In an insightful analysis, The New York Times likens the pursuit of a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas to a “Sisyphus-like” endeavor—one that seems never-ending and ultimately futile. This reflection comes in the wake of the cross-border assault launched by Hamas against Israel on October 7, which marked the beginning of the current conflict. As hostilities continue, a resolution looks increasingly out of reach. The report emphasizes key issues, including Israel’s ambitious war aims, the challenges of fully dismantling Hamas’s underground guerrilla tactics, and the complex political landscape surrounding Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
What we are witnessing represents the longest ongoing war between Israel and its Arab neighbors since the establishment of Israel’s borders in 1949. Israel’s military response has been some of the most intense in modern warfare, following the Hamas attack that resulted in nearly 1,500 Israeli fatalities and around 250 hostages taken. In a stark counter, Israeli military actions have reportedly caused the deaths of over 40,000 Palestinians.
Currently, the conflict has expanded, with escalating tensions involving Israel’s regional allies and adversaries. Recent developments include Israel’s invasion of Lebanon alongside Iranian strikes on Israeli targets. However, at the heart of this turmoil remains the Israel-Hamas war, and bringing an end to this violence poses a challenge reminiscent of the “Sisyphus myth.”
The “Sisyphus myth” tells the tale of a character condemned by the gods to push a boulder up a mountain, only for it to roll back down each time he reaches the summit—a symbol of futile struggle.
The New York Times notes that one major hurdle to achieving a ceasefire is Israel’s unrealistic war objectives. Military evaluations indicate that Israel has significantly weakened Hamas, having targeted and eliminated many of its leaders and militants, seized much of the territory under Hamas control, and captured or destroyed extensive stockpiles of weapons while cutting off potential smuggling routes for new arms.
Despite these achievements, Netanyahu’s government has established an almost unattainable benchmark for victory: the total destruction of Hamas. For Hamas, however, the definition of victory is about survival, enabling them to withstand a certain degree of devastation. History shows that while some nations, like Japan, surrendered after enduring significant destruction in World War II, others, like France, capitulated early to avert total ruin. In contrast, Hamas appears to be seeking to incite a broader regional conflict that could jeopardize Israel’s long-term stability.
Moreover, Hamas employs a guerrilla warfare strategy, utilizing an extensive network of tunnels, which complicates Israel’s ability to deliver a decisive blow.
Finally, it’s important to consider that Netanyahu’s political strength is partially contingent on support from far-right lawmakers, who have warned they may withdraw from the coalition government if Hamas is not dealt with decisively. This dynamic limits his ability to engage in negotiations for the release of hostages and further complicates the path toward peace.
