The Ceasefire as a Tool for Israeli Objectives and Trump’s Political Timetable
A Tactical Pause in the Machinery of Oppression: How Israel Exploits Ceasefires to Tighten Its Grip and Serve Political Agendas
Israel’s long history of engaging in ceasefire agreements only to exploit them for its strategic gains casts significant doubt on the intentions behind the recent three-phase deal with Hamas. Despite promises of de-escalation, the ceasefire appears to be a calculated move by Israel to secure short-term gains—primarily the release of hostages—while undermining the possibility of meaningful peace. It serves as a tool not just to further Tel Aviv’s long-term objectives of subjugating Gaza but also to provide political breathing room for U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s January inauguration.
From the outset, the ceasefire is riddled with contradictions. While the deal promises a 42-day cessation of hostilities, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office has already cast doubt on key provisions. Statements rejecting troop withdrawal from the Philadelphi Corridor and allegations of Hamas “extorting last-minute concessions” underscore Israel’s familiar tactic: creating loopholes to justify eventual breaches. This strategy is not new. It has roots in agreements like the Camp David Accords and the Oslo Accords, where initial promises devolved into mechanisms of delay, manipulation, and outright betrayal of Palestinian aspirations.
Israel’s history reveals a pattern of using ceasefires to consolidate its position while avoiding any substantial compromises. The Oslo Accords, for example, allowed Israel to expand its illegal settlements in the West Bank, now numbering over 700,000 colonists compared to 250,000 at the time of the agreement. Similarly, the June 2008 ceasefire with Hamas was shattered by an Israeli border raid, deliberately provoking retaliation to justify military escalation. These actions reflect an overarching policy of sustaining and deepening Palestinian disempowerment under the guise of negotiation.
The proposed ceasefire, with its three-phase structure, replicates this pattern. While it temporarily halts hostilities and allows for humanitarian aid, the language of the agreement leaves Israel significant leeway to maintain military control over Gaza and manipulate the narrative. For example, the provision permitting Palestinians to return to northern Gaza after seven days is conditional and could be rescinded under the pretext of “security concerns.” The promise of releasing Palestinian prisoners, a frequent bargaining chip, is unlikely to be honored in full. Even the third phase, ostensibly aimed at negotiating a permanent end to the war, lacks mechanisms to ensure Israel’s accountability.
Netanyahu’s government, heavily influenced by far-right ideologues like Itamar Ben-Gvir, has made clear its intention to reshape Gaza’s governance. Israel’s policy toward Hamas, which it seeks to delegitimize and overthrow, underscores the impossibility of a ceasefire leading to sustainable peace. By refusing to acknowledge Hamas as a legitimate political entity and by outlawing the UNRWA, Israel ensures that any reconstruction or humanitarian aid for Gaza is contingent on its own political and military objectives.
The timing of the ceasefire aligns with political calculations in Washington. By presenting a semblance of progress, Israel helps to stabilize the region temporarily, reducing international pressure on the Biden administration while setting the stage for Trump’s return to the White House. A major escalation during the transition period would risk destabilizing U.S.-Israel relations and complicating Trump’s foreign policy agenda, which has historically aligned with Netanyahu’s hawkish policies.
In reality, this ceasefire is not a pathway to peace but a tactical pause. Israel’s long-term goal remains the erasure of Palestinian identity and claims to sovereignty. This goal is evident in its ongoing settler-colonial project in the West Bank, its systematic attacks on Palestinian civil society, and its relentless military campaigns in Gaza, euphemistically described as “mowing the lawn.” The underlying strategy is one of attrition—wearing down Palestinian resistance while presenting Israel as a victim of unprovoked aggression.
As Chris Hedges points out, the narrative of Israeli victimhood, amplified by a complicit media, masks the brutal realities of occupation and apartheid. The ceasefire agreement, while offering a brief respite, does little to address the root causes of the conflict: Israel’s dispossession and dehumanization of the Palestinian people. Without international accountability and a fundamental shift in policy, this agreement, like those before it, will likely collapse, paving the way for renewed violence and suffering.
For now, we can only hope that the mass slaughter will pause, even if only temporarily. But history warns us that this is merely the calm before another storm, one engineered to entrench Israel’s hegemony and perpetuate Palestinian despair.