By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Hussein Fayyad, a senior Hamas commander declared killed in May 2024, recently appeared in a video, challenging Israel’s claims of eliminating Hamas leadership. His reappearance underscores Hamas’s enduring operational capabilities and resilience in Gaza despite significant losses and a January 2025 ceasefire. This challenges Israel’s stated goal of eradicating Hamas and raises questions about the effectiveness of the IDF’s recent military campaign. Experts note Fayyad’s continued influence highlights Hamas’s continued control of Gaza in the absence of any alternative governing body.
Read the original article here
Israel claims Hamas is exploiting the current truce to rebuild its forces in Gaza, a claim seemingly validated by the reappearance of a top commander previously declared eliminated. This development casts a long shadow on the fragile ceasefire, raising serious concerns about the conflict’s trajectory and the enduring cycle of violence. The situation underscores a deep-seated distrust and points to a potential resumption of hostilities, despite the recent agreement.
The reappearance of this high-profile Hamas commander is particularly jarring, suggesting a failure of intelligence gathering or a deliberate effort by Hamas to deceive. It serves as a potent symbol of the challenges in achieving lasting peace in the region. This incident casts doubt on the effectiveness of previous military operations and raises questions about the accuracy of intelligence assessments. The very fact that a figure of such significance could resurface so quickly throws into question the extent of Hamas’s losses during the recent conflict.
It’s a recurring theme in this conflict: a period of calm followed by a resurgence of violence. The current truce appears to be no different, with indications that Hamas is utilizing the reprieve to regroup, rearm, and plan future attacks. This pattern of behavior suggests a deeply ingrained strategic approach by Hamas that prioritizes long-term goals over immediate gains. Their ability to effectively rebuild despite significant losses reflects a resilient organizational structure and a capacity for rapid recovery.
This strategic utilization of ceasefires by Hamas is problematic, undermining any hopes for a lasting peace. It allows the group to replenish its resources, consolidate power, and prepare for future clashes. This strategy highlights the asymmetry of the conflict: while Israel is bound by concerns for civilian casualties and international pressure, Hamas seemingly faces far fewer such constraints. This imbalance allows Hamas to effectively game the peace process and benefit from the resulting periods of calm.
The situation also raises questions about the efficacy of past military campaigns. If a high-ranking official, previously deemed neutralized, can reappear so easily, what does that say about the overall strategic objectives and the long-term efficacy of military interventions? It speaks to the necessity of a more comprehensive approach beyond mere military action. Sustainable peace requires addressing the root causes of conflict, rather than simply addressing symptoms.
The celebratory scenes in Gaza and the West Bank following the ceasefire are particularly sobering. While understandable in the context of immediate relief, this outpouring of joy could well be short-lived. This is a concerning precedent for future conflicts and highlights the limitations of a purely military approach to resolving the complex issues that fuel the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These celebrations suggest a deep-seated desire for an end to violence, but they also serve as a reminder of the ongoing tensions and the underlying ideological divisions.
Indeed, many observers, seeing the repeated cycle of violence, suggest that the only way to achieve a lasting peace is a decisive military victory that eradicates Hamas’s capacity for violence. However, this approach is fraught with ethical considerations, risks mass civilian casualties and carries the potential to fuel further radicalization. The challenges of achieving this victory, both militarily and politically, are immense, and a long-term commitment to achieving a military victory is likely unrealistic.
The current situation, therefore, leaves the future uncertain. The truce may hold for a short time, allowing for the release of hostages, but the possibility of renewed conflict remains high. The underlying causes of the conflict — deeply entrenched historical grievances, competing national narratives, and religious differences — remain unresolved, suggesting that any ceasefire is likely to be temporary and that the vicious cycle will continue unless these deeper issues are addressed. Until there is a more substantive approach that addresses the root causes of this conflict, both sides will continue to exploit ceasefires and engage in violence, trapping the region in a never-ending loop. The focus shouldn’t just be on managing the immediate crisis; it should be on seeking long-term solutions that tackle the fundamental issues fueling this decades-long conflict.