It’s on Israel, now, to show it is committed to negotiating in good faith.
After the United Nations Security Council adopted a U.S.-led resolution in support of a ceasefire in Gaza on Monday, in a 14-0 vote with only Russia abstaining, the Jewish state faces a critical juncture.
On Tuesday, Hamas reportedly responded positively to the plan , to which Israel has already said it would agree. That response brings the parties closer to a ceasefire deal than they’ve been since a prior short-term agreement ended in November. The three-phase arrangement would see an immediate ceasefire transition into a permanent end to hostilities, accompanied by the full release of Israeli hostages in Gaza.
How both sides handle the negotiations going forward will show the world their true intentions — and either affirm that a hostages-for-ceasefire deal is a realistic possibility, or confirm that it is not.
Either outcome will change the course of the war.
A confused public picture
Months of unsuccessful ceasefire talks have left international observers with a confused picture of whether Israel or Hamas are actually serious about achieving a deal, with both sides seemingly oscillating between flexibility and intransigence.
Meanwhile, whenever a specific deal has been on the table, headlines circulating on social media have misleadingly characterized statements from Israeli and Hamas officials as definitive rejections or acceptances, further obscuring who bears true responsibility for the ongoing impasse. The answer, more often than not, is both parties — a truth that has too often been lost in the muddle.
Related
The primary substantive barrier to achieving a hostage-release deal has remained the same since January: whether or not such a deal will end the war. Hamas has remained steadfast in its insistence that it will not release any additional hostages without guarantees that Israel will withdraw from the strip and end the war permanently. Meanwhile, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has continually emphasized — at least in public — his commitment to achieving “total victory” over Hamas, and to continuing the war until the organization’s decisive defeat.
Israel’s opportunities, and qualms
The U.S. supports Israel’s goal of removing Hamas from power in Gaza, which is why, for months, it opposed calls for a permanent end to hostilities that would leave Hamas in power.
But in the absence of a real political plan for how to replace Hamas — and with the strategic development of Israel having to repeatedly return to areas it had already conquered to confront insurgent cells — President Joe Biden’s administration has been forced to confront the fact that a military operation alone may not hold the key to defeating the terror group. A ceasefire deal, as has become increasingly clear, could allow Israel to achieve its far more time-bound goals of freeing the hostages; salvaging its regional ties; achieving quiet in the north; striving to address increasing international pressure; and creating an opening for regional and international involvement in rebuilding Gaza and establishing an alternative government.
Even if Hamas endures in some form, the Biden administration now sees a ceasefire as the ultimate priority — and the best chance for achieving its own goals in the Middle East.
Much of Israel’s leadership has evidently accepted that ending the war in exchange for the hostages is in Israel’s interest. The proposal to do just that outlined by Biden and endorsed by the UNSC was initially approved by Israel’s war cabinet, including Netanyahu, Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, and Benny Gantz, who was a minister in the war cabinet before his resignation on Sunday.
But in the days since Biden’s speech, Netanyahu has distanced himself from the framework.
He affirmed his opposition to a ceasefire that doesn’t include the “destruction of Hamas” and claimed that Biden misrepresented his government’s proposal — contrary to the details of the original proposal leaked by Israel’s Channel 12 . Israel even initially opposed the U.S.-backed UNSC resolution based on this framework — which, again, Israel itself proposed. It was only once the U.S. removed language on the relatively minor issue of Israeli security zones in Gaza that Israel withdrew official objections to the measure.
When the resolution passed, Israel neither endorsed nor rejected it, although an anonymous senior official apparently responded positively to it, according to The New York Times .
How to explain this apparent dissonance in Israel’s position?
The short answer: It all comes down to Netanyahu’s personal political considerations. The far-right has threatened to leave his government if he gives up on “total victory,” which would mean an effective death knell for his hold on power. Thus far, Netanyahu has been able to balance his goal of holding onto power with his avowed commitment to securing a hostage deal — in large part because, until now, Israel has been able to credibly claim that Hamas bears responsibility for the impasse.
Now that Hamas has endorsed the UNSC resolution, if Israel fails to hold up its end of things and move forward with the deal, it will be clear to all which of Netanyahu’s considerations — personal or public — has won out.
How Hamas weighs pros and cons
As a terror organization, Hamas is not accountable to the same levers of domestic and international pressure as Israel, a liberal-democratic state. For all the group has made public entreaties to alleviate the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and claimed to care about Palestinian liberation, it continues to knowingly and willingly put Palestinians in harm’s way as a strategy to advance its goal of destroying Israel.
With an eye to that long-term aspiration, survival is Hamas’ top motivation when considering a ceasefire deal. That means both the survival of the organization and of its leader in Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, who ultimately calls the shots.
On the one hand, freeing the hostages could be Hamas’ ticket to self-preservation. In the absence of a political day-after strategy to replace Hamas that has international buy-in, an Israeli withdrawal at this stage is a recipe for a Hamas resurgence, which would be a strategic defeat for Israel and a victory for Hamas. (The Biden-endorsed ceasefire plan is notably vague about plans for who would oversee Gaza after the war.)
At the same time, it would be reasonable for Sinwar to assess that the international pressure mounting on Israel will lead to an Israeli withdrawal and an end to the war, even in the absence of a deal to bring home the hostages.
Thus, Hamas has made a strong strategic calculation in seeking to demonstrate its willingness to strike a deal to release all the hostages, while ceding relatively little ground in the negotiations.
It has declined several far-reaching Israeli proposals so far over Israel’s refusal — until now — to commit to ending the war. With the current proposal, Netanyahu’s continued statements that he was intent on delivering Hamas’ defeat prompted Hamas officials to double down on their demand for an end to the war in exchange for the hostages — a response that much of the media framed as a Hamas rejection, even though Hamas had yet to issue an official response. By welcoming Monday’s UNSC resolution , Hamas thus upended the narrative, successfully portraying itself as the potentially more willing party to join an agreement.
But despite an initial positive response from Hamas officials, Secretary of State Antony Blinken affirmed today that the government has still not received a definitive response from Sinwar, and the ball remains in his court.
By playing this double game, Hamas has been able to feed into Israeli intransigence — prolonging the war, worsening Israel’s international standing and ensuring that Israel bears the brunt of the criticism for the humanitarian repercussions.
An end to the war?
The only way to expose Hamas’ and Sinwar’s true intentions around the ceasefire is for Israel to endorse the current deal and pursue it in good faith.
The proposal is not a bulletproof plan to guarantee quiet from Hamas. That would require political steps to empower an alternative Palestinian government for Gaza, regional buy-in, and coordination with the Palestinian Authority contingent on reforms.
But it presents Israel — and Netanyahu — with a path out of the current morass. If Israel pursues this option in good faith and it doesn’t pan out, the blame will be fully on Hamas, and Israel will be able to credibly claim that military pressure remains the sole option to bring the hostages home and achieve its objectives in Gaza.
Related
Most Popular
Comments / 0