Why did the ceasefire break down? Blame Netanyahu’s survival politics and Trump’s volatility

Israelis take part in protest calling for the end of the war and the release of the remaining hostages in Tel Aviv on March 18. Photo by Gil Cohen-Magen/AFP/Getty Images

Columnist Dan Perry March 18, 2025

The fragile ceasefire in Gaza collapsed Tuesday as Israel resumed airstrikes in Gaza, resulting in hundreds of reported fatalities on the ground. The Israeli government framed the renewed offensive as a necessary response to purported ceasefire violations by Hamas, while critics argued it was prompted more by strong political motivations for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an internal crisis.

The strikes follow weeks of deadlock over the ceasefire’s second phase, with Israel’s far-right seemingly blocking Netanyahu from moving ahead with the ceasefire deal he signed in January.

Here’s what you need to know about the rapidly unfolding situation.

What went wrong, part one: Major parts of the ceasefire left unnegotiated

The ceasefire agreement, negotiated with both former President Joe Biden’s administration and representatives of now-President Donald Trump before his inauguration, outlined three phases for the truce.

One of the sure signs that the deal was fragile: Terms for the second and third phases — which were supposed to bring about the complete end of the war without regime change in Gaza, in exchange for the release of all remaining hostages, dead and alive — were left undefined. And, as many expected, Israel stalled when it came to opening talks to clarify those terms as the first phase neared its March 1 expiration date.

That first phase involved a partial release of hostages in exchange for a temporary halt to hostilities and the release of more than 1,000 Palestinians imprisoned in Israel.

But while that phase proceeded mostly smoothly, there were clear warning signs that the second and third might not. An end to the war that left Hamas in power both violated a war aim that most of the Israeli public backed — the destruction of Hamas — and sparked a revolt in Netanyahu’s coalition. The far-right threatened to bring down Netanyahu’s government, and Itamar Ben-Gvir of the Jewish Power party resigned as national security minister in objection to the agreement.

Now, Israel’s leaders are using the consequences of their own stalling — a protracted period in which no hostages were released — to justify resuming the war. And, like clockwork, Ben-Gvir is set to rejoin Netanyahu’s coalition.

What went wrong, part two: A crisis in Israeli politics

Netanyahu’s decision to resume hostilities appears to have been deeply political. To maintain his grip on power, he needed to ensure that his remaining right-wing allies did not follow Ben-Gvir’s lead, an outcome that would have destroyed his governing coalition.

Stopping that meant derailing the second phase of the ceasefire — causing opposition figures to start referring to the fresh onset of hostilities as the “Netanyahu war.”

“The basic thing is that there was a second stage that we violated,” said Amnon Levy, a political commentator, on Israel’s Channel 13. “The second phase was aimed at releasing all the hostages. Israel violated it simply because Netanyahu needs to pass the budget by the end of March,” an effort for which he needs the far-right. If his government fails to pass a budget by March 31, it will automatically fall.

“Because of this petty ugly and cruel reason, right now our brothers are sitting in tunnels being bombed,” Levy said, referring to the remaining hostages. “It makes the blood boil.”

There is also the likelihood that Netanyahu sees the resumption of conflict as a useful means of redirection at a time when his political difficulties have come to an unprecedented new peak.

Mass protests were planned for Wednesday after, over the past week, Netanyahu’s coalition announced plans to fire both Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara and Shin Bet security chief Ronen Bar — sparking charges of malfeasance, as Baharav-Miara has consistently opposed Netanyahu, and Bar’s agency is currently investigating Netanyahu’s office for illicit ties to Qatar.

Bar has signaled he may not recognize his own dismissal, and Baharav-Miara has blocked Netanyahu’s attempt to fire him, citing legal and ethical concerns.

After Oct. 7, prolonging the war gave Netanyahu a convenient excuse for avoiding efforts to hold him accountable for his role in the failures that led to Oct. 7. It seems likely that, by disrupting the ceasefire, he’s hoping the same trick will work a second time.

Trump’s role: a deal that was never a deal

The influence of Trump’s unique way of doing business cannot be overstated. Unlike previous administrations, which would insist on adherence to a signed ceasefire, Trump granted Netanyahu the flexibility to walk away from the deal — because Trump sees international agreements as not binding commitments, but rather as tools to be reshaped as circumstances change.

Evidence of that attitude became apparent as Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, began proposing extending the first phase rather than implementing the second. Witkoff’s bridging proposals offered a month or more of additional ceasefire time without transitioning into a second phase that required ending the war, as the deal stipulated.

Trump throughout suggested Israel had carte blanche to break the very ceasefire that he himself pressured Netanyahu to sign— giving Netanyahu the political cover to act without fear of significant diplomatic repercussions. Asked two weeks ago in a Fox interview whether he would prefer that Netanyahu complete the second phase of the hostage deal or resume the war, Trump replied that he would be okay either way.

“Sometimes you have to make a decision. It’s a rough decision,” he said. Netanyahu is “just so angry, and he should be. If he’s not angry, then there’d be something wrong with him, frankly.”

What this means: As much as Trump helped bring about the ceasefire, he also laid the groundwork for its end. As the many contractors he stiffed in his career as a developer can attest, the president is fond of making deals, and less concerned with keeping them.

What happens next?

A fork in the road is visible. After this initial barrage, Israel may cut back on attacks in order to give Hamas a chance to accept Witkoff’s bridging proposals. Alternatively, Israel could be on the path to fully breaking the ceasefire, leading to an extended conflict.

“The question is whether this is a continuation of the talks via tools of war,” Levy said.

Several key factors will determine which direction events take:

• Hamas’s response: If Hamas retaliates by killing hostages, the war is likely to escalate further, with no return to negotiations.
• Regional dynamics: If Arab states develop a reasonable, serious post-war plan for Gaza’s governance, they could potentially pressure both sides into adopting a new diplomatic framework. Hamas has already indicated that it is open to giving up its control of Gaza.
• Trump’s stance: If Trump continues to back Netanyahu’s war efforts, Israel will likely feel empowered to press on militarily. However, if political calculations in Washington shift, Netanyahu may be forced to reconsider.

While most Israelis do want Hamas gone, the resumption of airstrikes was met with profound frustration. Most Israelis — more than 70% by most polls — just want the war to end. At a rally of families of the hostages who remain in Gaza, Sasha Troufanov, 29, a former hostage released last month, said “I cannot believe that after all the suffering,” the remaining hostages “must now endure the decision to restart the war.”

Public frustration stems largely from the realization that the government has no viable plan to replace Hamas with a stable governing alternative. Netanyahu’s refusal to address that issue — again, for fear of the far-right, which will agree only to permanent occupation of Gaza — has created a paradox. Israelis want Hamas defeated, but they also recognize that the war is not being prosecuted in a way that will achieve it.

“Military activity risks the hostages,” Troufanov said. “I’m sure my friends are going through hell because of the decision … What happened to the second stage?” To his eye, he said, Israel’s leaders intend simply “to prolong the war as much as possible.”