While three American and Israeli analysts, speaking to Sky News Arabia, indicated that Hamas’ response to the truce proposal enters the negotiations into a “dark tunnel” and complicates the mediators’ efforts to complete the deal, which has been marred by much controversy in recent weeks, a Palestinian analyst pointed out that Hamas Through its response, it wants to show Israel that it was “defeated in Gaza.”
What did Hamas’ response include?
Hamas is seeking to extract written guarantees from the United States for a permanent ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip in order to sign the truce proposal. According to Reuters.
Two Egyptian sources and a third source familiar with the talks said that Hamas has concerns that the current proposal does not provide explicit guarantees regarding the transition from the first phase of the plan, which includes a six-week truce and the release of some hostages, to the second phase, which includes a permanent ceasefire and Israel’s withdrawal.
Hamas spokesman Jihad Taha said that the response included “amendments emphasizing a ceasefire, withdrawal, reconstruction, and prisoner exchange.”
US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken indicated that Hamas proposed “several changes” in its response to the ceasefire proposal, and that some of them are implementable, but others are not.
Israeli media quoted a political source as saying that Hamas’s amendments “were not minor and included dozens of items.”
Complexity of negotiations
Richard Weitz, director of the Center for Political-Military Analysis at the Hudson Institute, believes that Hamas’ response “complicates matters more than before.”
Weitz said in statements to Sky News Arabia: “Everyone is confused at the present time regarding the position of the truce talks and the possibility of their success in the coming time, especially after Hamas responded to its provisions and requested additional amendments.”
In this vein, former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Middle East Affairs Mike Mulroy went on to say to Sky News Arabia, “It seems clear from Hamas’ response that the movement is not interested in a ceasefire.”
He added: “It took two weeks to respond, and they did not agree to the terms of the proposal, or even to return to the elements they had previously agreed to. This was also Blinken’s vision during his visit to the region.”
Regarding the extent to which this contributed to the faltering negotiations, Mulroy explained that efforts will continue diplomatically, but “most of them hold limited hope” for reaching a truce that is approved by both parties and supported by mediators.
Truce “on the blood of Gaza”
The director of the Middle East Forum for Strategic Studies and National Security, Abdul Mahdi Mutawa, presents an approach to Hamas’ position on the truce, saying that “the movement’s response to the truce proposal gives an initial impression that there is a lack of desire for the success of the deal.”
Mutawa believes that Hamas is “right in some of its demands,” but on the other hand, some of its amendments relate to Israel’s image in the war and its acceptance of “being defeated,” stressing that “this is what Tel Aviv will not accept.”
The Palestinian expert stressed, “Hamas’ response is based on a vision of the long duration of the war and the large amount of Palestinian blood being shed – which, according to the movement’s vision, will force the world to put pressure on Israel to stop the war, and this is an inaccurate estimate.”
How does Israel view Hamas’ response?
For his part, Israeli political analyst Shlomo Ganor, speaking to Sky News Arabia, believes that Hamas’ response has brought efforts to reach a deal to release the kidnapped and a ceasefire into a “dead end and a more complex situation” than it was before Biden put forward the current proposal.
Ganor added, “In its response, Hamas plays a dual role, a kind of intransigence while assuming a position of moderation, as it adopts Biden’s proposals but adds amendments that mean undermining what was agreed upon and setting its own new conditions.”
He explained that Hamas proposed new timetables for the stages of implementing the deal, with a requirement to obtain written pledges and guarantees from the United States before starting implementation. It was satisfied with American guarantees, but also requested from Russia, China, Turkey, as well as the United Nations.
The Israeli political analyst pointed out that “Hamas requested guarantees that would allow it to be a partner in any authoritarian framework in Gaza after the end of the war, in order to maintain its current strength and weapons, which means as if the war had not occurred.”
Ganor stresses that “Hamas’s demands collide with reality, which prevents an exit from the current crisis.”
#truce #negotiations #entering #dark #tunnel #due #Hamas #amendments