August 14, 2025

SHARE |

Israeli Offensive Proceeds as Mediators Scramble to End the Gaza Conflict

AP Photo/Abdel Kareem Hana

Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu unveiled a plan to occupy all of Gaza to pressure Hamas to disarm and rescue the remaining Israeli hostages. After several months of ceasefire negotiations mediated by the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar broke down, Netanyahu claimed Israel had no alternative but to intensify the war by reoccupying the whole Gaza Strip. The plan triggered an immediate outcry from global leaders who were already beginning to undertake measures against Israel in response to the dire humanitarian conditions in Gaza – including famine – caused by Israel’s limitations on the flow of food aid. Several governments began restricting arms supplies to Israel, and some – including France, the UK, Canada, and Germany – announced plans to recognize an independent Palestinian state unless Israel met stipulated conditions. Many Israelis demonstrated opposition to the reoccupation plan, claiming military operations in areas where the remaining hostages are believed to be held would lead to their deaths.

After taking into account the global outrage, doubts expressed by Israel Defense Forces (IDF) commanders, internal unrest, and skepticism from Trump officials, the government adopted a slightly less expansive plan to attack remaining Hamas “strongholds” in Gaza. Experts in and outside Israel argued that, no matter how large the military operation, Hamas would still refuse to disarm, viewing every defeat as a tactical setback in a long-term struggle to end Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and dominate the Palestinian national movement more broadly. Analysts on all sides of the debate on the Gaza conflict noted that Hamas is prepared to continue its armed struggle no matter how many Palestinian civilian casualties result, or how severely its own ranks might be depleted.

Analysts argued the plan reflected Netanyahu’s domestic political maneuvering – to demonstrate to his right-wing coalition partners that he is committed to disarming Hamas – more than it does a well-thought-out military strategy. Netanyahu has described the operation’s goals as seizing full control of the remaining strongholds of Hamas – Gaza City, Deir al-Balah, and an array of refugee camps in central Gaza and along the coast. However, the IDF is reportedly still formulating the details of the tactical battle plan to minimize global outrage as well as IDF and civilian casualties. There has been no confirmation of how long an occupation of Gaza City might last, and how it will differ from Israel’s capture of Gaza City in the opening months of the war in 2023. The IDF also has not yet mobilized the tens of thousands of military reservists who will most likely be needed to carry out a broad operation. And while Israel has threatened to force out the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians still living in Gaza City, it has yet to order their expulsion.

The early stages of the expanded operation almost immediately caused controversy on Sunday when Al Jazeera journalist Anas al-Sharif and several other colleagues were killed in a targeted Israeli attack on a tent housing journalists in Gaza City. The IDF accused the journalist of heading a Hamas cell and “advancing rocket attacks against Israeli civilians and [Israeli] troops.” Along with many other observers, Muhammad Shehada, an analyst at the Euro-Med Human Rights Monitor, said there was “zero evidence” that al-Sharif took part in any hostilities, adding: “His entire daily routine was standing in front of a camera from morning to evening.”

Trump and his foreign policy team did not, by all accounts, try to veto Netanyahu’s expanded military campaign, and they continue to blame Hamas for prolonging the conflict. According to a readout from the Israeli prime minister’s office, on Sunday, Netanyahu and Trump “…discussed Israel’s plans to take control of the remaining Hamas strongholds in Gaza in order to end the war with the release of the hostages and the defeat of Hamas…The Prime Minister thanked President Trump for his steadfast support of Israel since the beginning of the war…”  However, Trump’s team has countered Netanyahu’s plan by repeating that the U.S. prefers – and is working toward – an end to the war. Interpreting the expanded Gaza offensive primarily as a means of pressuring Hamas into making greater concessions, Trump’s Special Envoy for the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, continues to intensify his efforts, along with regional partners, to develop a conflict resolution plan acceptable to both Netanyahu and Hamas. Netanyahu perhaps added weight to the negotiations track on Tuesday by stating talks are now focused on a comprehensive deal that would release the remaining hostages all at once, rather than a temporary (60-day) ceasefire that would see their release in phases.

Among the latest initiatives, Egypt and Qatar, with Turkish help, reportedly presented Hamas with a proposal last week which would include an end to the war – the core demand of Hamas – and the release of all hostages, living and dead, as well as the release of Palestinian prisoners. According to reports about the offer, Israel would pull its military back “under Arab-American supervision” until a final war termination agreement is reached. Hamas would be required to disarm and cease governing Gaza – two core Israeli demands. During the interim phase, Türkiye and other mediators would guarantee that Hamas freezes any military activities, allowing for talks on a permanent end to the war. If Hamas accepts the terms of the proposal, it will be sent to Witkoff for presentation to Israel. Reports about the offer surfaced as a Hamas delegation returned to Cairo for ceasefire talks.

Trump’s team recognizes that any resolution to the war will require Netanyahu to accept proposals he and his hardline allies have rejected to date. U.S. officials and their regional and global counterparts have repeatedly demanded, as an alternative to continued warfare against Hamas, that Netanyahu stipulate a “day after” plan for Gaza in which the IDF withdraws permanently from a secured Gaza, governed by “non-Hamas” Palestinians. Because of concerns about turning control of Gaza over to a Palestinian leadership that might not disarm Hamas, Netanyahu has not, to date, detailed a postwar governance and security plan for the territory. But, coming under growing pressure to do so, Netanyahu began addressing and detailing at least some postwar arrangements last week, asserting that after the IDF reoccupies Gaza City, it would hand the city over to an “alternative civil administration” that is “neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority (PA).”

Nonetheless, Netanyahu’s opposition to the PA leadership of Gaza remains a key sticking point in formulating a war termination plan. U.S. and regional officials have long agreed that the PA is the only viable choice to lead a postwar administration in Gaza, and global officials have long questioned the basis of Netanyahu’s opposition to its return there. The PA is dominated by officials of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which forswore the use of violence against Israel in a landmark 1993 Israel-PLO accord, and which agrees to a “two-state solution.” The PA governed Gaza from the 2005 Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip until Hamas, victorious in the 2006 Palestinian elections, expelled its rival from the enclave violently in 2007. A PA return, by all accounts, would isolate Hamas and facilitate the entry of Egyptian, Jordanian, and other Arab forces that are needed to secure the enclave after the IDF withdraws.

A stable, PA-led Gaza would also provide the confidence the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia, and Qatar require to fund the rehabilitation investment of the territory. Seeking to help U.S. officials press Netanyahu to accept a PA-based postwar solution, in late July the 22 countries of the Arab League, joined by the 27 of the European Union, endorsed a central role for the PA in a joint declaration, insisting that Hamas: “hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority, with international engagement and support, in line with the objectives of a sovereign and independent Palestinian state.” However, U.S. officials and their counterparts have been unable, to date, to overcome Netanyahu’s perception that a PA return to Gaza would strengthen the case for an independent Palestinian state – an outcome Netanyahu and his governing coalition steadfastly oppose.