TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — The war in Gaza may be on the cusp of a new phase after Israel approved plans over the weekend to intensify its operations. Which raises the question: After 19 months of bloodshed and destruction, why is there still no end in sight?
Israel and Hamas appear to only be growing further apart. Israel unleashed fierce strikes in March, that had freed hostages and sent in badly needed aid. Israel’s new plans include seizing the strip, forcibly displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and asserting greater control over the distribution of aid in the territory, according to Israeli officials.
Mounting Israeli public support for an end to the war has not swayed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from his stance that Hamas must be destroyed first. The military pressure, vast destruction in Gaza and rising death toll have so far not budged Hamas from its position demanding an end to the war and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Here is a deeper look at why an end to the war has been so elusive.
Israel says it won’t stop until Hamas is defeated
The war began on Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas militants attacked southern Israel, killing 1,200 and taking 251 hostages. Israel’s massive retaliation has killed over 52,000 people in Gaza, according to local health authorities, whose count does not differentiate between militants and civilians.
The Hamas attack upended Israel’s longstanding security doctrine. For years, Israel weathered threats along its borders, launching periodic operations to contain them. Hamas’ surprise assault broke that cycle.
Israel says it is no longer willing to accept a reality where such an attack can reoccur. It has gone to great lengths to according to that new doctrine.
Israeli forces have seized areas in Lebanon and Syria and cracked down in the West Bank, displacing tens of thousands. In Gaza, they intend to remain in the territory in a bid to eliminate Hamas’ ability to regroup.
Israel shows no sign of relenting, despite at international courts.
Experts say Hamas no longer has the capacity to stage an Oct 7.-style attack — yet it cannot be easily stamped out, either.
The drive to dismantle Hamas’ military and governing capabilities by force has so far proven incompatible with Israel’s other war aim: The captives’ relatives fear any escalation in fighting endangers them.
Hamas agrees to cede political power but not to disarm
Netanyahu has said he is prepared to end the war if Hamas gives up power, disarms and leaves Gaza. But even after that, Israel appears poised to keep troops in corridors carving up Gaza — effectively a new form of occupation.
Hamas has offered to release all hostages in return for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and an end to the war. It says it’s willing to cede power in Gaza to other Palestinians but has refused to disarm, offering instead a long-term truce with Israel.
Netanyahu has rejected the notion of Gaza being run by the more moderate Palestinian Authority, but has offered no concrete alternative. He opposes statehood for Palestinians in Gaza or the West Bank.
Opinion polls consistently show that only a minority of Palestinians support Hamas, and there have been and the war. Still, many Palestinians see armed resistance as the only path to statehood because negotiations and forms of nonviolent resistance have largely failed.
Founded in the late 1980s, the Islamic militant group — — is , with an armed wing, a political party, media and charities. Over 18 years of rule in Gaza, it built a network of underground tunnels, rocket launchers, and weapons caches — some of which remains intact despite Israel’s campaign.
Critics say Netanyahu’s drive to continue the war is politically motivated
Two far-right parties who prop up Netanyahu’s governing coalition hold the key to his political survival. They have threatened to topple the government if the war ends with Hamas intact. One party briefly quit the coalition over a recent ceasefire deal, only to return when fighting resumed.
If both leave, it could bring down the government and trigger early elections. Public opinion polls throughout the war have consistently shown that Netanyahu would struggle to form a coalition government in new elections, endangering his nearly uninterrupted 16-year rule.
Part of that decline in support is because many Israelis oppose his government’s insistence on continuing the war and want him to secure a deal freeing the remaining 59 hostages, roughly 24 of whom are believed to be alive. Many say Netanyahu should accept responsibility for his role in failing to prevent Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack and resign, either now or after the war.
Public pressure is also mounting for an independent inquiry into the security failures of Oct. 7, which Netanyahu has refused to launch while the war continues. Any findings could be politically damaging to Netanyahu, who insists he’ll face scrutiny, but only after the war.
His leadership has also been in his office as well as fierce public criticism against , whom many Israelis view as an important check on executive power. He is also on trial for corruption for charges he denies.
The Trump factor
Despite Netanyahu’s political woes, Israel enjoys the support of U.S. President Donald Trump, who blames Hamas for the fighting and the misery the war has caused to Palestinian civilians.
During the Biden administration, Israel faced some pushback from U.S. officials over what they saw as undue harm to civilians and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
While Trump says he wants an end to the war, he has so far given Israel free rein as it relaunched its military campaign in March and imposed a blockade on Gaza, barring all food, water, medicine and fuel and .
On Monday, Trump blamed Hamas for the aid crisis in Gaza, saying the group was “taking everything that’s being brought in,” echoing Israel’s accusations, which aid groups have disputed.
Trump has also floated a plan to take over Gaza and relocate its population, an idea once limited to the fringes of Israeli political discourse that Netanyahu has now embraced and said Israel will try to implement.
___
Follow AP’s war coverage at
