A ceasefire between Israel and Hamas took effect in the early hours of January 19, 2025, bringing a pause to the latest conflict in the Middle East. A fragile calm rests as the guns no longer fire, the bombs no longer fall, and the first hostages are released and brought back to Israel. Yet, this fragile peace is only a cover to an uncomfortable yet obvious truth: this ceasefire only marks a temporary pause in humanity’s endless cycle of violence.
The past bears evidence that the current state of peace is, at its core, fraudulent; it is just the latest example of the cyclical saga of conflict and negotiation. Understanding the trajectory of the Israeli-Hamas ceasefire requires us to examine it not as a unique isolated event or a continuation of the broader Israeli-Arab conflict but rather as the next part of the cycle that defines human existence.
History, Written by Conflict
The ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus declared war to be “the father of all things.” Polemos—strife or conflict— is not just an aberration to Heraclitus; it is the catalyst for change in the world. His idea is fitting to the Middle East, a region that has been engulfed in conflict since decolonization efforts in the mid-20th century.
With conflict as the foundation and driving force, Georg Hegel provides a framework for the recurrent cycle of violence in history in his Hegelian dialectic. Human progress is a process of conflict and resolution. We begin with a thesis that defines our beliefs and behaviors. It then interacts with an antithesis, its converse. A synthesis is born out of this exchange, subsequently becoming a new thesis, as the cycle begins to repeat itself.
The recent 15-month war between Israel and Hamas represents the latest thesis in this ongoing cycle of conflict. The release of hostages exemplifies the humanitarian benefits of temporary peace, but it is merely a brief moment to catch our breath. It doubles as the most recent, temporary synthesis – soon, a new conflict will emerge in the region as the next thesis, inevitably interacting with an antithesis. The more humanitarian a synthesis, the stronger the succeeding thesis becomes in confronting an antithesis.
This unending cycle of conflict and resolution seems overwhelming but it allows us to see the fragile foundations of human nature and society. In his work Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes describes humanity’s “state of nature” where life becomes “nasty, brutish, and short” in the absence of a strong authority. The ideological divides and lack of centralized structure apparent between the sovereignties in the Middle East embody the truth Hobbes lays out. While the release of hostages provides interim relief and signals a willingness to negotiate, it remains an intermediary step instead of a conclusive regional security guarantee. Ultimately, it is another iteration of lex talionis—an eye for an eye—restorative justice without the systemic authority needed to enforce lasting peace.
The Frailty of Peace
This most recent ceasefire is not the first attempt at halting the violence in the region, with the Oslo Accords in the early 1990s and the negotiations in the mid-2000s both failing to reach their broader ends. Martin Hediegger’s emphasis on the cyclical nature of time, as well as Friedrich Nietzsche’s concept of eternal recurrence, are relevant to understanding this cycle of violence. History’s cyclical nature suggests that lasting peace is unattainable without fundamental changes. In the famous words of Mark Twain – “History doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes.”
Marx and a Materialist Perspective on the Cycle of Violence
Karl Marx’s materialist interpretation of history offers another lens through which to analyze the ceasefire. Conflict, for Marx, is an outcome of systematic inequalities and the pursuit of materialistic interests. While ideological and religious differences often dominate the narrative, a Marxist perspective highlights Gaza’s dire economic conditions as a root cause. In their view, Gaza’s economic decline over the past fifteen years has entrenched support for Hamas, whose governance has been shaped by widespread poverty and limited access to resources. In this environment, hostage-taking has become a political bargaining tool, normalized by the harsh realities of daily life.
Despite the ceasefire and the prisoner exchange being good steps forward, the critics argue that root causes remain unaddressed with truces providing only short-term relief. Investments in infrastructure, education, cross-border cooperation, and employment opportunities in Gaza are essential to reducing dependency on Hamas and breaking the region’s cycle of conflict. From a Marxist perspective, only by addressing these systemic inequalities can a foundation for lasting peace be built, rather than relying on temporary measures that address symptoms but leave the root causes untouched.
The Ethics of Ceasefires
The ethics of hostage bargaining is more complex than it seems. On the one hand, releasing hostages aligns with the philosopher W.D. Ross’s principle of prima facie duty of preventing immediate harm. The act is morally justifiable, for it upholds the inherent value of human life —saving lives and fostering hope. However, critics argue that releasing hostages risks perpetuating the cycle of violence by allowing both sides time to regroup, rearm, and prepare for future conflict—a pattern familiar to the Middle East. Additionally, some suggest that releasing hostages can encourage future hostage-taking by demonstrating its effectiveness as a bargaining tool. The challenge lies in balancing moral obligations to save lives with the need to prevent future harm.
What’s Next?
Once again, history teaches that ceasefires, like the recent Israel-Hamas truce, have not transformed the Middle East for the better. Perpetual peace, a term coined by Immanuel Kant, requires not just the absence of conflict but the inception of laws and institutions that prevent acts of violence from arising in the first place. However, this vision of peace remains distant. Deep ideological divisions, weak enforcement mechanisms, and the indecisive intervention of external international powers particularly the United States are barriers to long-term peace treaties.
Breaking the Cycle
Is humanity destined to continually repeat the cycle of violence? It all depends on how we engage in conflict resolution. Instead of viewing ceasefires as endpoints, they must be seen as opportunities to address systemic issues.
From economic and educational development to diplomatic relations, there are multiple long-term approaches to this problem. For Gaza, investing in civilian infrastructure and deploying an international peacekeeping force is crucial to diminishing support for Hamas’s civilian services, stabilizing the region, and enabling a potential reset with Israel and neighboring countries. Similarly, for Israel, reassessing security policies, “Iran-proofing” borders, and continuing to normalize relations with Middle Eastern neighbors could help prevent the re-escalation of the frozen conflict with Gaza’s future government.
Reflecting on the Cycle
While the ceasefire is a step in the right direction, deeper structural changes are necessary for peace to last.
Hannah Arendt’s concept of “political amnesty” offers one bittersweet path of reflection on the conflict. The Jewish-German historian advocated for the necessity of forgetting—not as an act of denial or erasure of history, but as a conscious step toward breaking the chains of revanchism and vengeance. While forgiveness often feels unattainable in the face of profound violence, Arendt’s concept of “political amnesty” offers a radical yet necessary solution: a temporal reset that allows societies to move beyond the endless cycle of guilt and retribution. In the context of the Middle East, forgetting the violent past—not to dismiss justice but to prevent the paralysis of collective memory—may be the only way to escape the trap of perpetual conflict. This does not mean abandoning accountability or ignoring history’s lessons; rather, it is about refusing to let past grievances define the future. The Israel-Hamas ceasefire offers a fragile opportunity to embrace this ideal. Without such a reset, the region risks remaining ensnared in a loop of violence, unable to build a future unshackled from its bloody past. This may be the only sustainable path forward – peace not defined by temporary truces but by true, lasting renewal.
Image via DALLE Generation
