by James M Dorsey
sraelis and Palestinians jockey for position and attempt to move the goalposts as the fragile Gaza ceasefire teeters on the edge of collapse.
Any number of things could spark the collapse.
 Listen now · 13:37 |
Israel has sent a delegation to Cairo a month behind schedule, according to Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, not to negotiate the terms of the ceasefire’s second phase but “to see whether we have common ground to negotiate. ”
Israel could conclude that the two sides have no common ground.
The second-phase negotiations should have started on day 16 of the ceasefire’s 42-day first phase. Israel dispatched its delegation on day 38.
Rather than negotiate a second phase that would involve a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and the installation of a post-war interim governing authority, Mr. Saar said Israel would prefer extending the first phase and continuing the prisoner exchanges.
It’s hard to see why Hamas would surrender the remaining 19 live Israeli hostages and the remains of tens of others killed during the war for anything less than a permanent end to the hostilities.
Mr. Netanyahu has vowed to continue the war until Israel destroys Hamas militarily and politically.
 |
In a twist of irony, Hamas’ de facto revived control of Gaza may be the best of Mr. Netanyahu’s bad options, including Israel taking responsibility for the Strip’s 2.3 million destitute residents or the prime minister dropping his rejection of a return to the territory of the West Bank-based, internationally recognised Palestine Authority.
Mr. Netanyahu needs to keep the war at least simmering to keep his coalition in place. His ultra-nationalist finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has threatened to collapse the government if he agrees to a permanent ceasefire.
In contrast to Israel, Hamas has adhered closely to the ceasefire agreement’s stipulations while denouncing alleged Israeli violations.
 |
Credit: CivilsDaily
Like with the timing of the second-phase negotiations, an Israeli official said this week that Israel would not honour its obligation to start withdrawing from the Phiiladelphi corridor that runs parallel to the Egyptian-Gazan border.
Israel committed itself in the ceasefire agreement to start withdrawing from the corridor on March 1, the 42nd day of the ceasefire, and complete its pullback by day 50.
“We will not withdraw from the Philadelphi route. We will not allow Hamas murderers to roam our border again with trucks and rifles, and we will not let them rearm through smuggling,” the official said.
Hamas used the first-phase hostage exchanges to project itself as a disciplined and capable fighting force despite 15 months of relentless Israeli attacks.
An Arab summit scheduled to be held in Cairo next week could determine the next step in the Israel-Hamas dance.
The summit is expected to adopt an alternative to US President Donald J. Trump’s proposition to resettle the Gaza population in Egypt, Jordan, and other countries and turn the Strip into a high-end beachfront real estate development.
 |
Based on an Egyptian draft, the Arab plan envisions of Gazan businessmen and notables linked to the Palestine Authority and assisted by Arab countries initially governing post-war Gaza.
The draft suggests settling Gazans in safe zones in the Strip as reconstruction commences.
In the absence of an Israeli government plan, Yair Lapid, Israel’s largely ineffective opposition leader, has put forward his own plan. Mr. Netanyahu’s government has refused to adopt an official plan as long as Hamas has not been destroyed.
Mr. Lapid suggested Egypt be Gaza’s guardian for up to 15 years in exchange for Western nations giving it relief on its burgeoning US$150 billion foreign debt.
Mr. Lapid envisioned Egypt overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction, Hamas’ disarmament, and reform of the Palestine Authority, which is widely viewed as corrupt and dysfunctional.
“There is no perfect solution, but it answers the three big questions the region is asking. Who will manage Gaza? How do we ensure Gaza doesn’t end hopes for normalization between Israel and the Saudis and the creation of an anti-Iranian coalition, and how do we ensure the stability of Egypt and its continued role as a security partner and strategic help?” Mr. Lapid said.
 |
From the outset, Mr. Lapid’s plan was stillborn, with the Palestinians and Egypt rejecting the proposal. The Palestine Authority insists on having a significant role in post-war Gaza, while Israel denies any role for the Authority or Hamas.
Egypt has no interest in shouldering sole responsibility for Gaza, being seen as doing Israel’s bidding or risking confrontation with Palestinian factions. Moreover, it needs the Gulf states to fund reconstruction.
Mr. Lapid tabled his plan as Mr. Trump’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, planned to travel to the region to salvage the Gaza ceasefire, provided the talks in Cairo showed progress.
Mr. Witkoff seems unwilling to repeat his strong-arming performance that forced Mr. Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire earlier this year despite the dim prospects for agreement on the terms of a second phase that would involve a complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza.
Mr. Witkoff’s reluctance contrasts with pressure the Trump administration exerted this week to persuade Israel to vote against a United Nations General Assembly resolution that affirmed Ukraine’s territorial integrity and condemned Russia’s invasion of the country. It was the first time Israel voted against Ukraine.
“There was a lot of pressure from the US, they really insisted. It came at all levels, at the UN, in Washington, and in Israel. (It) wasn’t easy for us … We preferred to avoid this situation. We had no choice but to take a side,” said an Israeli official.
Amid the shifting sands, Hamas tested the waters of what it may gain by moderating its positions.
 |
To counter the revulsion the group evoked with its October 7, 2023, attack on Israel in which it and other Palestinians killed some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and kidnapped 251 others, and assertions that it would launch more such operations, Hamas foreign relations chief, Mousa Abu Marzouk, became the group’s first official to question the attack.
In hindsight, Mr. Abou Marzouk told The New York Times it would have been “impossible” for him to endorse the operation had he realised the devastation of Gaza it provoked, even though he had endorsed the strategy that led to the operation.
Mr. Abou Marzouk said he was not aware of the specifics of the operation in advance.
“If it was expected that what happened would happen, there wouldn’t have been Oct. 7,” Mr. Abou Marzouk said.
Equally importantly, Mr. Abou Marzouk suggested Hamas could be open to discussing the group’s disarmament.
“Any issue that is put on the table, we need to speak about,” Mr. Abou Marzouk said when asked about disarmament.
If so, Hamas could open the door to a more sustainable halt of hostilities in Gaza. Israel, supported by Mr. Trump and private endorsements by Gulf states, has insisted on disarmament.
Mr. Abou Marzouk’s comments suggested Israel’s weakening of the Iran-backed Axis of Resistance that grouped Hamas, Lebanese Shiite militia Hezbollah, Iraqi armed groups, and Yemen’s Houthi rebels has strengthened Hamas’ Qatar and Turkey-based exile leadership.
Various exiled leaders have long been critical of the Gaza leadership’s notion of a perpetual all-out war against Israel.
 |
In a statement, Hamas quickly rejected Mr. Abou Marzouk’s remarks, asserting The New York Times had misreported them. Hamas claimed Mr. Abou Marzouk had said the opposite of what he was quoted as saying.
The statement quoted Mr. Abou Marzouk as telling the newspaper that the October 7 attack was “an expression of our people’s right to resistance and its rejection of the siege, occupation and settlement building.”
The statement said the Hamas official had reiterated the group’s long-standing position that it would not surrender “the weapons of the resistance” as long as “there is an occupation of our land.”
The statement echoed remarks made earlier this month by Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan.
Hamas’ denial was par for the course. The group, like others, allows its officials to launch trial balloons, only to shoot them down.
Even so, Mr. Abou Marzouk’s remarks and earlier, more conciliatory statements by other officials lift a veil on the group’s internal debates.
Discussing disarmament is one thing; agreeing to disarm is another.
Rather than embracing disarmament, Hamas could consider agreeing to store its weapons in internationally supervised facilities, not reconstruct its war-ravaged underground tunnel network, not replenish its diminished rocket arsenal, and not recruit new fighters in exchange for a process that leads to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.
For the past decade, Hamas has been engaged in a torturous one-step-forward, two-steps backward process of coming to grips with a compromise solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that would involve accepting Israel’s existence.
Gaza teetering on the edge of renewed war or relative calm could shape that process.
Dr. James M. Dorsey is an Adjunct Senior Fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, and the author of the syndicated column and podcast, The Turbulent World with James M. Dorsey.