At dawn on March 18, Israel officially ended the January ceasefire by launching a series of air raids across the Gaza Strip. According to the gazan Ministry of Health, the first day alone saw the martyrdom of 424 Palestinians and the wounding of 560 others1.
While the ceasefire was still in effect, Hamas had adhered to the three-staged terms agreed upon on January 17. According to the original agreement, negotiations for the second stage were meant to be held after the completion of the first stage. One of the most important terms of a second stage of the agreement is the guarantee of a permanent ceasefire as well as a full IDF withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the entry of humanitarian aid via the Rafah crossing.
After this, the third stage would, among other things, include a reconstruction programme for the strip.
However, already in the first stage, the IDF had continuously violated the agreement. IDF snipers kept firing at people, causing dead and wounded, the agreed-upon humanitarian aid was locked, which was followed by delays in releasing Palestinian prisoners, and then a refusal to start the second stage of negotiations, leading to the resumption of the war.
Israel sees its genocidal onslaught as a golden opportunity to complete its settler project on Palestinian land by using similar methods to those that led the entity’s founding in 1948, in terms of massacres and forced displacements - something the Israeli government has publicly admitted to by declaring its assault on Gaza as “an existential war” and a “second war for independence.
In this light, Israel has resumed its war with the same level of brutality. At the time of writing, according to the Palestinian Ministry of Health in Gaza2, the number of martyrs since the end of the ceasefire has exceeded 920, raising the total number of martyrs in Gaza since the start of the Israeli genocidal war to 50,227. Further, the IDF continues to forcefully displace the residents and refugees from Northern Gaza all the way to Rafah. Reports speak of a brutality comparable only to the level of Western and Arab complicity: from bombing hospitals, to directly targeting civil defense and red crescent personnel, to bombing refugee tents, to committing summary executions, and countless other atrocities.
The resumption of the genocidal war clearly demonstrates Israel’s willingness to recreate a reality in which its settler project does not face any threats. But how does Israel always get to do what it wants before the eyes of the whole world? And what enables it to do so?
Timeline of events
February 13: Israel demands the extension of the first phase of the ceasefire instead of launching negotiations for the second phase, in violation of the agreement, knowing that the second phase would have the ceasefire tranistion from temporary to permanent, and thus guaranteeing an end to the war and Israel’s complete withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.
March 3: The end of the first phase of the ceasefire agreement. Israel denied the entry of humanitarian aid into Gaza and closed all border crossings, in what they claimed to be a response to Hamas refusing the extension of the first phase.
Israel adopted the plan put forward by US Special Envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, which calls for the extension of the first phase and the release of half of the hostages in exchange for a ceasefire during Ramadan.
March 5: Hamas reaffirms its commitment to the terms of the initial agreement and demands the start of the negotiations for the second phase as stipulated.
March 6: The US starts direct negotiations with Hamas through Trump’s “Special Envoy for Hostage Response” Adam Boehler.
March 13: US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff presents a new proposal to extend the first phase without the guarantee of a permanent ceasefire.
March 14: Hamas agrees to Adam Boehler’s proposal stipulating the release of an American-Israeli hostage and four dead bodies on the condition that it be linked to a transition to the second phase, which Israel refuses.
Hamas demands the modification of the Witkoff proposal to incorporate it into the initial deal agreed upon on January 17, before an eventual transition into the second phase with the implementation of all its terms.
March 18: Israel resumes its genocidal war on Gaza, launching a series of airstrikes across the strip as well as ground activities, partially reclaiming the “Netzarim” Corridor. “From now on, negotiations will only take place under fire,” said Netanyahu in a televised address.
US guarantee to the resumption of the war
With active support from the Trump administration, Israel has backed down from the initial agreement and also from subsequent proposals that guaranteed an end to the war. In fact, US proposals could have been formulated by the Israelis themselves since they align perfectly with their interests, especially when it comes to a permanent ceasefire. This is not unexpected of the US, even if Israeli media outlets - which are bound to military censorship - try to portray a tense situation between the US and the Zionist entity, especially after the US held direct talks with Hamas.
It wasn’t surprising for the White House to reveal that it knew beforehand that Israel wanted to resume the war. Throughout the negotiations, the US issued multiple threats if “Hamas does not comply with its demands”, and advised Hamas to “watch what the US is doing to the Houthis”3, after the US relaunched its onslaught against Yemen.
We cannot isolate any of the Israeli-American moves in the region from the resumption of the war on Gaza; from the US’ renewed bombardment on Yemen, to Israel’s constant violations of the ceasefire in Southern Lebanon, as well as its bombings and ground incursions into Syria, and its threats against Iran.
These simultaneous actions reaffirm the unity of US-Israel decision-making, deepening the separating line between the fronts of resistance against the Zionist-American project, and puts us in the historical epoch where the US is trying to regain its hegemony by the fronts that threaten its project in the Middle East.
The US has always sought to do this by using normalization accords to consolidate relations between Arab countries and the Zionist Entity, and from there, having them build political and economic ties. This US objective completely aligns with Netanyahu’s “Blessing” which he expressed at a UN address. Opposing this from materialising, is what Netanyahu dubbed “The Curse” in reference to the resistance forces in the region who currently either face a concerted direct US aggression or a US-funded direct aggression. Thus, the steadfastness of the resistance anywhere constitutes in itself a war against “Israel’s blessing.”
But other than the role of the US, there are also questions surrounding the role of the mediators, Qatar and Egypt, and the neutral tone that they have maintained towards Israel’s disruption of the negotiations and its violations of the terms of the agreement. In their official statements the mediators stopped short of holding Israel responsible for the collapse in negotiations. Instead, the mediators have claimed “the inflexibility of both sides” and their “lack of commitment” for reaching an agreement. As such, many observers feel that their role is actually to apply pressure on the resistance by promoting and adopting unfavorable proposals and attempting to force compromises from the resistance alone. This can also be explained by the mediator states’ own alignment with US interests, and their attempts to prove themselves to the US by achieving its “peace plan”.
The Palestinian Authority: Renewing its loyalty
On March 26; the 11th day since the resumption of the war, a group numbering around 20 to 30 people organized a protest in Beit Lahia in Gaza, demanding the end of the war. However, PA loyalists have rushed to exploit the scene and portray it as an anti-Hamas protest, propagating chants demanding Hamas to be kicked out from Gaza. Israeli media has also widely propagated these scenes and Zionist activists have taken to social media to call for additional anti-Hamas protests in Gaza. During that day, and the day after it,similar protests were also seen in other parts of the strip.
However, the numbers of the protesters have never exceeded a few hundreds, and were met with wide-scale rejection from Gazans on social media who condemned what they saw as an attempt by the PA to promote a narrative that alienated Hamas and the resistance from their people. Not only that, but PA intelligence services have even gone as far as organizing a sit-in “in solidarity” with the Gaza protest, describing Hamas as a terrorist organization, in full complacency with the Zionist agenda.
Paradoxically, while the PA calls for anti-Hamas protests in the Gaza Strip and in the West Bank, it is simultaneously banning protests in solidarity with Gaza in the West Bank, with its security forces even firing live ammunition on such protesters; On October 18, 2023, the PA security services violently repressed a march in Jenin, which had been called in response to the Anabaptist Hospital massacre, leading to the martyrdom of a child by the name of Razan al Turkman, who was shot by PA security agents.
It is important to point out that while the PA accuses Hamas of risking the lives of Gazans and holds it responsible for the human catastrophe in Gaza, it nonetheless clings to its stance of refusing the Egyptian proposal for the creation of a societal support committee to manage the affairs of the Gaza Strip.
This proposal was initially made by Hamas at the start of 2024 and was then put back on the table by Egypt in December that same year. Today, Hamas is still calling on Fatah and the PA to reach an agreement to create a committee to supervise all aspects of life in the strip, including facilitating the entry of humanitarian aid as part of the reconstruction process.
The PA is therefore complicit in the occupation’s strategy to pressure the resistance through the people of Gaza, a strategy it has followed throughout the war as well as in its previous wars against Gaza. This strategy is used to justify the massacres, portraying them as targeted assassinations of leaders or militants of the resistance in order to delegitimize its presence on its territory and among its people. Through these actions, the occupation and its proxies are trying to create a scenario that sees the population revolt against the resistance, allowing them to end the resistance’s control over Gaza and disarming it and “exiling” its members.
It is striking that the PA is conveying its demand for the ousting of Hamas under the pretext of the safeguarding of lives and the prevention of forced displacement since expelling the resistance would remove the last obstacle preventing the occupation from dominating the whole of Palestine. But these attempts are not surprising. On the contrary, they confirm the PA’s role as a direct proxy of the occupation and one of its most effective tools.
Generating anti-Resistance Propaganda
The PA’s actions fall under the Israeli strategy to create a “phobia of the resistance” in the minds of the people of the region, which is achieved through actors like the PA, as well as the “pacifist” normalizing Arab regimes and their supporters.
Israel aims to force people to reject the resistance on the basis that it brings destruction, and place blame for the Israeli occupation on the resistance, rather than on the occupation itself.
This was seen when the IDF raided the Dheisheh refugee camp in Bethlehem in the southern occupied West-Bank on April 2. Four Palestinians were wounded during the raid and others were arrested, according to the Palestinian Red Crescent4. During the raid, the occupation forces distributed fliers on the camp with the following threat: “As you have seen, the camps in the North of the West-Bank have paid a hefty price because of terror and armed activity”, referring to the ongoing military onslaught in Jenin and Tulkarm in the northern West-Bank. The fliers also included the following: “Life worsens wherever there is terror. The security forces will by all means possible counter all attempts or activities of this nature.” Through these tactics, Israel aims to spread fear of the resistance, which will eventually lead to a section of the Palestinian population to actively thwart any resistance activity as soon as it arises, out of fear of Israeli retaliation.
This defeatist stance is also becoming widespread in Lebanon, especially in the current time when the enemies of the resistance aim to exploit the vacuum left by the restructuring of the resistance’s ranks in Lebanon. These elements aim to promote a normalizing and defeatist narrative, based on a falsified historical rhetoric, which has long been disseminated by the fascists but is today adopted by “centrist” and liberal currents.
This narrative is mostly present on mainstream media platforms supported by powerful Lebanese bankers and financiers or by Western funds. It has also been adopted by a number of intellectuals of the Lebanese sectarian system, namely Saleh el Machnouk, the son of former minister and member of the “Future Movement” Nohad el Machnouk, who is implicated in multiple corruption scandals. Although Saleh el Machnouk presents himself as an intellectual opposed to the ruling Lebanese system, his actions reinforce this same system via a “revivalist” approach, and with the modern, youthful image he built his platform around. Saleh el Machnouk never calls for the dismantlement of the Lebanese sectarian system or the restructuring of the Lebanese State. Instead, he presents a flawed depiction of the Lebanese reality, reducing all the problems in Lebanese society to the presence of an armed resistance movement in the country. When looking at his content, it becomes clear that el Machnouk doesn’t have any political program and does not espouse any political stance except for his advocacy in favor of the disarmament of the resistance in Lebanon i.e. the disarmament of Hezbollah and the Palestinian factions in the refugee camps.
Another example of such is Karom Soueid, the banker who had written an article5 that was posted on September 30, 2024 in the “Middle East Forum”, a pro-Zionist, neo-conservative US think-tank. In this article, which was posted during the most recent Zionist aggression against Lebanon, Soueid called for the creation of a demilitarized zone spanning from the Damour River south of Beirut to the palestinian border, as Soueid claims that the presence of armed resistance on Lebanese soil gives Israel a pretext to attack Lebanon. This claim falls in line with the revisionist and ahistorical narrative disseminated by Soueid and el Machnouk and other like-minded intellectuals and pundits, as they claim that the Israeli aggressions against Lebanon only started as a reaction against the activity of the Palestinian Liberation Organization on Lebanese soil. However, historical facts debunk these claims, as Zionist aggressions against Lebanon started since the first days after the creation of the Zionist Entity, such as the 1948 Hula Massacre6, and are still ongoing to this day. Recently, Soueid was awarded for his pro-Zionist stances, and was appointed as governor of the Central Bank of Lebanon with US support as well as that of the Lebanese banking mafia.
Martyr Nizar Banat had warned us of this category of intellectuals and mercenary journalists who disseminate this defeatist discourse:
“A part of the manufacture of defeat consists of manipulating the mind so that it accepts defeat. And the most dangerous category that can logically spread defeatism and convince society is the elite or the so-called intellectuals. Of course, a lot of those considered to be intellectuals are not really intellectuals, they are just people who can read, write and lie, people who have the necessary audacity to adopt incorrect stances, they are made qualified and given PHD degrees and told to tweet.”
Martyr Bassel al Araj had also written about the danger of the process of the melting of the consciousness that is waged by this type of intellectuals. In his article Liberate your mind and deconstruct idols7, al Araj says:
“War ends when the mind is defeated, for if defeat penetrated the mind the end of the war is announced, and oppression starts to spread when the oppressed compromises by giving authority to the oppressor, authority over his mind, this authority that the human mind gives, as it starts giving justifications for the body to offer concessions one after the other, until he reaches a point where he tolerated the status quo and starts establishing a new philosophy called the “colonial mentality” or oppressed mentality or mentality of the persecuted, and one of the most important aspects of this philosophy is manifested by the feeling of inferiority and the production of convincing justifications to tolerate oppression and the humiliation of dignity.”
Here lies the importance of disseminating a counternarrative that debunks these deceitful claims and destroys normalizing and defeating propaganda.
Neutralizing popular involvement: Egypt and Jordan as models
The resumption of the war may lead to an impasse, neither because Israel is too strong to be defeated, nor because the resistance is too weak to triumph. The flaw lies in the neutralization of the popular role of Arab and Islamic support for Palestine. The repeated calls by the resistance for mobilization after the resumption of the war were not issued just for the sake of doing so. They were issued because the resistance is fully aware of the capacity of the peoples, especially in bordering countries, to apply impactful pressure that could allow the resistance to, at the very least, exploit on a political level.
Jordan has witnessed a large movement during the early days of the genocidal assault on Gaza, with Jordanians protesting in front of the Israeli embassy in Amman. These protesters have demanded that the Jordanian government overturn the Wadi Araba normalization agreement, as well as the Natural Gas deals, and have called for the “opening of the borders” with occupied Palestine and offering military assistance to Gaza. However, the authorities repressed and restricted this movement through a large wave of arrests that included no less than 1500 people according to Amnesty International8. Security forces also blocked all roads leading to the embassy and deployed large numbers of security agents in its surroundings.
These restrictions intensified to the point of banning certain chants and the raising of certain flags and banners, and imposing an under 18 age restriction on the right to protest.
Although these protests were besieging an empty embassy after the Israeli ambassador and the embassy personnel had left the country, the Jordanian government nonetheless saw the protesting youth as a threat. Due to the repressive measures, it became harder and harder to mobilize, eventually reaching a point where protests would not exceed 20 participants, while they initially drew thousands of protesters.
In Amman, the location of the protests is a matter of dispute. The elites and the political parties loyal to the government call for protests in non-impactful locations such as public squares or “downtown” instead of in front of the Israeli and American embassies and the Professional Associations Complex, among others. After the resumption of the war on March 18, activists tried to revitalize this movement by calling for protests in front of the US embassy, in response to the call issued by the resistance to besiege embassies. However, the security forces prevented the protesters from reaching the gathering location near the Abdul Rahman mosque, which is the closest to the US embassy.
Interestingly, despite the repression of these protests by the authorities, these same authorities had propagated and supported similar gatherings in the downtown square after Trump had unveiled his plan for the displacement of Gazans and the transformation of the strip into the “Riviera of the Middle East”. This confirms that the authorities are well aware of its capacity to use popular rejection as a political bargain to achieve its interests. But as for the demands to end the war and overturn the normalization agreements and close the land bridge with Israel, these go against their interests.
In the case of Egypt, despite its special responsibility for its closure of the Rafah Egyptian-Palestinian crossing, a similar scenario has played out, where after 79 people were arrested in the protests of October 20239, attempts at protests and organising ceased. Similarly, the Egyptian authorities sponsored a popular march near the Rafah crossing after Trump had started promoting his plan to displace Palestinians to Egypt and Jordan.
The absence of an organized, popular movement constitutes a weak point in the Palestinian position, which needs the armed resistance, which in its turn needs to be able to bet on the factor of a serious movement that can apply pressure without being restrained by the weak and incapable positions pushed by normalizing regimes. If a comprehensive movement does emerge, the pressure it applies could “guarantee” a permanent end of the war at the very least. But the absence of such pressure deprives the resistance of a potentially critical political bargaining chip in the ceasefire negotiations.
Conclusion: Who puts an end to the war?
Today, the resistance is still attempting to push the Israeli occupation to a ceasefire through the display of flexibility in the indirect negotiations; on March 30, Hamas announced that it had agreed to a new proposal put forth by Qatar and Egypt.
The resistance showed throughout all the ceasefire phases that it wanted an end to the war. We can infer this by looking at its handling of the ceasefire proposals and its adherence to all the terms despite constant Israeli violations, and at its attempts to facilitate humanitarian relief.
This includes the resistance’s proposal to form a societal support committee in which Fatah is represented, despite the latter’s strenuous attempts to demonize the resistance. Based on this, it is inconceivable for any party to hold the resistance responsible for the resumption of the war.
The fair question to be asked then, is, who will stop Israel and the US’ impunity? Big questions are of the utmost importance, but they lose their relevance when they stop at the point of asking; what comes after that? We may already have part or more of the answer.
After October 7th further exposed the Arab governments complicit with Zionist-American interests, the gap between the official stances of regimes and the popular positions emerged once again.
However, this gap needs to prove itself today, and the popular masses need to believe in their ability and voice their opinion: to say no to those who extended their hands to the occupation or who disparage the resistance, those collaborators who are ready to fight against their own people who refuse to be on the side of the Zionist occupation and its allies. As al Hakim, George Habash said, “The best thing you can offer to the Palestinian cause is to struggle against your reactionary regimes.”
