Israel. The psychological need to reestablish deterrence and erase humiliation has, in the past, been a harbinger of escalation. Revenge is not a policy, but in this situation, it is the driving force behind the policy.
Netanyahu, cornered and defiant, may see in renewed conflict his only path to political survival. He has lost the war of perception; now he is going to fight again to forget it.
Conclusion
The current ceasefire does not address any of the fundamental realities that drive this conflict, including occupation, statelessness, and the imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a transactional pause designed to gain short-term gains — the return of hostages — while delaying the inevitable confrontation.
Without credible international guarantees, without resolving the question of Palestinian sovereignty, and without tempering Israel’s desire for military retribution, this accord will soon shatter. The world may hail this temporary cessation, but those who look closely recognise it for what it is: the calm before the next storm — a truce written in disappearing ink.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.