Imminent Escalation of Conflict in Gaza City Feared as Israel Readies Offensive

The potential for heightened conflict in beleaguered Gaza City is drawing near, as Israel stands ready to initiate a substantial offensive. With the majority of the global community, alongside a majority of Palestinians and a sizable number of Israelis yearning for peace, heightened conflict could potentially intensify the humanitarian crisis. The prospect of peaceful resolution had been in sight only weeks prior, hence the imminent surge of strife creates a stark contrast. This resurgence of hostilities is set to occur nearly two years subsequent to the October 7 attack spearheaded by Hamas.

Many argue that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, is leveraging the prolonged military confrontation for his own political gains. He counters this by pointing the finger at Hamas, currently in custody of approximately 20 living hostages, stating that condemnation of Israel’s actions during war only emboldens the militant group. President Donald Trump of the United States supports de-escalation and the safe return of the hostages, though his envoy, Steve Witkoff, departed ceasefire negotiations, pinpointing Hamas as the impediment, and no discernible verbal pressure has been directed at Israel since the cessation of the ceasefire in March.

The US may or may not have modified its position in the backdrop, this remains obscure. Hamas claimed its acceptance of a ceasefire agreement in August—one that mediators claim closely mirrors an agreement previously ratified by Israel. Up till now, there have been no public reactions from either Israel or the US. There is uncertainty as to whether the allies, who had hinted at the pursuit of a comprehensive accord, are crafting something behind the veil.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, however, shows no signs of yielding. Mass demonstrations are being held in Israel, urging a ceasefire agreement that would safeguard the return of the hostages. Citizens protest that the prolongation of the conflict is solely at the discretion of Netanyahu, in his fight to remain in power.

Netanyahu’s administration relies heavily on extreme right-wing factions, groups that endorse the continuation of conflict until Hamas is entirely defeated, encourage mass migration of Palestinians to foreign lands, and endorse the revival of Jewish settlements retired in 2005. These right-wing groups promise to desert the coalition if the war is wrapped up without absolute victory. Conversely, opposition parties pledge to sustain his government contingent upon a hostage negotiation, though Netanyahu would invariably be politically weakened prior to next year’s elections.

Precipitous departure from power would leave Netanyahu more exposed to persisting corruption allegations and public examination into the deficiencies linked to the attacks of October 7, 2023. Yet, Netanyahu disputes such claims. He staunchly believes in a prolonged war until all hostages are retrieved, Hamas is quashed, cautioning against any pact that spares an armed Hamas, which might subsequently reconstruct and initiate another major assault.

Hamas, on the other hand, refuses to admit defeat. While Netanyahu assures that the war could potentially end tomorrow if Hamas releases the hostages and disarms, he concurrently confirms that Israel will perpetuate its broad security control over Gaza and endorse what he labels the ‘voluntary emigration’ of the majority of Gaza’s residents. Critics, including Palestinians, view this as forced eviction, a complete nonstarter for Hamas.

Hamas expresses its readiness to release the remaining 50 hostages—believed to be less than half of those still alive in Israeli estimates—in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, a sustained ceasefire, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces. The group also signals willingness to cede power to other Palestinian groups but firmly rejects the proposition of disarming or going into exile. Even if Hamas consents to disarm, verification would be a challenge.

The replacement of Hamas by another armed group spearheading what is perceived by many Palestinians—regardless of their views on Hamas—as rightful armed opposition against military occupation, is a plausible outcome. This was the case when the Palestine Liberation Organization, the dominant militant group in its era, agreed to exile in Tunisia following Israel’s 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Half a decade later, Hamas became a prominent entity in Gaza.

From the viewpoint of Hamas, relinquishing arms would leave Palestinians defenseless against the continued military dominance of Israel and the expansion of its settlements on territories sought for the establishment of a future Palestinian state. In June, a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Iran was secured by President Trump, who directed Netanyahu, both via a phone call and a social media post, to abort a series of airstrikes.

This surprising intervention into an ongoing Israeli military operation validated the extent of the influence that the United States possesses over its closest ally. Nevertheless, no such intervention has transpired in regards to the war in Gaza. President Trump advocated for the release of hostages by Hamas without exerting public pressure on Israel to halt, or at minimum moderate, its military operations. This is a contrast to the attempts of former U.S. President Joe Biden, who tried, albeit with limited successes.

Apart from supplying Israel with billions of dollars in weaponry, the U.S. has also provided a protective shield against United Nations’ demands for a ceasefire, sanctioned international judges investigating Israeli officials, and controlled on-campus demonstrations. The influence that other countries, including over 30 Western-aligned nations advocating for peace, can wield over Israel is relatively insignificant when compared.

On the 25th of August, President Trump insinuated to reporters that there could be a ‘decisive conclusion’ in Gaza in the following two to three weeks, without providing further details. ‘I believe we’re executing our roles well,’ Trump commented, ‘But indeed, it must come to an end.’