As Israeli forces intensified their ground assault to seize control of Gaza City, experts are observing a grim reality: diplomatic efforts to bring an end to this devastating war appear to be dwindling, possibly even collapsing.
After nearly two years of relentless conflict, which has left the Gaza Strip in widespread devastation, one thing remains painfully clear: neither party involved shows any sign of yielding from their core, long-held objectives.
From the very beginning of the war, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu articulated two primary goals: securing the release of hostages abducted by Hamas during the Oct. 7 attacks, and completely dismantling Hamas.
However, the objective of ‘eradicating Hamas’ has proven difficult for Prime Minister Netanyahu to precisely define. Even if Israel achieves military victory over the group, its underlying ideology is likely to persist. This objective also raises critical questions about Gaza’s future governance once Israel declares success. Netanyahu has vaguely proposed ‘Arab forces,’ yet his insistence on excluding the Palestinian Authority from power in Gaza renders this idea unacceptable to Arab nations.
Meanwhile, Hamas leaders have historically aimed for the elimination of Israel, hoping their 2023 attacks would force international attention on Palestinian statehood. Beyond the tragic loss of approximately 1,200 lives, the group and its allies seized around 250 hostages, intending to use them as bargaining chips against an Israeli ground invasion. Hamas’s strategy was that the release of these captives would necessitate an Israeli military withdrawal from Gaza, allowing the group to remain intact and declare victory. This calculation, however, has not unfolded as Hamas envisioned. The perceived leverage from the hostages seems to have dissipated, and the ongoing conflict has significantly crippled Hamas’s operational capacity.
This mutual inflexibility creates an immense obstacle for any potential cease-fire or peace negotiations. Neither Hamas nor Prime Minister Netanyahu has displayed any inclination to relinquish political power or influence for the sake of peace. For Netanyahu, this means safeguarding his government’s stability, while Hamas has shown no readiness to disarm or concede its control over Gaza.
Further complicating matters, an Israeli airstrike on September 9th, which targeted Hamas officials in Qatar—a nation that has acted as a crucial intermediary—severely damaged ongoing diplomatic endeavors. Officials from Qatar and other Arab nations vehemently condemned the strike, perceiving it as a direct affront to Qatar’s tireless efforts to broker peace.
“We are facing two unyielding adversaries,” noted Professor Mkhaimar Abusada, a Palestinian political scientist from Al-Azhar University in Gaza, now residing in Cairo after being displaced by the war. “Israel aims to eradicate Hamas, while Hamas is fighting for its survival. Their objectives are fundamentally irreconcilable.”
Palestinian families were seen fleeing Gaza City on Tuesday, amidst a major Israeli offensive in the area.
Professor Abusada succinctly concluded, “Diplomacy is dead.”
On Tuesday, Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this bleak outlook, declaring that ‘time is running out’ for any potential resolution to the war. His remarks came just before his departure from Israel to Qatar, coinciding with the commencement of Israeli forces’ assault on Gaza City—a strategic target believed to be a significant Hamas stronghold. It remains uncertain if he was aware of the offensive’s launch at the time of his statement.
During his visit to Israel, Rubio admitted that the immediate prospects for a diplomatic cessation of hostilities were low. This candid assessment underscored the current reality: mediation attempts by the Trump administration, Qatar, and Egypt have all, thus far, yielded no success.
Despite the immense human and strategic costs, neither side in this protracted conflict has demonstrated any willingness to step back.
Hamas leadership and its remaining combatants have steadfastly refused to surrender, even as Gaza faces widespread destruction and a death toll exceeding 60,000 Palestinians, according to Gazan health officials who do not differentiate between fighters and civilians.
Israel, too, has faced significant military casualties, growing domestic discontent over the government’s refusal to halt the war for hostage release, damage to its international reputation, and allegations of genocide, which it has consistently refuted.
Nonetheless, Prime Minister Netanyahu and his political allies remain committed to their campaign in Gaza, even against some opposition from within the nation’s military ranks. In fact, the Israeli government seems to be doubling down on its approach.
Smoke billowed into the sky after an Israeli military strike in the northern Gaza Strip on Tuesday.
“Gaza is burning,” declared Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on social media Tuesday. He asserted that the Israeli military is determined both to vanquish Hamas and to compel the group to return the remaining Israeli hostages, stating, “We will not give up or turn back until the mission is completed.”
These two objectives, however, have always presented a fundamental conflict.
Military operations aimed at Hamas militants risk collateral damage, including the inadvertent killing of Israeli hostages, or could provoke Hamas to execute them as Israeli forces advance. It is estimated that approximately 20 living hostages remain in Gaza.
Conversely, Hamas has consistently demanded a cease-fire as a prerequisite for returning hostages. Such a pause would allow the organization to regroup and rearm, directly contradicting Israel’s stated goal of destroying the group.
“If you destroy Hamas, how exactly do you expect to recover your hostages?” questioned Shira Efron, an expert on Israeli and Middle Eastern affairs at the RAND Corporation, a prominent research institution focused on security and other global issues.
Defense Minister Katz has declared that the war will continue until ‘Hamas’s defeat is clear and absolute.’ Yet, experts debate the true meaning of such a declaration. Israeli military might cannot erase Hamas’s deep-rooted connections to the region or extinguish its members’ convictions. History shows that even when groups like Al Qaeda had their leadership and operations severely weakened by the United States and its allies, they persisted in a diminished capacity, still drawing adherents and inciting violence.
Even the elimination of Hamas’s current leader in Gaza, Izz al-Din al-Haddad, would likely not bring an end to the fighting in the enclave. Hamas is unlikely to risk all its fighters in a direct confrontation with Israel’s superior military. Evasion has been a consistent tactic throughout the war, allowing the group to preserve enough personnel and firepower to continue fighting and maintain political relevance. The Israeli military reported on Tuesday an estimated 2,000 Hamas militants still present in Gaza City.
Despite the current stalemate, diplomacy has yielded results in past conflicts between these two adversaries. Israel and Hamas previously agreed to cease-fires after significant clashes in 2014 and 2021. Furthermore, since the onset of the current war, they have successfully negotiated two temporary pauses in hostilities, which led to the release of numerous hostages.
Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, Qatar’s emir, publicly accused Israel of “sabotaging” negotiations for a cease-fire and hostage release.
“These partial agreements had led many to believe that a more lasting resolution was possible, bridging the divide between both sides,” Ms. Efron reflected.
Recent weeks saw a concentrated diplomatic push, with mediators convening in Doha, Qatar, to forge a deal. On September 7th, President Trump announced that Israel had agreed to specific terms, which included a potential exchange of all remaining hostages for Palestinian prisoners and a cessation of the war. He urged Hamas to accept these terms as well.
Hamas, in turn, confirmed receipt of “ideas from the American side” and expressed readiness to engage in discussions.
However, just two days later, an Israeli airstrike in Qatar killed the son of a key figure implicated in the Oct. 7 attacks, along with four other individuals linked to the militant group. Qatari officials stated that these Hamas members were being hosted at the specific request of the United States.
Following this, Qatar’s emir, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, explicitly accused Israel of “sabotaging” the sensitive cease-fire and hostage-release negotiations.
Palestinian families were again seen fleeing Gaza City on Tuesday, as almost two years of fierce fighting have left the Gaza Strip in utter devastation.
As a potential pathway forward, Ms. Efron highlighted a French-Saudi proposal advocating for a two-state solution with the recognition of Palestine. This plan includes an immediate cease-fire, the release of all hostages, the disarmament of Hamas, and its exclusion from any future government.
However, the French-Saudi initiative appears to have minimal chance of materializing. The Trump administration has openly rejected it, opposing a United Nations General Assembly resolution that endorsed the proposal on Friday. Furthermore, both Hamas and Israel have dismissed its general framework, each viewing it as an unacceptable concession to the other.
Ms. Efron emphasized that any meaningful progress towards a cease-fire or truce hinges entirely on flexibility from both parties.
“A solution does exist,” she concluded, “but it cannot be achieved through these two unyielding, maximalist stances.”