7/5/2024–|Last updated: 5/7/202407:49 PM (Mecca time)
Israeli analysts said on Tuesday that the acceptance by the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) of the proposed prisoner exchange agreement and ceasefire in the Gaza Strip surprised Tel Aviv and put Benjamin Netanyahu’s government in a dilemma.
Analysts quoted by the Turkish Anatolia news agency explained that Netanyahu, on the one hand, wants not to appear to reject an agreement that returns Israeli prisoners from Gaza, and on the other hand, he does not want to anger his partners on the right who reject the agreement.
Under the title, “When Sinwar says yes,” in reference to the leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Yahya Sinwar, Nahum Barnea, a prominent analyst at Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, said, “It is likely that Sinwar is deceiving us, as he knows that the current government cannot agree to the proposal he formulated.” .
He considered that sending an Israeli delegation to the Cairo negotiations is important for Netanyahu on the domestic front, as he cannot bear to be seen as someone who thwarts the agreement and abandons the kidnappers, nor can he be seen as someone who is ready to reach an agreement and betray his partners on the right.
Barnaiah described Sinwar as “evil but not foolish.” He continued, “The counter-proposal drafted by (Sinwar) puts Israel in another round of unnerving internal discussions, where kidnappers die in captivity, families do not know their fate, a frightened and divided government up to the neck in mutual suspicion, and an exhausted and weak security elite.”
Barnayeh pointed out, “Sinwar may be interested in reaching the final station, that is, the agreement, but – to a no lesser extent than that – he is enjoying what he does to us along the way.”
A “wedge” between Israel and America
For his part, Amos Harel, a military analyst in the Haaretz newspaper, pointed out in an article titled “Netanyahu in the Trap of Yes to Hamas,” that the movement’s acceptance of the proposed ceasefire agreement surprised Israel, given the crisis that the talks witnessed during the past few days.
He said that Hamas recently demanded American guarantees in light of Netanyahu’s repeated statements that he intends to issue an order to the Israeli army to invade Rafah. He added, “Israeli political sources reported last night that Egypt and the United States may have reached an understanding behind Israel’s back to update the Egyptian proposal that Tel Aviv accepted two weeks ago.”
According to Harel, these statements are an initial indication from Netanyahu that he will reject the proposal after the positive response from Hamas.
Harel pointed out that just two days ago, the Prime Minister and his spokesmen claimed that the Israeli media had made false accusations against him that he was trying to sabotage the talks while blaming Hamas.
He said, “It now appears that he will give a negative answer again, and this step will be justified by the claim that Israel needs to ensure the defeat of Hamas, and the dubious allegations of American deception.”
He added that in practical terms, the main reason will be Netanyahu’s fear of the collapse of his coalition and the loss of his right-wing electoral base.
Harel pointed out that in the end, it seemed that the mediators carried out their duties faithfully and did not take sides, and presented Hamas with a proposal that Israel had already agreed to, but they made a small number of changes.
“In other words, the chances of achieving a breakthrough in the negotiations are still low. But the Hamas leadership, through its positive response, may have been able to drive a wedge between Israel and the United States,” he said.
Harel continued, “It remains to be seen how the National Unity Party ministers in the war government, Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot, will respond to the change in Hamas’ position and to Netanyahu’s clear negative reaction.”
Israeli suspicions
In turn, the former head of the Israeli Military Intelligence Division, Tamir Hayman, in an article published on the website of the Israeli Channel 12, doubted that Hamas concealed in the deal a trap that Israel could not accept.
He added that there are two main points of disagreement: the issue of ending the war, and the issue of the identity of the prisoners who will be released as part of a deal.
He pointed out that in the first issue, the mediators’ proposal is acceptable to Israel because it does not include the phrase “cessation of war,” but there is another proposed phrase that is more ambiguous, which is “cessation of activity,” which allows flexibility to renew the war in the future if Israel chooses to do so.
As for the second issue, the obstacle that prevents Israel from accepting the deal lies in Tel Aviv waiving its veto power over the decision to release Palestinian prisoners.
He explained that in the first stage, in exchange for the release of each detained Israeli soldier, 50 Palestinian prisoners will be released, including 30 prisoners who are serving life sentences.
He believed that in total, at the end of the first phase, 150 lifelong prisoners would be released at the request of Hamas, while Israel is not allowed to interfere in that.
He said, “If that happens, Israel will release all prisoners linked to Hamas, and release all dangerous prisoners. If that happens, Israel will have no bargaining chips for the second phase.”
He considered that in practice – according to this clause – Israel will release every person who is truly important to Hamas, and will not guarantee the return of all the abductees.
Scattering of papers
In turn, Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper analyst Avi Issakharov said that although the Egyptian-Qatari proposal was not previously acceptable to Israel, Hamas’s positive response to this proposal scatters the cards again.
He pointed out that the ball is now once again in Israel’s court. He explained that the Israeli government must now decide whether it intends to respond positively to the proposal and agree to actually end the war at the end of its first phase and second phase, depending on how you look at it, or to respond negatively and you will be seen in the world as having rejected the possibility of ending the war. .