For weeks and cycle of negotiations on the exchange of prisoners and the end of the war, it has been at different speeds and stops. Israel declares publicly during the day that it is fighting “under the fire”, and that the goal is not to end the war, but rather to achieve the goals of the war.
For its part, Hamas has repeatedly expressed its willingness to a comprehensive deal in which the administration of government in Gaza is left and the exchange of prisoners, and the end of the war; In preparation for the reconstruction of the sector.
And it seemed to many, even in Israel itself, that prolonging the war is a political goal of partisan considerations for Netanyahu and the right in general.
After extensive deliberations and various formulations, they sometimes received the acceptance of Hamas and the rejection of Israel, the most recent of which was the proposal presented by the broker Bishara with a love and met with American acceptance. This proposal sparked a severe Israeli anger that prompted the Minister of Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, and the Mossad head, Didi Barni, to meet Wittouf and discuss it lengthy.
The result was to adopt the last Dermer proposal, which was the Israeli response to a proposal. The proposal was soon presented to US President Donald Trump, adopted him, and re -sent him to both sides. A high -ranking Israeli source told “Maariv” that “Wittouf adopted Dermer’s position, and ignored Bishara.”
He added, “Contrary to reports, the latter Witkeov agreement did not specify the new deployment line of our forces, nor how to distribute aid in the framework of the ceasefire.” Another source confirmed that the proposal was formulated in full coordination with Israel after a meeting with Witfouf with Minister Ron Dermer at the White House on Tuesday.
Here is the poem in the Israeli position. Benjamin Netanyahu can inform his ally on the extreme right, Smutrich and Bin Ghafir, that- as previously- is able to persuade the Americans to adopt his positions, and they have done.
There is no change in the essence of the Israeli position; Because the latter’s proposal is an Israeli proposal, and it does not demand Israel to end the war and does not guarantee the end of the war.
It is no less important that it was included in phrases mentioned in the exchange agreement that led to the previous truce that did not prevent Israel from resuming the war. In addition, in the new proposal, it does not affect the method of distributing aid, which serves Israel’s position aimed at “achieving Trump’s plan” to displace the people of Gaza.
The Chief of Staff, General Eyal Zamir, supported the position of Netanyahu, as Israeli parties have leaked a position he made at a closed meeting of the Staff linking the Gaza Strip to the Iranian file. According to two exporters attending the discussions, Zamir said: “The hostage deal is not only an ethical commitment, and not only a target to increase military pressure on Hamas, it will also allow us to focus on Iran.”
According to the newspaper “Globes”, this is an important permit, which may indicate assessments at the level of the military leadership, and not only at the political level, regarding the military need to focus on the Iranian scene, in light of negotiations with Tehran, and even more if it fails.
Thus, after political and security deliberations and without official decisions, Netanyahu informed the families of the Israeli prisoners that he agreed to the latter’s proposal. The White House also officially announced that “Israel agreed to the ceasefire proposal, and we are waiting for Hamas’s response.”
Thus, with a semi -exposed game between America and Israel, a proposal was excluded, which Hamas agreed to without expressing any anger at Israel’s public rejection of it. Hamas has become to prove, in front of the Americans and the world, its seriousness in accepting the proposal after Israel agreed to it.
While some believe that the original Wittouf proposal, who demanded the release of half of the neighborhoods and the dead from the Israeli prisoners, in exchange for American truce and guarantees to continue negotiations to end the war was more fair than the new proposal.
Indeed, in recent days, reports of Hamas’s acceptance of a proposed and takoff, and Israel repeated that what Hamas agreed was not what Israel agreed. This really means that the brokerage ends were circulating among themselves more than a formula called a proposal and takoff.
On this basis, contradictions and declines appeared in the positions of both Israel and Hamas. Now the offered form has become one, and it is almost acceptable to Israel alone, which Hamas is trying to modify so that it does not have to announce its rejection of it.
This explains the intensity of the Israeli military campaign against the Strip, destroying, and besieging, as part of the plan to force Hamas to accept this formula, and not to wait for others.
Several media reports reported that Hamas’s position did not stop until Hamas announced that “rumors about progress in the ceasefire negotiations in Gaza inaccurate.”
“The agreement approved by Israel does not meet our demands. Hamas leadership is considering responsibility for its response to a proposal and Witakouf.” This prompted some to say that Hamas will repeat a previous position on it by stalling in the response or using the method: “Yes,”. This prompted the Israeli sources to accelerate the saying: “Hamas has not agreed to the proposal and did not respond to it yet.”
The silence of the extreme right
The extremist right within the Netanyahu government committed silence for hours regarding the preliminary reports of the approach to reaching an agreement after America was informed of the approval of the Netanyahu government on the latter’s proposal. This is more than the indication of the game in negotiations with America. The Minister of National Security, Etamar bin Ghafir, did not comment on the matter until after estimates increased within the Israeli security establishment, with Hamas’s rejection of the proposal.
“Sir, the Prime Minister, after Hamas rejected the proposal of the deal again, there is no longer any excuse for anyone to continue this manipulation in Gaza. We have missed enough opportunities. It is time to attack with all our strength, to destroy Hamas, kill and defeat it.”
As for the Minister of Finance, in Salail Smotrich, he sent more than one letter to the Prime Minister’s Office, declaring his refusal to the deal. This is a way that Netanyahu suggested that Smutrich and Bin Ghafir do not intend to escalate the situation with him on the deal.
Perhaps the clear objection to the deal came from Minister Likudi Amihai Chicley, who criticized the emerging agreement, saying: “We must let the fighters complete their mission to the end. Hamas should raise the white flag and throw its weapons, and to release all the kidnappers, in exchange for the possibility of the leaders of the remaining enthusiasm from Gaza.”
A serious dispute emerged within the Israeli government between those who support a partial deal, those who want a comprehensive deal and those who refuse in principle to conclude deals with Hamas. Netanyahu has repeatedly announced that with a partial deal, Israel remains the option of continuing the war until its goals are achieved, including the displacement of Gaza residents.
This means preparedness for a limited gift in exchange for the release of a number of prisoners and bodies. But Smutrich, for example, recently identified what he called the red line, and said it was ending the war and the withdrawal of the forces from Gaza.
He said last Tuesday: “Hamas is exposed to tremendous and severe pressure in recent days as a result of changing the aid distribution system and its loss of control of the residents of the sector, in addition to the continuous military pressure.”
He added: “We must continue to narrow the screws on it and force it to conclude a complete surrender deal with all hostages at once. It will be foolish to reduce pressure now, and signing a partial deal with it that would give it oxygen and life artery and allow it to recover. I will not allow something like this.”
Israel responds with “yes” and Hamas with “no”
Netanyahu offers his allies a proposal and the new and the new as it does not include any violation of the principles that he has always called, and if there is any decline, it is slight to restore America’s confidence in Israel.
This approval of the proposal guaranteed the departure of US officials soon to start accusing Hamas of hardening and rejecting bargains, and that it disappointed many, and the risks were not removed from its people. One of the initial reactions of Hamas leaders can be said that the optimism that has surfaced in the past days about the chances of making progress, has declined significantly.
And a prominent commentator, the essential points of disagreement are that after accepting the proposal, many unlimited issues will be negotiated. The agreement includes a commitment to negotiate a permanent ceasefire during the sixty -day period of the temporary ceasefire. During that period, Hamas will submit a full health report on the status of the prisoners, and the key to the future exchange between them, the lines of the withdrawal of the Israeli forces, security arrangements and the issue of managing the sector the next day.
The suggestion also stipulates that Trump will ensure that permanent ceasefire negotiations, if successful, will lead to a permanent settlement to end the conflict. The proposal stipulates that the two parties should reach an agreement on a permanent ceasefire within 60 days.
In the event of an agreement, the remaining hostages will be released. Otherwise, the ceasefire can be extended “on conditions and for a period of time agreed upon by the two parties, provided that negotiations are undermined in good faith.”
In the eyes of Hamas, the proposal did not include any serious American guarantees of pressure in order to stop the war, nor does it include an explicit text of the withdrawal of Israeli forces to the pre -violation of the armistice.
The proposal also ignored the enthusiasm of Hamas, that Israel could not resume the fighting, as it did last March.
The opinions in the article do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Al -Jazeera.
