The Perilous Pause: An Examination of Ceasefire Erosion and Blame Attribution in the Israeli-Gaza Conflict (October 2025)
Abstract: This paper analyzes the rapid erosion of a three-week-old ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas in October 2025, culminating in renewed Israeli air strikes on Gaza City. Drawing upon contemporary reports, this study investigates the reciprocal accusations of ceasefire violations, particularly focusing on the role of conflicting narratives surrounding military engagements and the politically charged issue of returning hostage remains. It argues that deeply entrenched mistrust, coupled with ambiguous operational parameters and the profound emotional weight of humanitarian issues, created an inherently fragile peace, easily destabilized by mutual blame. The paper identifies the breakdown as a critical case study in the challenges of conflict resolution involving asymmetric actors and underscores the urgent need for robust verification mechanisms and clearer humanitarian protocols in future agreements.
Keywords: Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Gaza, ceasefire violation, Hamas, Benjamin Netanyahu, hostage remains, conflict resolution, blame attribution, international relations, humanitarian law.
- Introduction
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains one of the most intractable geopolitical challenges of the 21st century, characterized by cycles of violence, fragile ceasefires, and entrenched political grievances. Following the devastating Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023, and the subsequent “two years of war” that ravaged the Gaza Strip, a US-backed ceasefire agreement was implemented on October 10, 2025. This agreement sought to halt hostilities, facilitate the release of hostages for Palestinian detainees, and allow for a temporary de-escalation of military operations. However, within weeks, this precarious peace began to unravel, culminating in renewed Israeli military strikes on Gaza City on October 28, 2025.
This paper critically examines the factors contributing to the swift erosion of the October 2025 ceasefire. It leverages reports detailing the events of late October 2025 to analyze the mechanics of blame attribution employed by both Israeli and Hamas leadership. Specifically, it delves into the reciprocal accusations of ceasefire violations, scrutinizing the impact of alleged military engagements and, crucially, the contentious issue of handling and returning the remains of deceased hostages. By exploring these dynamics, this study aims to shed light on the inherent fragilities of ceasefires in asymmetric conflicts, the challenges of verification, and the profound influence of humanitarian dimensions on political and military decision-making.
- The October 10th Ceasefire: Terms and Initial Fragility
The ceasefire agreement, which came into effect on October 10, 2025, marked a tentative halt to two years of intense conflict following the October 7, 2023, attacks. Its core provisions included:
Cessation of Hostilities: An end to Israeli military offensives and Hamas rocket fire.
Hostage-Prisoner Exchange: The release of all living Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for approximately 2,000 Palestinian convicts and wartime detainees held by Israel.
Troop Pullback: Israeli military forces were to pull back from certain areas of the Gaza Strip.
Humanitarian Provisions: Hamas agreed to hand over the remains of all dead hostages, a process acknowledged to require time due to the devastation in Gaza.
From its inception, the ceasefire was characterized by an underlying fragility. Both sides had deep-seated grievances, profound mistrust, and conflicting interpretations of territories and responsibilities. The US President Donald Trump’s direct monitoring of the agreement underscored the high-stakes international investment in its success, yet also implicitly acknowledged the potential for rapid breakdown in the absence of robust enforcement and verification mechanisms. The previous two years of conflict had severely degraded infrastructure and societal cohesion in Gaza, ensuring that any perceived violation or misstep would be amplified against a backdrop of immense human suffering and political tension.
- The October 28th Breakdown: Allegations and Counter-Allegations
The ceasefire’s precariousness became acutely evident on October 28, 2025, when Israeli planes launched strikes in Gaza City. This escalation followed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s order for “powerful attacks,” predicated on his accusation that Hamas had violated the ceasefire. At least two people were killed and four wounded in a strike on a residential building in the Sabra neighborhood, and an area near Shifa hospital was also hit, underscoring the immediate human cost of the renewed hostilities.
Netanyahu’s office did not initially provide a specific public reason for the attacks, but an Israeli military official subsequently claimed that Hamas had violated the ceasefire by attacking Israeli forces in an area of the enclave under Israeli control. This assertion was framed as “yet another blatant violation,” suggesting a pattern of non-compliance. Israeli media reports earlier on the same day had also detailed an exchange of fire between Israeli forces and Hamas fighters in Rafah, further fueling the narrative of Hamas aggression.
Hamas, however, vehemently denied these accusations. The group explicitly disavowed responsibility for any attack on Israeli forces in Rafah and reaffirmed its commitment to the ceasefire deal. Crucially, Hamas accused Netanyahu of actively seeking “excuses to back away from Israel’s obligations,” portraying the Israeli actions as a deliberate attempt to undermine the agreement rather than a reactive measure. This reciprocal blame-attribution cycle highlights a core challenge in asymmetric conflicts without impartial monitoring: the absence of a universally accepted truth, where each side frames events to legitimize its own actions and delegitimize the adversary’s.
- The Hostage Remains Dilemma: A Humanitarian Flashpoint
Beyond the immediate allegations of military engagement, a critical and emotionally charged dimension contributing to the ceasefire’s collapse was the dispute over the return of deceased hostage remains. This issue escalated when Prime Minister Netanyahu specifically accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire by providing incorrect remains during the handover process. He stated that remains handed over on October 27 belonged to Ofir Tzarfati, an Israeli killed during the October 7, 2023, attack whose remains had already been partially retrieved by Israeli troops during the war. This suggested either a deliberate deception or a significant failure in Hamas’s ability to accurately account for the deceased.
The issue rapidly became a flashpoint. Hamas initially announced its intention to hand over the body of another missing hostage found in a tunnel in Gaza on October 29. However, its armed wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, later postponed this planned handover, citing what it described as “Israel’s violations of the ceasefire.” This sequence of events transformed a humanitarian obligation into a tool for political leverage and blame, further eroding trust and complicating an already sensitive process.
The return of deceased hostages carries immense emotional and cultural significance for the families and the nation, making it a powerful point of contention. Hamas’s agreement to hand over all remains was a key humanitarian term of the ceasefire. The alleged misidentification or deliberate misrepresentation of remains, as accused by Netanyahu, would be perceived as a profound breach of trust and an affront to the human dignity of the deceased and their families. Conversely, Hamas’s subsequent delay, citing Israeli violations, suggests a strategic use of this humanitarian issue to pressure Israel and counter its narrative of non-compliance. This dilemma illustrates how deeply humanitarian issues can become intertwined with political and military strategies, often hindering rather than facilitating peace.
- Implications of Ceasefire Erosion
The breakdown of the October 2025 ceasefire carries several significant implications:
Renewed Violence and Civilian Casualties: The most immediate consequence is the resumption of hostilities, directly leading to civilian deaths and injuries, as evidenced by the strikes on Gaza City. This perpetuates the cycle of violence and deepens humanitarian crises in an already devastated region.
Erosion of Trust and Future Peace Prospects: Each alleged violation and counter-accusation further erodes the already minimal trust between the warring parties. This makes future negotiations and the establishment of durable peace agreements significantly more challenging, as each side becomes more wary of the other’s commitments.
Political Instability: For Prime Minister Netanyahu, maintaining a strong stance against perceived Hamas violations might be tied to domestic political considerations, potentially impacting his leadership. For Hamas, demonstrating resilience against Israeli attacks might serve to consolidate its authority among certain segments of the Palestinian population.
International Scrutiny and Mediation Challenges: The US, as a key backer of the ceasefire, finds its diplomatic efforts undermined. US President Trump’s declaration of “watching closely” indicates international concern, but without robust monitoring and enforcement mechanisms, external mediation efforts face severe limitations. The inability to definitively attribute blame independently exacerbates this challenge.
Weaponization of Humanitarian Issues: The dispute over hostage remains highlights how deeply sensitive humanitarian concerns can be weaponized in conflict. This not only causes distress to affected families but also complicates the very humanitarian efforts intended to alleviate suffering and build bridges.
- Discussion: The Anatomy of a Fragile Ceasefire
The rapid unraveling of the October 2025 ceasefire serves as a stark illustration of the multifaceted challenges inherent in resolving deeply rooted conflicts, particularly those involving state and non-state actors. Several theoretical frameworks help to contextualize this breakdown:
The Security Dilemma: In an environment of deep suspicion, actions taken by one party for defensive purposes (e.g., Israel’s “powerful attacks” after alleged Hamas breaches) are often perceived as offensive threats by the other (e.g., Hamas viewing Netanyahu’s orders as excuses to renege on obligations). This fuels a cycle of pre-emptive or retaliatory actions, making de-escalation difficult.
Asymmetric Warfare and Accountability: The asymmetric nature of the conflict, with Israel as a state actor and Hamas as a non-state militant group, complicates accountability. Mechanisms for verifying adherence to ceasefire terms are often less robust, especially in areas controlled by the non-state actor.
Role of Spoilers: Both sides may contain elements or leaders who have an interest in undermining peace for political or ideological reasons. While not explicitly stated, the reciprocal accusations suggest that either side might strategically leverage minor incidents or ambiguities to disrupt the ceasefire if it is perceived as not serving their broader interests.
Ambiguity in Ceasefire Terms and Verification: The article indicates disputes over “an area of the enclave that is under Israeli control” and the process for returning remains. Ambiguities in delineating control, movement, or protocols for sensitive humanitarian issues can be exploited or genuinely misinterpreted, leading to violations. The absence of a strong, independent third-party verification mechanism meant that each side’s claims could not be authoritatively validated or refuted, allowing narratives of blame to prevail.
The Emotional and Political Weight of Humanitarian Issues: The dispute over Ofir Tzarfati’s remains underscores how deeply personal and emotional issues can become profoundly political, especially in protracted conflicts. The perceived disrespect or deceit regarding the deceased can quickly overshadow other considerations, providing powerful justification for escalation.
Ultimately, the October 2025 ceasefire failed not solely due to a single violation, but as a cumulative result of an inherent trust deficit, the strategic utilization of blame, unclear operational guidelines, and the profound emotional and political salience of humanitarian provisions.
- Conclusion
The events of late October 2025 in Gaza City offer a poignant and instructive case study in the fragility of ceasefires forged between deeply adversarial parties. Despite international backing, the three-week peace accord between Israel and Hamas swiftly disintegrated under a barrage of reciprocal accusations of violation. The Israeli decision to launch “powerful attacks” was rationalized by alleged Hamas military breaches and, significantly, by disputes over the handling of deceased hostage remains. Hamas, in turn, denied culpability and accused Israel of seeking pretexts to avoid its commitments.
This paper has argued that the breakdown was a confluence of factors: deep-seated mutual mistrust, the strategic use of blame attribution in the absence of independent verification, and the profound emotional and political complexities surrounding humanitarian issues like the repatriation of remains. The case highlights crucial lessons for conflict resolution: the absolute necessity of clear, unambiguous terms of engagement; robust, impartial monitoring and verification mechanisms; and carefully negotiated, transparent protocols for sensitive humanitarian undertakings. Without these foundational elements, any pause in hostilities remains a “perilous pause,” susceptible to rapid erosion and the re-ignition of devastating conflict. Future efforts towards a durable peace in the Israeli-Palestinian context must address these systemic fragilities to prevent the recurrence of such swift and tragic escalations.