Israel-Hamas Ceasefire Faces Critical Challenges in 2025

The Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement signed in 2024 remains fragile in 2025. Key issues such as the return of Israeli bodies held by Hamas and disarmament obligations are yet unresolved. International mediators and regional powers are deeply involved. The situation marks complex geopolitical dynamics and the limits of external influence in conflict resolution.

Current Status of Ceasefire Implementation

Hamas has not returned the bodies of Israelis captured on 7 October 2023 as agreed. Egypt and the International Committee of the Red Cross are assisting in efforts to locate these bodies in Gaza. Reports indicate 13 bodies remain unreturned. Hamas either cannot find them or is deliberately delaying to extend negotiations. The next phase requires Hamas to surrender arms, which remains a major hurdle.

Recent Violence and Ceasefire Violations

Violence continues despite the ceasefire. Recently, Hamas killed an Israeli soldier in northern Gaza. Israel retaliated with airstrikes that killed over 100 people in a single day. Qatar, supporting the U.S., condemned Hamas for breaching the ceasefire. These incidents illustrate the ceasefire’s tenuous nature and the risk of escalation.

U.S. Involvement and Pressure on Israel

The United States has increased its military presence in Israel with 200 personnel deployed for monitoring. American drones surveil Gaza, marking a new level of U.S. engagement. High-profile Trump administration officials visited Jerusalem, signalling Washington’s control over the peace process. This exerted political pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who had to reassure citizens about Israel’s sovereignty amid perceptions of U.S. dominance.

Internal Israeli Politics and U.S. Influence

Netanyahu faces domestic challenges from hardliners opposing Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan. Trump’s warning that U.S. support would end if Israel annexed the West Bank undermines right-wing settler ambitions. Israel’s government is compelled to follow U.S. directives to maintain strategic backing despite internal resistance.

Hamas’s Position and Regional Players

Hamas remains defiant against U.S. pressure. It demands concessions before releasing hostages and resists disarmament. Qatar and Turkey, mediators in the ceasefire, seek to balance pleasing the U.S. and expanding their influence in Gaza’s post-conflict reconstruction. Hamas’s future compliance with these actors is uncertain.

Geopolitical Paradox and Long-Term Challenges

A paradox emerges – Trump controls Israel’s political decisions but has limited sway over Hamas. Israel is militarily stronger but politically constrained. Hamas is militarily weaker but ideologically independent. Trump’s approach emphasises transactional diplomacy and threats, which may stabilise the situation temporarily but risks long-term resentment. Stability requires restraint, reconciliation, and regional ownership—elements difficult to enforce externally.

Implications for Regional Stability

The ceasefire’s fragility puts stress on the complexity of the Israel-Hamas conflict. External actors can impose pauses but not lasting peace. The asymmetry of power and deep-rooted animosities demand nuanced solutions. The coming months will test whether diplomatic efforts can prevent renewed violence or if the cycle of conflict will continue.

Questions for UPSC:

1. Discuss in the light of recent developments how external powers influence peace processes in protracted conflicts, taking the Israel-Hamas ceasefire as an example.
2. Analyse the role of regional actors like Qatar and Turkey in mediating Middle Eastern conflicts. How do their interests shape outcomes?
3. Critically discuss the impact of asymmetric power relations on conflict resolution, with reference to the Israel-Hamas conflict and other global examples.
4. Examine the challenges of enforcing ceasefire agreements in conflict zones. How can international organisations improve their effectiveness?

Answer Hints:

1. Discuss in the light of recent developments how external powers influence peace processes in protracted conflicts, taking the Israel-Hamas ceasefire as an example.

1. U.S. deployed 200 military personnel and drones in Israel to monitor ceasefire, showing direct involvement.
2. High-profile visits by Trump administration officials to Jerusalem signal U.S. control over peace diplomacy.
3. U.S. pressure shaped Israeli policy, e.g., Netanyahu forced to accept Trump’s 20-Point Gaza Plan despite internal opposition.
4. External powers can impose ceasefire pauses but struggle to enforce long-term peace due to local complexities.
5. Hamas remains less influenced by U.S., showing limits of external leverage on non-state actors.
6. External involvement creates political tensions, sovereignty concerns, and domestic backlash in host countries.

2. Analyse the role of regional actors like Qatar and Turkey in mediating Middle Eastern conflicts. How do their interests shape outcomes?

1. Qatar and Turkey coerced Hamas into ceasefire to balance pleasing the U.S. and gaining influence in Gaza’s reconstruction.
2. They act as intermediaries between Hamas and international actors, leveraging political capital regionally.
3. Their mediation is driven by strategic interests, including expanding soft power and regional leadership.
4. Support for Hamas allows them to maintain ideological and political ties, complicating unconditional peace enforcement.
5. Their influence on Hamas compliance is uncertain and contingent on future political gains.
6. Regional actors’ involvement can both stabilize and prolong conflicts depending on their agendas.

3. Critically discuss the impact of asymmetric power relations on conflict resolution, with reference to the Israel-Hamas conflict and other global examples.

1. Israel’s military superiority contrasts with Hamas’s ideological independence and asymmetric tactics.
2. Power asymmetry leads to political constraints on the stronger party (Israel) under external influence (U.S.).
3. Weaker actors (Hamas) resist disarmament and extract concessions, prolonging conflict cycles.
4. Similar patterns seen in conflicts like U.S.-Taliban, where military power does not guarantee political control.
5. Asymmetry complicates negotiations, as demands and leverage differ widely between parties.
6. Effective resolution requires addressing root causes, not just military dominance or external pressure.

4. Examine the challenges of enforcing ceasefire agreements in conflict zones. How can international organisations improve their effectiveness?

1. Challenges include non-compliance by parties, lack of trust, and ongoing violence despite agreements.
2. Difficulty in verifying compliance, e.g., Hamas delaying return of Israeli bodies to prolong negotiations.
3. Limited enforcement power of international organisations without consent or cooperation of conflicting parties.
4. Need for robust monitoring mechanisms involving impartial third parties like ICRC and neutral states.
5. Improvement possible through stronger mandates, rapid response teams, and integrating local stakeholders.
6. Building political will and addressing underlying grievances essential for sustainable ceasefire enforcement.