The proposal for ‘lasting calm’ divides Israel and Hamas

GAZA – After months of deadlock, the search for peace in Gaza has reached a critical stage. UN chief Antonio Guterres says this is a “decisive moment for the Palestinian and Israeli people and for the fate of the entire region.”

There appears to be agreement among most parties on the principles: there must be a ceasefire in addition to the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners. Various draft agreements have been drawn up, in which a complex process is laid down as to how everything works.

There is some disagreement about the details of what should happen to whom, when, and in what order. Israeli officials, for example, say the female soldiers should be released earlier than planned.

They also say the texts should be clearer that the first 33 hostages to be released must be alive, and are concerned that they will not have a veto over which Palestinian prisoners would be released.

These are problems that can potentially be overcome through negotiations.

But there is a more fundamental sticking point over a core principle that may be harder to overcome, and that is when the war should end.

The opening words of the draft agreement – ​​backed by Hamas – declare that there should be a “temporary cessation of military operations between the two sides.” This is largely problem-free. Six weeks would pass as people are released, Israeli forces withdraw from some areas and displaced Gazans could return to what remains of their homes.

But then phase two would begin. The draft agreement then speaks of a “return to lasting calm,” which is defined as “a permanent cessation of military and hostile operations.”

This seems unacceptable to the Israeli government. In a statement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “Israel will not allow Hamas to restore its evil rule in the Gaza Strip, Israel will not allow it to restore its military capabilities to continue seeking our destruction. Israel cannot accept a proposal that endangers the security of our citizens and the future of our country.”

In other words, the Israeli government wants the right to continue the fight against Hamas in the long term. Hamas, on the other hand, wants a permanent ceasefire.

What is not clear is whether there is a way for Qatari, Egyptian and American negotiators to find a middle ground through this.

It may be that this is all part of the negotiations. During negotiations, public statements are often used to put pressure on the other party.

Hamas’s announcement that it supports a particular draft could be an attempt to push Israel to make concessions and divide the country from its allies. Israel’s warnings about an impending military operation in Rafah could be an attempt to extract better terms from Hamas.

But the question of whether a ceasefire is permanent or not seems difficult to reconcile with clever diplomatic language.

Israel has agreed to send a delegation to Cairo, but with modest ambitions – not to make a deal, but “to exploit the possibility of reaching an agreement on terms acceptable to Israel.”

Much will depend on what the US government decides.

So far, American spokespeople have fallen over themselves not to comment on the deal Hamas signed. They have limited themselves to claiming that an agreement is still “feasible” and to strongly warning against a military operation in Rafah.

That’s because if the US were to back the current text, Netanyahu could be forced to choose between his key ally and the ultranationalist hardliners who support his government and oppose any compromise.

Netanyahu has survived many crises in his political career by postponing difficult decisions.

But President Biden has it in his gift to force the Israeli leader to make a choice he would rather avoid. – BBC