Unilateral end to ceasefire

The resumption of Israeli military operations as soon as it announced that it was breaking the Gaza ceasefire showed that it had intended to do so even while negotiating. As a matter of fact, the breaking of the ceasefire was an almost needless formality, for Israel had bombed Gaza already, killing several dozen Palestinians. One reason for the Israeli intransigence is so that it can oil out of the peace negotiations, because they had now reached a stage where Israel was going to have to talk about something the Netanyhu government had refused to:  a two-state solution. The Israeli government wished to keep the negotiations at the first stage, where Israel stopped killing civilians, including women and children, in exchange for the release of those hostages Hamas had taken on 7 October 2023.

Israel had actually over-reached itself by demanding the dismantlement of Hamas. The problem is that Hamas derives support from two things: first, its readiness to act; second, the presence of Israel as an occupier of Palestinian land. Because of that it cannot fritter away its sole negotiating advantage, the hostages it holds. Israel has also shown how little it values the hostages. Even though it has put them at risk once again, it has broken the ceasefire. Its initial response to the October 2023 attack was passed off by Israel as a defence of Israel, but s the slaughter continued, the entire world was disgusted, to the extent that Israel’s support began to slip. The ceasefire led to a stopping of the rise of that anti-Israel sentiment. That violence is resuming, and it is likely that there will once again be more questioning of Israeli aggression.

Another point with considering is what are the implications for the two proposals for the rehabilitation of Gaza. There is the Trump proposal and the Arb proposal. Is Israel trying to create circumstances so that the Trump proposal can be carried out? Israel wants a Gaza Strip and a West Bank empty of Palestinians. One reason a one-state solution is not acceptable to Israel is because it would have to be an apartheid state, or concede the logic of the inevitable majority. The Trump proposal would be very helpful to Israel, but the only problem is that the Palestinians for not agree, and nor do those countries nominated so cavalierly by President Trump.