World – In a recent announcement by the Pentagon, the U.S. revealed plans to deploy the advanced Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile system along with 100 American troops to Israel. This decision follows escalating tensions in the region as Israel weighs retaliatory strikes against Iran. The move comes after Iran launched approximately 200 missiles, including ballistic missiles, at Israel on October 1st and amid Israel’s plans to carry out additional offensive actions.

Critics have pointed out that while President Biden is providing more military support to Israel, he seems unable to curb Prime Minister Netanyahu’s aggressive policies. Some argue that Netanyahu is leveraging U.S. backing to shield himself from political fallout, including the corruption cases that have plagued his administration. Comparisons have been drawn to former President Donald Trump, with some asking why Democrats criticize Trump for his self-serving tactics when similar strategies are employed by Netanyahu, who maintains U.S. support under the guise of alliance.

At President Biden’s direction, Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III authorized the THAAD deployment as part of a broader strategy to strengthen Israel’s defenses, according to Pentagon Press Secretary Maj. Gen. Patrick Ryder, the system will “augment Israel’s integrated air defense system” and reflect the U.S.’s unwavering commitment to defending its ally. The deployment, however, positions American forces closer to the intensifying conflict in the Middle East, sparking questions about U.S. involvement in the ongoing war.

While the narrative often focuses on Hamas’s initial attack on Israel, resulting in significant casualties and hostages, critics say the broader picture has been obscured. Israel’s subsequent military operations have led to the widespread devastation of Gaza, with civilian casualties soaring, including women and children. Many argue that both sides are complicit in the ongoing violence, and neither has a moral high ground. In this context, the deaths of innocent civilians are becoming increasingly difficult to justify.

President Biden, in a brief statement on Sunday, confirmed the decision to send the missile defense system to protect Israel from further missile attacks by Iran. The Pentagon’s statement reinforced the importance of protecting both Israeli citizens and Americans in Israel, though it avoided addressing the mounting civilian casualties in Gaza.

The ongoing conflict draws heightened scrutiny from those questioning U.S. foreign policy in the region. The administration’s continued support for Netanyahu’s government raises critical questions about when, or if, the U.S. will push for a halt to the violence on both sides. As the situation evolves, international calls for a ceasefire and peaceful resolution are growing louder.

The United States remains deeply involved, with its military deployments signaling a willingness to back Israel even amid concerns of disproportionate responses to Hamas attacks. The broader implications of this U.S.-Israel alliance, as well as its effects on the region’s stability, continue to unfold as military actions intensify.

This report incorporates information from a New York Times article by Pentagon correspondent Helene Cooper.

The absence of a ceasefire in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas can be attributed to several complex and interrelated factors. Here’s a breakdown of the primary reasons:

1. Hamas’s Role and Israel’s Security Concerns

Israel’s government, under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has emphasized that its military operations are aimed at neutralizing Hamas, which it views as a terrorist organization. After the initial Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, which killed many Israeli civilians and took hostages, Israel has justified its retaliatory strikes as necessary to dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure and ensure the safety of its citizens. A ceasefire, from Israel’s perspective, could allow Hamas to regroup and continue to pose a security threat.

2. Hamas’s Strategy

For Hamas, continuing the conflict may be part of a broader strategy to maintain its political and ideological relevance. Ceasing hostilities might be seen as conceding to Israel, which could weaken its standing both within Gaza and in the broader Palestinian cause. Hamas also seeks international recognition of its grievances and hopes that continued fighting might pressure global actors to intervene on more favorable terms.

3. Humanitarian Concerns vs. Military Objectives

International actors, including the United Nations, the European Union, and various human rights organizations, have repeatedly called for a ceasefire, primarily due to the immense humanitarian toll in Gaza. However, the Israeli government has insisted that it must achieve clear military objectives before any ceasefire can be negotiated. This includes eliminating Hamas’s capacity to launch future attacks, which means the military campaign could continue indefinitely until Israel feels these objectives are met.

4. U.S. and International Involvement

The United States has consistently supported Israel’s right to defend itself, sending military aid and missile defense systems like the THAAD to protect against attacks from Hamas and Iran-backed militias. While President Biden and other U.S. officials have expressed concern over civilian casualties and called for minimizing harm to non-combatants, they have stopped short of pushing for an immediate ceasefire. The U.S. government’s stance is that Israel has the right to eliminate threats from Hamas, which aligns with its broader strategic interests in the region.

At the same time, many Western countries are wary of calling for a ceasefire that could be seen as legitimizing Hamas’s attacks. Israel’s allies prefer to give it time to neutralize threats before pushing for peace.

5. Hostage Crisis

Hamas is holding Israeli hostages, which further complicates the ceasefire talks. Any ceasefire negotiation would likely require an agreement on the release of these hostages, which is a sensitive and challenging issue to resolve. The Israeli government is under pressure to ensure the safe return of its citizens. Until there’s clarity on the hostage situation, it’s unlikely that Israel will agree to halt its military operations.

6. Political Stakes for Netanyahu

For Netanyahu, the ongoing military campaign against Hamas also carries political significance. Domestically, he has faced challenges, including corruption charges and protests over his controversial judicial reforms. The war has shifted focus away from these internal issues and has allowed him to unite much of the Israeli public behind the government’s military efforts. Agreeing to a ceasefire prematurely could expose him to political criticism at home, where many Israelis demand decisive action against Hamas.

7. Complex Regional Dynamics

The broader Middle East dynamics also play a role in delaying a ceasefire. Iran, which backs Hamas and Hezbollah, remains a central player in this conflict, and Israel is wary of appearing weak against Iran’s proxies. Additionally, Hezbollah’s involvement along Israel’s northern border has raised concerns about the conflict expanding. The absence of a ceasefire might be seen as a message to other regional actors, signaling that Israel will not back down in the face of threats.

8. Lack of Mediating Parties

While countries like Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey have historically played roles in mediating ceasefires between Israel and Hamas, the current conflict needs an immediate, effective mediator. The U.S., while influential, has focused more on bolstering Israel’s defenses rather than actively brokering peace. Negotiations toward a ceasefire are slow without a potent third-party mediator with credibility.

In summary, the reasons for the lack of a ceasefire are multifaceted, including Israel’s focus on neutralizing Hamas, Hamas’s refusal to back down, international reluctance to intervene strongly, the unresolved hostage situation, and the political stakes for the leaders involved. These factors make a ceasefire unlikely until both sides feel they have achieved enough to justify halting the violence.