1. Home
2. World
3. Three Questions for Khalil Helou on the End of the Truce in Gaza

As fighting in Gaza escalates with renewed hostilities and intensified strikes, uncertainty over the future of the Israel-Hamas conflict is deepening. With Palestinian sources reporting more than 400 deaths since Monday, This is Beirut spoke with General Khalil Helou to assess the dynamics at play, the potential impact on regional stability, and the risk of a new flare-up in Lebanon.

1. What were the key factors behind the collapse of the truce between Israel and Hamas, and what could be the repercussions for regional stability? Could a similar scenario unfold in Lebanon?

It is important to clarify that this was not a ceasefire but a temporary 42-day truce aimed at facilitating prisoner exchanges and halting hostilities. The goal was to pave the way for broader negotiations on a lasting ceasefire and the release of all hostages.

However, at the end of this period, Israel stalled, delaying discussions on the next phase. Meanwhile, Hamas showed some willingness to compromise, even suggesting it was prepared to forego its role in Gaza’s future governance – provided certain guarantees were met. Against this backdrop, several initiatives emerged, including an Arab plan for Gaza’s reconstruction and proposals from the United States.

Three strategies collided: that of Hamas, striving for survival and damage control; that of Israel, seeking Hamas’ elimination; and that of the US, aligning with Israel’s position while proposing reconstruction solutions. This clash of approaches made failure inevitable.

Today, Israel is applying maximum military pressure to force Hamas to yield on hostage releases and renounce its role in Gaza. The end of the fighting is not imminent, despite international public opinion growing increasingly critical of the human toll.

As for Lebanon, a similar scenario is possible. Since the November truce, Israel has increased incursions and strikes against Hezbollah, resulting in over 130 deaths. If the situation between Israel and Iran worsens, an escalation in Lebanon could follow. While Hezbollah seeks to preserve its forces after heavy losses, it could be forced to intervene under Iranian pressure. Meanwhile, Israel could seize any pretext to intensify its attacks against Hezbollah, making the situation highly volatile.

2. Could the maximum pressure policy on Iran, initiated under Trump, change the situation in Gaza?

Not necessarily. Iran’s direct influence on Hamas remains limited. Despite their ideological alliance, Iran has not provided direct military support to Hamas in this conflict and has not taken steps to defend Gaza, instead opting for targeted responses to attacks in Syria.

Iran is unable to send significant military aid to Gaza or directly influence the outcome of the conflict. Its support for Hamas is primarily symbolic, moral and political. Therefore, even with increased international pressure on Iran, it is unlikely to have a major impact on the situation in Gaza.

3. How does the resumption of hostilities affect ongoing negotiations regarding the release of hostages held by Hamas, and what are the prospects for a peaceful resolution in this context?

The resumption of fighting clearly impedes negotiations, but Egypt and Qatar are expected to try to restart discussions with Israel. While there isn’t necessarily a conflict between Israel’s military pressure and ongoing talks, Israel’s demands are likely to increase.

Hamas, for its part, seems unwilling to make significant concessions. We are thus at an impasse: what Israel failed to achieve in fifteen months of war, it will not accomplish in two weeks of offensive. While Hamas is weakened, it still retains its network of tunnels, the support of a portion of Gaza’s population, and an arsenal that allows it to continue fighting.

The conflict has entered a prolonged phase, marked by tensions not only in Gaza but also in Yemen, within the broader context of the ongoing power struggle between Israel and Iran. This escalation does not necessarily indicate an imminent resolution, but rather a new phase in a confrontation that has lasted for decades.