Fact check: What are the main issues driving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2025?

1. The Hidden Battle That Could Ignite a Wider Crisis

Analysts describe an internal Israeli split between the military-security establishment and far-right political forces pushing to formalize control over the occupied territories, a fault line that increases the risk of heightened violence and destabilization across the West Bank and beyond. Reporting from 2024 frames this as a clash of ideologies and institutional interests where generals warn of a potential “explosion” if policies tilt toward annexation or expanded civilian rule in occupied areas, indicating domestic Israeli politics are a proximate driver of conflict escalation ^[1]. This framing carries an implicit agenda: critics of the far right emphasize security risks, while supporters of territorial consolidation emphasize sovereignty and ideology.

2. Ceasefire Fragility, Hostages, and the Humanitarian Catastrophe

Multiple accounts in 2025 focus on the ending and resumption of armed hostilities, the centrality of hostage releases, and a humanitarian emergency in Gaza that has drawn international condemnation and demands for unfettered aid. The UK briefing documents the collapse of a hostage-ceasefire agreement and warns Israel’s conduct could raise questions under international humanitarian law, while contemporaneous news snapshots highlight both temporary calm and a persistent risk that ceasefires will unravel if their core conditions aren’t met ^{[2] [5]}. Advocates for stronger international pressure highlight civilian suffering; Israeli officials prioritize degrading armed groups and securing hostages.

3. The Regional Chessboard: Iran, Proxies, and Diplomatic Brokers

Observers stress that the viability of any 2025 arrangements depends heavily on regional actors—notably Iran and its allied proxies—and on external brokers who helped shape temporary deals. Reports in early 2025 caution that an Israel–Hamas deal’s success hinges on how Iran and allied groups respond and whether wider Syrian or Lebanese fronts remain quiet, indicating the conflict is embedded in broader Middle East rivalries ^[6]. Policymakers with hawkish agendas emphasize deterrence against Iran; diplomats and track-two actors emphasize incentives and guarantees to lock-in local ceasefires.

4. Competing Diplomatic Tracks: Revival Versus Redesign

There is active debate about whether to revive established frameworks like the Arab Peace Initiative or to pursue new paradigms that foreground Palestinian equal rights rather than statehood alone. Palestinian and Arab officials press for a revitalized Arab Peace Initiative as the pragmatic route to a durable settlement and improved Palestinian governance, whereas some analysts call for reframing around rights to break negotiation deadlocks, reflecting divergent strategic aims: statehood-based normalization versus transformative rights-based justice ^{[3] [4]}. Each proposal carries political constituencies and international backers with different priorities and credibility.

5. International Declarations and the Two-State Architecture Under Strain

Recent declarations and multilateral documents propose pathways to a sovereign and economically viable Palestinian state with security arrangements and reconstruction plans, but implementation remains the Achilles’ heel. A 2025 New York declaration lays out technical measures—security guarantees, ceasefires, economic recovery—yet the record shows that declarations without robust enforcement or buy-in from key local actors struggle to prevent relapse, underscoring a gap between diplomatic text and operational realities ^[7]. Proponents of two-state solutions argue for international guarantees; skeptics point to political fragmentation and ground realities undermining feasibility.

6. The Core Grievances: Territory, Jerusalem, and Refugee Rights Remain Unresolved

Analyses reiterate that despite episodic ceasefires, foundational disputes over territory, control of Jerusalem, and the Palestinian refugee right of return persist as drivers of long-term conflict. Media summaries and expert appraisals from 2025 emphasize that temporary halts in fighting do not address these deep-rooted contestations, which sustain cycles of mistrust and reciprocal violence; resolving them requires political compromise and security architectures that neither side currently trusts ^{[8] [9]}. Narratives differ on solutions: some emphasize negotiated partition, others insist on rights-based remedies or novel confederative models.

7. Legal Accountability, Humanitarian Law, and International Pressure

Several sources highlight international concern that combat operations and blockades may implicate violations of humanitarian law, prompting calls for renewed aid corridors and legal scrutiny. The UK briefing and global reporting underscore pressure on Israel to permit unhindered humanitarian relief while critics urge accountability for wartime conduct; Israeli authorities counter that counterterrorism needs and hostage recovery justify certain operations, framing legal arguments around necessity and self-defense ^{[2] [9]}. These competing legal framings reflect divergent agendas: humanitarian actors prioritize civilian protection, while security-focused actors prioritize territorial control and deterrence.

8. What This Means for Prospects: Fragility, Contingency, and Leverage

Taken together, the 2025 landscape is defined by fragile truces contingent on hostage deals, internal political dynamics within Israel, regional spoilers or guarantors, and competing diplomatic models. Short-term stability hinges on implementation mechanics—aid access, prisoner exchanges, and regional de‑escalation—while long-term peace requires resolving core grievances that current plans leave contested. Strategic actors will leverage humanitarian and legal pressure, diplomatic initiatives, and military deterrence in pursuit of divergent outcomes; the balance of those levers through late 2025 will determine whether violence recurs or temporary agreements can solidify into durable frameworks ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [7] [5] [8] [9]}.