Within hours, news from the Middle East came fast and furious into the White House Situation Room.
Israel orders 100,000 civilians to leave Rafah as prelude to invasion.
Hamas “accepts” ceasefire agreement, potentially preventing invasion.
Israel carries out strikes against Rafah, possibly opening an invasion.
Developments in the war continuing Monday had White House officials scrambling to keep track of what was happening and what it all meant. Ultimately, they came to believe that each of the measures meant less than initially thought, but reflected efforts to gain leverage at the negotiating table with a clear resolution not yet in sight.
In fact, Hamas did not so much “accept” a ceasefire agreement as rather made a counter-offer to the proposal on the table previously approved by the United States and Israel – a counter-offer. an offer which was not considered acceptable in itself but a sign of progress. At the same time, the Israeli strikes in Rafah were obviously not the start of a long-threatened major operation, but were intended as retaliation for Hamas rocket attacks that killed four Israeli soldiers over the weekend – and, with the warning addressed to civilians, a way to increase the pressure. on Hamas negotiators.
The flurry of actions underscored how fluid the situation in the region is as President Biden and his team try to negotiate a deal they hope will end the war that has devastated Gaza, killed dozens of thousands of fighters and civilians, inflamed the region and caused unrest on American university campuses. Over the past few days, negotiations have gone from high hopes for a deal to a new impasse that appeared to leave them on the brink of collapse, to a new Hamas initiative to get them back on track .
“Biden is continuing all his efforts to thread multiple needles at once,” said Mara Rudman, a former deputy special envoy for the Middle East under President Barack Obama who now works at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. The president continues to warn Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a “ground invasion of Rafah is a terrible idea,” she said, while “putting pressure on Hamas in every possible way to force out the hostages and provide more humanitarian aid.”
Mr. Biden called Mr. Netanyahu on Monday to provide the U.S. assessment of the current state of ceasefire negotiations and to repress the Israeli leader to delay any full-scale attack. scale against Rafah. The president also hosted a White House lunch with King Abdullah II of Jordan, who like other Arab leaders is eager to end the war.
The past two weeks have been as intense and full of diplomatic suspense as any since Hamas staged a major terrorist attack on Israel on October 7, killing around 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostages. After months of deadlocked negotiations, Israel returned on April 26 with a proposal that U.S. officials said changed the dynamic and offered a serious chance of reaching an agreement.
Under the first phase of the proposal, Israel would stop the war for 42 days and release hundreds of Palestinians held in its prisons while Hamas would free 33 hostages, particularly women, elderly men and the sick and wounded.
The number of 33 is an increase from the 18 proposed by Hamas, but lower than the 40 initially demanded by Israel, largely because Israeli officials understood that there were no more than 33 hostages responding to criteria, according to people briefed on the discussions. who insisted on anonymity to describe sensitive discussions. Indeed, Hamas revealed to the Israelis on Monday that the 33 would include the remains of the deceased hostages as well as those still alive.
Additionally, Israel would withdraw its forces from populated areas of Gaza and allow Gazans to return to the northern part of the enclave once conditions are met; To this end, the ceasefire would allow a sharp increase in the flow of humanitarian aid. In trying to bluff Hamas, people briefed on the talks said, the Israelis virtually cut and pasted some language from a Hamas proposal in March and incorporated it into their own.
During the six-week ceasefire, the two sides would then develop plans for a second phase, which would involve a further cessation of hostilities for 42 days and the release of more hostages. In this phase, the hostages to be released would include Israeli soldiers, a category of captives that Hamas has always been more reluctant to abandon. To overcome this obstacle, the Israelis agreed to release a greater number of Palestinian prisoners for each hostage repatriated.
Israeli concessions have left American, Egyptian and Qatari intermediaries optimistic that a deal can be reached. But a week has passed without a clear response from Hamas, perhaps in part because of communication difficulties with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader hiding in the Gaza tunnels.
When negotiators arrived in Cairo on Friday, the Israelis did not send a delegation, which was interpreted by some of Mr. Netanyahu’s critics as a snub. But Israeli and US officials denied this, saying no Israeli delegation was needed at this stage because Israel had made its proposal and was awaiting a response from Hamas.
Hamas’ response this weekend frustrated intermediaries because it rejected some of the language it had previously proposed and which had been adopted by the Israelis, according to the people briefed on the talks. The US side said Hamas’ new position was unacceptable and suggested that if Hamas did not really want a deal, negotiations might be over. But Hamas said it was not trying to torpedo the negotiations and would come back with a new version.
This is the counter-offer that Hamas presented on Monday. The Israelis and Americans did not consider it acceptable, but felt that it left room for further negotiations. Discussions are expected to resume in Cairo at the technical level, probably on Wednesday, to settle the details. This time, Israel agreed to send a delegation to examine Hamas’ counteroffer.
Israeli actions in Rafah on Monday could either increase pressure on Hamas to reach a deal or sabotage the negotiations, analysts say. The strikes focused on targets in the Rafah border areas, rather than the main population areas, but could foreshadow what is to come.
Veterans in the area weren’t sure if either side necessarily wanted a deal. Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, said it was possible that Hamas believed that “rushing a massive Israeli operation in Rafah would be worth the cost, because it would isolate Israel. on a global scale and widen the divide between the United States and Israel.
At the same time, he added, Mr. Netanyahu may be “looking for a threesome” with Monday’s strikes: pushing Hamas to give in, showing the Israeli public that he did hit Rafah as promised, and get Biden’s credit. the American administration for not having launched the large-scale assault which Washington fears could lead to a civil catastrophe.
“There are secrets here that I just don’t know,” Mr. Alterman said. “At the same time, no party knows the breaking point of others, and I am afraid that no party correctly understands the evaluations of others.”
Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a former adviser to Palestinian leaders during previous peace negotiations, said he remained skeptical that Mr. Netanyahu actually wanted a ceasefire deal because of his own domestic policy.
“I do not believe that actions towards or in Rafah, including evacuation orders, are simply a negotiating tactic,” he said. “Netanyahu needs Operation Rafah to stay in power and appease the fanatics in his coalition. » He added: “Ultimately, Netanyahu has little to gain from a ceasefire agreement and much to lose. »
Of course, this distrust on both sides makes any agreement even more elusive. Even though the two sides appear reconciled on the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage release, there are still a number of other differences between the two competing proposals, according to people briefed on the matter. But the most fundamental debate is whether a deal would end the war.
Negotiators attempted to refine this with an age-old diplomatic tactic of using language vague enough to be interpreted by each side as it saw fit. Under the terms of the agreement, both sides would use the temporary ceasefire to achieve the return of “sustainable calm.” Hamas wants “lasting calm” to mean a permanent cessation of hostilities, while Israel does not want this to be an explicit commitment.
U.S. officials are content to leave the definition of “lasting calm” a little vague, but are banking on the idea that once the guns stop firing for six, then potentially 12 weeks, there will be momentum toward a more lasting peace. will be inexorable. This is why they devote so much energy to the days ahead.
