The positive response of the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) to the mediators’ proposal was not without the basic demand to stop the war on Gaza, which the Israeli government found difficult to accept, so it sent its tanks to the Rafah crossing and occupied it in a show of force.
Through this move, Israel aims to exert field pressure on Hamas, without having to incite the ire of the United States and the world with a comprehensive operation in Rafah.
What is the true Israeli position on the proposal, in light of the American position, which previously expressed understanding of the term permanently stopping military and hostile operations that was mentioned in the agreement?
Basic demands
It is important to point out that Hamas avoided submitting a new proposal as it did in a previous stage of the negotiations, and announced its approval of the mediators’ proposal after working with them to introduce amendments that are consistent with its demands, provide an appropriate solution to the differences, and allow the Netanyahu government to come down from the tree it climbed by rejecting a ceasefire. fire.
It used a term previously introduced by the United States, which talks about “cessation of military and hostile operations,” and added “permanently.”
Note that the amendments made by this movement to the Paris Formula succeeded in establishing basic demands, which are – according to the statements of its leaders – a permanent cessation of aggression, the occupation’s withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip, the return of the displaced without restrictions or conditions, relief and reconstruction, ending the siege, and completing an exchange deal. Real and serious.
With this tactic, Hamas appeared in the position of facilitating the agreement, contrary to the image that Netanyahu hoped for and was promoting, that it was disrupting the agreement, and it even threw a fireball towards the hard-line government.
Without a doubt, Hamas has presented important benefits, such as reducing the prisoner exchange formula in favor of focusing on humanitarian relief demands that alleviate the pain and suffering of its popular incubator, in light of the long battle that the Palestinian people are waging with the occupation.
Hamas also adhered to its demand for the return of the displaced without any Israeli obstacles, by emphasizing the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Netzarim crossing and the Kuwait roundabout.
However, the resistance would not have neglected its demand for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Gaza and the cessation of the war, as there is no meaning to exchanging prisoners, without stipulating that the occupation army will not launch a new aggression against Gaza after the resistance has lost the prisoners’ card, which is its most important negotiating card.
The Hamas paper (published in Tel Aviv Tribune 5/6/2024) divided the agreement into 3 stages, and included affirming the demand to lift the siege on the Palestinian people by the end of the third stage.
By reviewing the terms of the proposal, we find that Hamas agreed to a real plan to stop the war and exchange prisoners while addressing the effects of the war and providing relief to the Palestinian people, in contrast to what the occupation wants from a prisoner exchange process only.
Invasion of Rafah crossing
The occupation government did not hide its surprise when Hamas announced its approval of the mediators’ proposal, but it was careful to say that the proposal had been subject to amendments that were unacceptable to it. Indeed, some leaks spoke of anger at the approval of the Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), William Burns, who was in Doha. On Hamas’s demands without consulting Israel.
The occupation forces began a military operation to occupy the Fatah crossing, and for this purpose they occupied about 3.5 kilometers from the Salah al-Din (Philadelphia) axis, which extends 14.5 kilometers from the Mediterranean Sea to the Kerem Shalom crossing. This coincided with the announcement of sending an unauthorized negotiating delegation to Egypt to discuss the formula. New proposal for mediators.
In a statement made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he stressed that Hamas’s proposal is far from the necessary demands of Israel, considering that its goal is “to blow up the entry of our forces into Rafah, and this did not happen.”
Netanyahu also stressed that Israel will not allow Hamas to rebuild its military capabilities and restore rule in the Gaza Strip, meaning that he wants to obtain the prisoners, and then resume the war on Gaza.
Israeli Channel 12 revealed the most prominent objections that Netanyahu and his negotiating team see to the new proposal, but when we examine them, we find that they are differences on a numerical basis, and this will most likely not constitute an obstacle to the agreement in the end.
The main disagreement is represented by the announcement of a cessation of the war before the start of the second phase, in addition to Israel’s demand to impose a veto on any high-ranking Palestinian whom Hamas demands in exchange for female soldiers.
Israeli disputes
The new proposal reinforced the differences within the Israeli war government. Contrary to the desire of Netanyahu, who wants to disrupt the deal and prevent reaching an agreement that would lead to stopping the war and expose him to trials, the two council members from the National Camp bloc, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, are demanding that a deal be reached that would lead to the return of the prisoners.
Their position is consistent with the American position in this regard, and they are even exposed to pressure from their electoral base about the feasibility of their continued presence in a government that failed on October 7, fails to manage the war, and seeks to prolong its duration for personal goals related to Netanyahu.
However, Netanyahu’s negotiation will lead to increased disagreements within his coalition, especially in light of the occupation’s failure to achieve the war’s two goals of eliminating Hamas and liberating the prisoners.
The Israeli security services have unanimously concluded that the entity has lost two basic advantages in this war, namely: American support and the unity of the street, and that the war has reached a dead end. This undermines Netanyahu’s justifications for continuing the war and marketing this with the slogan of complete victory, which is a cover for his desire to continue to rule. He unsuccessfully avoided being tried for corruption on and after October 7.
Netanyahu’s hardline position will lead to protests by the families of the prisoners, which will constitute mounting pressure on the government of all sectors.
The American position
The continuation of the attack on Rafah will enhance the differences with the American government, which is seeking to reach a ceasefire agreement, to save its popularity, which was greatly damaged by the war atrocities committed by the Israelis, the weakening of the Western alliance that it established at the beginning of the war, and the demands of many European countries for a ceasefire.
The Biden administration is also seeking to achieve a ceasefire to achieve a normalization process between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and is pressing hard for that, because it wants to improve its position in the US elections in November of this year. Therefore, it is pressuring the Netanyahu government to deal positively with the mediators’ proposal, which Hamas’s approval of led to directing arrows of pressure on the entity.
In this context, several sources confirmed that the US administration, by decision of the US National Security Council, postponed sending specific shipments of weapons produced by Boeing to the occupation. The sources report that the postponement took place for only two weeks, but the significance of the matter is that it is the first time since October 7. The first time such action has been taken against Israel.
However, this limited measure does not diminish the importance of continued American support, which Biden recently expressed when he said, “The United States’ support for Israel is firm and will not change, even if there are differences.”
This does not negate the US administration’s continued fear of Netanyahu’s decision to invade Rafah, as US State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said, “Israel’s control of the Rafah crossing between Egypt and the Gaza Strip appears to be a prelude to a major military operation.”
However, the American administration realizes that unless it succeeds in restraining Netanyahu, launching a major attack on Rafah will lead to the cessation of negotiations, especially since Hamas has threatened to do so if the attack is carried out, which will harm the American strategy that seeks calm in the region, not to provide an atmosphere. Not only for the normalization process, but also to prevent the region from sliding into a regional escalation that conflicts with its efforts to focus on China and Russia.
Where does the deal go?
It is difficult to predict the future of the deal in light of the interactions inside Israel, the formula that the government will reach in dealing with the mediators’ proposal, and the discrepancies with the American position.
But the negotiations are likely to continue for days or even weeks, and will witness moderate American pressure on Israel, including an attempt to dissuade it from launching a comprehensive war on Rafah.
However, these moderate pressures, such as delaying the arrival of arms shipments to the entity, may not be enough to curb Netanyahu’s ambition to continue the war and disrupt any deal for prisoners, including moving forward with the occupation of other parts of Rafah with the possibility of causing massacres, which will lead to further disintegration of Western support for Israel. And the escalation of confrontations with Hezbollah and the Houthis.
It is doubtful that the aggression against Rafah will achieve a success that the occupation army did not achieve in the north and center. Rather, it may lead – according to the estimates of the security services – to confronting strategic traps prepared by the resistance for the occupation army.
It is likely that Netanyahu will not deal seriously with the negotiations until he succeeds in promoting the completion of his mission, occupying all of Gaza, and achieving the goal of complete victory. However, with the escalation of American pressure, he may be forced to deal positively with the mediators’ proposal before the mission of occupying Rafah is completed, especially since his partners do not see fundamental differences between the two parties. What Israel wants and what is offered in the deal.
This may result in the implementation of the first phase of the deal after reaching satisfactory solutions for both parties, with the resistance continuing to adhere to the condition of proceeding with the second and third phases with a strict clause confirming the ceasefire.
By implementing the first phase, the resistance can achieve important achievements in terms of providing relief to the Palestinian people and stopping the crimes of the occupation, as well as succeeding in releasing about a thousand Palestinians, including 250 resistance fighters with high sentences and life sentences, while continuing to hold the most important card, which is the military.
However, after approving the deal by introducing amendments to it, Netanyahu may not be able to market it to his hard-line partners, which will lead to their withdrawal from the government. This is not required to lead to a breakdown in the government’s contract, after his opposition opponent, Naftali Bennett, pledged to provide him with a safety net if he decided to proceed with the deal.
Perhaps Ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich’s feeling that they do not have alternatives in the event of leaving the government may lead them to remain in it and try to disrupt what they can of the deal.
Therefore, this scenario may include success for the first stage, but the success of the other stages remains not guaranteed.
In any case, the signing of the deal will mark the end of the Netanyahu government in the foreseeable future. It will strengthen the position of the resistance and give it the opportunity to catch its breath in an ongoing battle with the occupation. It will frustrate attempts to find an alternative to it, while activating the reconstruction plan for the Gaza Strip through a national government within a Palestinian consensus.
What these negotiations confirm is that the resistance does not enter negotiations in a state of weakness and defeat, just as Israel does not enter them in a state of victory in which it can impose its conditions. But the real equations that put pressure on both parties force them to resort to an exchange and ceasefire deal as part of Arab and international mediation efforts.