The Fragile Nexus of Coercive Diplomacy, Humanitarian Leverage, and Post-Conflict Reassertion in the Gaza Ceasefire (October 2025)
Abstract
This paper analyzes the immediate aftermath of the US-brokered Gaza ceasefire agreement, focusing on the crisis points emerging in October 2025, specifically the dispute over the transfer of deceased hostage remains. Utilizing a framework rooted in coercive diplomacy and international humanitarian law (IHL), this study examines three critical dynamics: (1) Israel’s employment of humanitarian aid restriction as an instrument of coercion against Hamas; (2) the role of explicit military threats by the external mediator (US President Trump); and (3) Hamas’s rapid reassertion of internal security control, including the execution of alleged collaborators. The findings suggest that the ceasefire, hailed as the “historic dawn of a new Middle East,” was fundamentally undermined by the unresolved core issue of Hamas’s control and disarmament. The calculated use of humanitarian leverage by Israel created a dangerous precedent, linking vital famine relief to political compliance, while Hamas’s internal reinforcement demonstrated the failure of the agreement to achieve sustainable demilitarization.
- Introduction: The Frailty of Negotiated Peace in Gaza
The Gaza conflict, initiated by the Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, entered a precarious new phase with the implementation of a comprehensive ceasefire in October 2025, following a two-year period of sustained hostilities. This agreement, championed by US President Donald Trump, involved a mass exchange of living hostages for Palestinian prisoners and signaled a formal pause in large-scale combat operations. However, within days of the proclamation of peace, the agreement faced immediate collapse, triggered by Hamas’s initial delay in transferring the bodies of deceased Israeli hostages.
This study investigates the dynamics of this rapid post-agreement crisis, using the events of October 14-15, 2025, as a concentrated case study. We posit that the immediate post-ceasefire environment in Gaza was characterized not by de-escalation, but by a heightened state of coercive calculus, where external and internal actors utilized non-military levers—specifically humanitarian aid and internal security enforcement—to achieve objectives unattainable through negotiation alone.
Key questions addressed include: How did Israel strategically weaponize humanitarian aid to enforce compliance with the ceasefire terms? What implications does the US mediator’s threat of swift military intervention have on the perceived neutrality and sustainability of the peace process? Finally, how does Hamas’s immediate reassertion of security control challenge the fundamental assumptions of post-conflict reconstruction and demilitarization?
- Conceptual Framework: Coercion, Leverage, and Governance Vacuum
2.1 Coercive Diplomacy and Strategic Linkage
Coercive diplomacy, as defined by Thomas Schelling, involves the use of threats or limited force to persuade an adversary to stop or reverse an action, often avoiding full-scale war. In the context of the 2025 ceasefire, two distinct forms of coercion were deployed:
Economic/Humanitarian Coercion: Israel’s decision to halve the agreed-upon number of aid trucks entering Gaza specifically targeted Hamas’s capacity for governance and the welfare of the civilian population. This tactic represents strategic linkage, tying a non-military, life-saving resource (aid) directly to a specific political compliance requirement (hostage body transfer).
Explicit Military Coercion: President Trump’s warning that the US would “disarm [Hamas] quickly and perhaps violently” if they refused to surrender weapons constitutes a clear threat of escalation, intended to pressure Hamas into compliance with Israel’s core strategic goal—demilitarization.
2.2 Post-Conflict Governance and the Reassertion Dilemma
Post-conflict periods often create a security and governance vacuum. Hamas’s swift deployment of hundreds of security personnel and the execution of alleged collaborators demonstrate a rapid and violent effort to re-establish internal control and authority. This reassertion dilemma highlights the failure of the ceasefire mechanism to provide a credible, non-Hamas security alternative, thus allowing the militant group to cement its political and security infrastructure immediately following the Israeli withdrawal.
2.3 International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and Humanitarian Access
The integrity of humanitarian aid under IHL mandates that assistance essential for the survival of the civilian population must be protected and delivered unimpeded (Geneva Conventions, Article 23). Gaza, facing a severe famine condition afflicting “more than half a million Palestinians,” presents an extreme dependency on aid. Israel’s restriction of aid trucks, even if temporary and tied to a reciprocal violation (failure to return remains), raises profound legal and ethical concerns regarding the use of civilian survival as a bargaining chip, potentially constituting collective punishment. Furthermore, IHL requires the return of deceased remains without undue delay.
- Case Analysis: The Crisis of October 14-15, 2025
3.1 Humanitarian Aid as a Tool of Coercion
The core tension of the October crisis revolved around the 28 deceased hostages whose bodies had yet to be transferred. Faced with Hamas’s non-compliance, Israel implemented a punitive measure: cutting the entry of aid trucks from 600 to 300 daily.
This action successfully shifted the coercive calculus. By directly impacting the besieged civilian population, Israel placed intense domestic and international pressure on Hamas to fulfill its obligation. The subsequent transfer of four coffins by Hamas was a direct response to this economic leverage, confirming the utility of aid restriction as a potent, albeit ethically problematic, foreign policy instrument.
However, the efficacy of this tactic is counterbalanced by its long-term cost to peace stability. Tying humanitarian access to the implementation of political provisions erodes trust in international guarantees and compromises the neutrality of aid organizations (such as the Red Cross), making future negotiated exchanges exponentially more difficult.
3.2 The Mediator’s Threat and the Demand for Disarmament
President Trump’s simultaneous declaration of a “historic dawn” (October 13) and his subsequent military threat (“we will disarm them… quickly and perhaps violently” on October 14) reveals the inherent paradox of the mediation effort. The US position, aligned explicitly with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s non-negotiable demand that the war cannot end until Hamas “surrenders its weapons and cedes control of Gaza,” transformed the ceasefire from a step toward resolution into a temporary disarmament ultimatum.
This explicit threat served to immediately delegitimize the political elements of Trump’s peace plan in the eyes of Hamas, reinforcing the group’s belief that their survival rests solely on maintaining military capacity. This dynamic ensured that the security requirements of both belligerents (Israel’s disarmament demand, Hamas’s survival strategy) remained fundamentally opposed, guaranteeing the fragility of the ceasefire.
3.3 Hamas’s Reassertion and Internal Consolidation
The news reports clearly document Hamas’s re-emergence, deploying “hundreds of security forces in the streets” and executing people accused of collaboration with Israel. This consolidation effort serves three functions:
Establishing Sovereignty: Filling the security vacuum left by the partial Israeli withdrawal, demonstrating that their governance structure (seized in 2007) remains intact.
Deterrence: The executions send a violent signal to the population against cooperation with Israel or any post-Hamas administration, effectively securing internal loyalty.
Negotiation Posturing: By proving its enduring administrative and security capacity, Hamas enhances its position in any future talks, suggesting that its removal requires a significant, full-scale military commitment that the ceasefire was explicitly intended to avoid.
The rapid re-establishment of Hamas security infrastructure directly contradicts the stated goals of the Israeli war effort and makes the prospect of immediate demilitarization, as demanded by Netanyahu and Trump, functionally impossible without a renewed, violent military campaign.
- Conclusion and Implications
The October 2025 crisis exemplifies the limitations of external mediation when core strategic asymmetries remain unresolved. The Trump-brokered Gaza ceasefire quickly degenerated into a coercive contest defined by high-stakes brinkmanship over humanitarian resources and political authority.
Israel’s successful use of aid restriction as a coercive diplomatic instrument secured the immediate tactical objective (transfer of bodies) but risks permanent damage to IHL principles by normalizing the weaponization of famine relief. Concurrently, the explicit threat of renewed, violent military action by the US mediator undermined the political platform needed for sustainable peace, validating Hamas’s resolve to maintain its armed control mechanism.
In the short term, this analysis suggests that the “historic dawn” of Mideast peace remains overshadowed by the immediate, violent reality of post-conflict governance reassertion. For the peace to endure, future diplomatic efforts must decouple humanitarian aid from political compliance and establish robust, internationally credible mechanisms for security enforcement that genuinely address the problem of the governance vacuum without relying on immediate military threats. Until the core security dilemma—Hamas’s control versus Israel’s security mandate—is resolved through genuine political integration or irreversible structural change, the ceasefire will remain an unstable pause, constantly susceptible to collapse under the weight of coercive maneuvers.
References (Conceptual)
Art, R. J. (2007). Coercive Diplomacy: Scope and Limits in the Contemporary World. International Security, 31(1), 120-160.
Schelling, T. C. (1966). Arms and Influence. Yale University Press.
United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). (2025). Reports on Humanitarian Access and Famine in Gaza. (Conceptual reference to the context described in the article).
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocols. (Pertaining to the protection of civilians and the transfer of remains).