The ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas collapsed on March 18, 2025, as the Israeli military resumed operations in the Gaza Strip, carrying out intense attacks that left over 300 Palestinians dead, most of them women and children. The offensive triggered widespread condemnation from international and regional actors, as well as domestic criticism, with calls urging Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to honor the ceasefire agreement that had been in place since January 19. This report examines Israel’s motivations for resuming hostilities in Gaza, the consequences for Israel, Hamas, and the enclave itself, and the impact on Arab efforts to prevent Palestinian displacement. Additionally, it explores possible scenarios for further Israeli escalation in the territory.
First: Israeli Motives and Objectives for Resuming the Gaza War
Israel has justified the resumption of its military offensive in Gaza by citing Hamas’ rejection of a proposal from US envoy Steve Witkoff that called for the release of Israeli hostages without a commitment to a permanent ceasefire. It has also claimed that Hamas was preparing an attack, an allegation the group has dismissed as unfounded and merely a pretext for renewed hostilities. However, beyond these stated reasons, Israel has a range of strategic motives and objectives for resuming its offensive, which can be outlined as follows:
1. The Netanyahu Government’s Internal Crisis
The Israeli government is grappling with multiple internal crises that have threatened its survival. Among them is a legal battle over Netanyahu’s court appearance, which poses a serious risk to his political future amid widespread calls for his resignation over corruption and bribery charges —coinciding with the resumption of the Gaza war on March 18, 2025. Additionally, Netanyahu is depending on the support of the far-right, ultra-nationalist Otzma Yehudit bloc, led by former National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, to secure parliamentary approval for the state budget. Ben-Gvir conditioned his return to the Israeli government on the resumption of military operations in Gaza and the dismissal of Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar, whom Netanyahu removed just a day before restarting the war. With the conflict reignited, Ben-Gvir rejoined the government, reinforcing the argument that Netanyahu’s decision to resume the war is closely tied to his internal political struggles.
2. Thwarting the Arab Plan Rejecting the Displacement of Palestinians
The Israeli government has observed that the Arab plan, spearheaded by Egypt to prevent the displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, is progressing toward implementation. This development appears to have unsettled Netanyahu, particularly after his visit to Washington, where momentum behind the US displacement strategy seemed to have waned. President Donald Trump’s remarks — stating that forcibly expelling Palestinians from Gaza is unfeasible and that no one will be removed — further signaled a shift in the US position. Trump had previously declared that he would not impose a displacement plan. Netanyahu may now fear that US assurances will not transpire and that the Arab plan will move forward, undermining the broader Israeli objectives of the Gaza war since October 7. These objectives include dismantling the Palestinian issue entirely and facilitating the mass displacement of Palestinians from both Gaza and the West Bank to neighboring Arab countries.
3. Taking Advantage of the US Green Light
Netanyahu has strategically leveraged Trump’s position both before and after his return to the White House. Initially, before assuming office, Trump had pressured Netanyahu to halt the war. However, once in power, Trump’s rhetoric shifted, adopting a more aggressive tone — threatening Hamas with “hell” unless all the hostages were released. Netanyahu seized on these signals, aligning with the US demand for a full hostage release while bypassing the phased prisoner exchange framework established in the Egyptian-Qatari mediated ceasefire agreement. While the United States is genuinely focused on securing the hostages’ release, Netanyahu has used the issue to solidify his grip on power. The resumption of the war has led to the deaths and injuries of several hostages, with Netanyahu fully aware that Hamas would not surrender the hostages under the threat of escalation. Despite this, he pressed ahead, prioritizing his political survival over diplomatic negotiations.
4. Hamas and Israel’s Divergent Approximations Over the Agreement
Hamas insists that any hostage release must be tied to a permanent ceasefire and Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza. In contrast, Israel’s approach demands the release of all hostages before considering any cessation of hostilities, with the door open to the resumption of military operations in the future. The ultimate objective behind Israel’s strategy is the forced displacement of Gaza’s population, aiming to clear the territory of both civilians and fighters and dismantle the Palestinian cause entirely. As a result, what Hamas and mediators termed a “ceasefire agreement” was, from Israel’s perspective, merely a temporary truce. A truce does not signify the end of the war but serves as a tactical pause — allowing Israel to recalibrate its military and political strategy before launching a new phase of the conflict. Netanyahu has repeatedly signaled his intent to reshape the political landscape of the Middle East.
Second: The Consequences of Resuming the Gaza War
1. For the Israeli Home Front
Shock and outrage have swept through the Israeli opposition and the families of the hostages held by Hamas following Netanyahu’s decision to abandon the ceasefire agreement and resume military operations in Gaza. Critics accuse Netanyahu of prioritizing his political and personal interests over the fate of the hostages, effectively sacrificing them for his own agenda. Israeli newspaper Haaretz had warned of this scenario days earlier, stating on March 7 that a renewed offensive in Gaza would likely result in the deaths of the remaining 24 Israeli hostages. Hamas has since claimed that Israeli airstrikes have already killed one hostage and injured two others, further fueling the backlash against Netanyahu’s decision.
Israeli media have strongly criticized Netanyahu, arguing that the renewed military offensive is not aimed at achieving strategic military objectives but rather at securing the return of Ben-Gvir to the government and ensuring the necessary quorum for the upcoming budget vote in the Knesset.
Meanwhile, there is growing anticipation in Israel regarding a potential response from Hamas, with concerns that the group may resume rocket fire. Several cities have already opened public shelters in preparation for possible missile attacks, not only from Hamas but also from the Houthis, who might launch strikes on Israeli cities in retaliation for Israel’s violation of the ceasefire agreement reached with Hamas in January.
2. For the Future of Gaza and Hamas
The latest Israeli offensive adds to a long series of attacks on the Gaza Strip, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis and worsening the plight of Palestinians already suffering under the ongoing blockade and repeated military assaults.
The widespread destruction caused by Israeli airstrikes has reached unprecedented levels, with the renewed war threatening to wipe out what remains of Gaza’s infrastructure, including health and educational facilities, as well as residential buildings.
The war on Gaza, waged under Israel’s total blockade of the Gaza Strip, has plunged its residents into an unprecedented cycle of deprivation and multidimensional poverty. If the conflict continues, Gaza is expected to face a humanitarian catastrophe surpassing even the crisis that followed the war of October 7, 2023. Israel has already begun forcibly displacing residents by issuing evacuation orders for certain areas in the Gaza Strip. Additionally, it has shut down the Rafah Border Crossing and is set to close the remaining border crossings, further tightening the siege on Gaza.
Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz reiterated that there would be “no ceasefire for free,” insisting that negotiations must occur “under fire.” He maintained that a cessation of hostilities would only be possible if Hamas first released the hostages. However, Hamas is unlikely to accept these terms, as the hostages serve as its primary leverage to pressure Israel into meeting its demands and to deter a full-scale Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip.
Despite the large-scale Israeli assault on Gaza, Hamas has yet to respond militarily. However, continued escalation or an Israeli ground invasion could prompt Hamas and other Palestinian factions to resume attacks on Israeli targets. Hamas’ military options, however, appear more limited than before due to extensive destruction of its infrastructure and the loss of key tactical advantages, such as sniper operations near the border, anti-armor missile strikes and direct engagements with Israeli forces. Israel has also designated certain border areas as buffer zones, forcing Palestinian residents to evacuate, further restricting Hamas’ operational capabilities.
3. Implications for the Arab Plan to Prevent Displacement
Arab states have reiterated their condemnation of Israel’s renewed military offensive on Gaza while firmly rejecting the displacement of Palestinians. They view forced displacement as a central objective of Netanyahu’s actions, alongside domestic goals. The Israeli government continues to take a hardline position on the crisis, rejecting the Arab plan for Gaza’s reconstruction as it does not necessitate Hamas’ disarmament. At the same time, Israel has dismissed the idea of the Palestinian Authority returning to govern Gaza. Netanyahu has also aligned with the Trump administration’s vision, using it as an opportunity to cater to the demands of Israel’s far-right. This escalation presents significant challenges to Arab efforts to prevent Palestinian displacement. Coordination between Israel and the United States signals a rejection of Egypt’s proposed plan for Gaza, while Trump’s continued commitment to his earlier approach reinforces concerns that Palestinians may face increasing pressure to leave their homeland.
Arab efforts to prevent the displacement of Palestinians remain contingent on the course of the war and the ability of Palestinians to endure the ongoing Israeli offensive. If Israel’s primary objective is limited to helping Netanyahu navigate internal political crises and strengthening its negotiating position by pressuring Hamas into making greater concessions — potentially leading to modifications in the Arab plan that accommodate some Israeli demands — then the risk of a large-scale displacement may be mitigated. However, if Israel’s goal is to push forward with a systematic displacement project, Arab states, particularly Egypt, could find themselves increasingly entangled in the conflict. In such a scenario, they may be compelled to escalate their own measures to counter the forced displacement, given the serious implications for their national security and the broader Palestinian cause. These challenges could extend beyond Egypt, affecting other Arab states as well.
Third: The Trajectory of Israel’s Escalation in the Gaza Strip
Netanyahu was never fully committed to the ceasefire agreement from the start. His initial acceptance was largely due to pressure from Trump before he took office on January 20, 2025, and as a means to ease domestic tensions surrounding a prisoner release deal. Throughout this period, Netanyahu consistently sought pretexts to resume military operations, delaying the implementation of the agreement’s terms and attempting to shift the burden of compliance onto the resistance factions. However, his recent actions indicate a firm decision to return to war. The key question now is: will he sustain the escalation or eventually be forced to retreat?
1. Catalysts and Conflagration
Multiple factors suggest that escalation is the true intention of the Israeli government. Avoiding a return to war would mean committing to terms that could lead to the implementation of the ceasefire agreement, requiring Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza. This would result in post-war arrangements shaped by non-Israeli actors. From a strategic perspective, Netanyahu — along with a significant segment of Israel’s leadership — views the war as unfinished. The primary objective of eliminating Hamas’ rule in Gaza remains unachieved. Despite the extensive Israeli military campaign, Hamas continues to exert control over the territory, and intelligence may indicate its ability to regroup and reorganize. This underscores the failure of the war’s objectives and the persistence of what Israel sees as a security threat. Meanwhile, reactions from Arab and Islamic states remain largely restrained, supporting Palestinian statehood but not necessarily endorsing active resistance. This lack of substantial external pressure emboldens Netanyahu to continue the escalation, seeing no major obstacles in his path toward dismantling Hamas and, by extension, weakening the broader Palestinian cause.
Netanyahu and his team perceive a historic opportunity to shift the balance of power decisively in Israel’s favor — both in its confrontation with Palestinian resistance factions and in reshaping the broader geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. This extends to altering longstanding perceptions of the Palestinian issue, sidelining past frameworks such as the two-state solution and reinforcing Israeli sovereignty over disputed territories and regional borders.
Netanyahu also benefits from strong support from the US administration, which provides Israel with financial, military and political backing, shielding it from accountability for its military actions in Gaza, the West Bank, Syria and Lebanon. Meanwhile, responsibility is deflected onto Hamas and other resistance factions, diverting attention from the root cause of the conflict: Israeli occupation and the Palestinians’ right to defend their recognized rights.
Additionally, Netanyahu sees a return to fighting as a means to advance the displacement of Gaza’s population. From the outset, Israel failed to fulfill its commitments under the ceasefire agreement, withholding aid, restricting essential supplies and tightening the blockade. This suggests a deliberate strategy to push Palestinians toward leaving their lands. A renewed military campaign could also serve as a final blow to the Arab reconstruction plan for Gaza, which aims to stabilize the Gaza Strip’s population — directly opposing the Trump-Netanyahu vision of forced displacement.
2. Restrictions and Military Retreat
Despite Netanyahu and his government’s determination to continue the war, several challenges could disrupt their plans. A major constraint comes from internal opposition, particularly the families of the Israeli hostages and their supporters, who accuse Netanyahu of prioritizing his political survival over rescuing the hostages. The political situation in Israel remains volatile, and Netanyahu’s efforts to leverage the war to consolidate power, evade legal proceedings and push judicial reforms could backfire at any moment.
Netanyahu appears to be wagering that escalating military pressure, including heavy civilian casualties, will force Hamas and other factions to release the hostages or compel mediators to push for a deal on Israel’s terms. However, it is highly unlikely that the resistance factions will submit to these demands, as the hostages remain their strongest bargaining chip. Moreover, despite Israel’s military campaign, strategic assessments indicate that achieving a decisive victory against Hamas is neither feasible nor realistic.
On the other hand, Trump remains unpredictable in his approach. Given the mounting pressure to oppose a resumption of hostilities, his emphasis on promoting global peace and his reluctance to see the Middle East conflict expand, he may withdraw his support for further escalation and instead pressure Netanyahu to return to the path of a truce. This possibility is heightened by the influence of Gulf allies, whose economic and diplomatic support Trump relies on for various strategic objectives, including mediation efforts in the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Moreover, Israel’s war on Gaza weakens Washington’s regional influence and fuels anti-US sentiment, potentially opening avenues for geopolitical rivals like Russia and China to challenge Trump’s “America First” agenda. Additionally, Israel faces widespread international condemnation, with strong global support for a ceasefire. Renewed fighting would further damage Israel’s international reputation, undermining the narrative it has carefully cultivated for decades. At the same time, continued aggression in Gaza strengthens the Palestinian narrative and revitalizes calls for a just settlement based on international legitimacy, placing additional pressure on Israel to address its deteriorating global standing.
To conclude, there is no doubt that Israel’s war on Gaza is not merely a local issue; it holds significant regional and global implications that could spark a broader conflict. The Houthi group may resume its attacks on shipping lanes near Yemen’s maritime borders or even target Israel directly. Iran, facing mounting US pressure over its nuclear program, might view the escalation as an opportunity to disrupt the regional balance, potentially acting through its proxies, including Hezbollah, which is already under unprecedented pressure and may use the war to reposition itself. This dynamic is not limited to the Iranian axis alone. Israel’s reckless actions are unsettling regional powers such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Türkiye and Syria, all of whom perceive Netanyahu’s expansionist and hegemonic ambitions as a direct threat. Growing opposition from these states could influence Netanyahu’s calculations, forcing him to reconsider the risks of further escalation.
