Analysts: Israel’s escalation in Gaza is a political tactic to escape the agreement to stop the war policy

The unprecedented Israeli military escalation in the Gaza Strip since the cessation of war and prisoner exchange agreement entered into force has raised many questions about Tel Aviv’s motives and goals, taking advantage of what it said was a “security event” that targeted engineering vehicles east of Rafah in the south.

Most analysts agreed that the Israeli escalation comes as part of a deliberate strategy rather than a “reaction” to the violation of the cessation of war agreement. They stressed that it also comes in the context of internal political pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in preparation for the Likud Party elections.

Israeli affairs expert Mahmoud Yazbek said that Netanyahu wants to “keep the state of war simmering inside Israel because it serves his political interests, especially with the party elections approaching.”

Speaking to the “Path of Events” program, Yazik stressed that the Israeli attack on Gaza is not proportionate to the size of the “security event” that was raised in Rafah, and that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) did not claim responsibility for it.

He expressed his conviction that Netanyahu wants to exploit the issue of the bodies of dead prisoners to raise it further, especially in light of the conviction among various parties that some of the bodies “cannot be recovered,” in an attempt to evade going to the second stages of the agreement to stop the war.

On the ground, the occupation army said on Sunday evening that it had begun “re-implementing the ceasefire agreement after Hamas violated it,” indicating that it would “respond with strong force to every violation of it” after it launched a series of intense raids and carried out fire belts in several areas in the Gaza Strip.

Medical sources reported that more than 40 people were killed and dozens of others were injured throughout the besieged Palestinian Strip, after the occupation army claimed that Palestinian fighters attacked its engineering vehicles in Rafah.

For his part, Director of the Vision Center for Political Development, Ahmed Atawneh, confirmed that the current Israeli policy is consistent with what happened in Lebanon, where Israel continues its operations under multiple pretexts, exploiting any event to justify new attacks.

Atawneh stressed that all evidence indicates that the Netanyahu government is interested in violating the agreement to stop the war, and that this type of escalation “is a form for the next stage.”

As for Israel’s goals regarding military escalation, Ibrahim Freihat, professor of international conflicts at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, said that it is “a message to the high-ranking American delegation that will visit the region,” referring to J.D. Vance, US Vice President and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff.

According to Fraihat, Netanyahu is seeking to postpone the transition to the second phase of the agreement “to ensure that pressure is maintained on Hamas and the Palestinian people,” in addition to an electoral factor, as the right has historically been on the rise, exploiting the language of escalation and bloodshed.

Likewise, the American side understood the message of the Israeli escalation, especially after the internal pressures on Netanyahu eased, as he did not want to make any commitments regarding the American president’s plan, according to Freihat.

On the other hand, Washington seeks to ensure that both parties adhere to the agreement, according to former US State Department official Thomas Warrick, and to try to prevent any attempts to repeat the major escalation.

Accordingly, Washington is focusing on “facilitating the entry of humanitarian aid into the Strip and preparing the ground for the presence of an international force to monitor the situation.”

The future of the agreement

The experts stressed that the future of the cessation of war agreement depends on Israel’s interaction with the mediators and the American role, especially with regard to opening the crossings, and the possibility of moving to the second phase of the agreement, which requires clear security and political arrangements.

According to Atawneh, “The second phase is still ambiguous, and its discussion is not serious yet, and the mediators have not yet called for an inclusive Palestinian meeting to discuss the details of the next phase.”

Freihat stressed that any Israeli move aims to keep the Palestinian side busy with the escalation and stop it instead of moving to the next stage, pointing out that “the conflict and reconstruction will not proceed in a linear manner, as the stages are intertwined.”

The experts unanimously agreed that the Israeli escalation reflects a clear strategy, linked to internal political goals and a security agenda, and that any real commitment to the ceasefire agreement requires continuous pressure from the mediators and the American role to ensure that the war does not return again.