A New Crossroads in the Palestinian–Israeli Negotiations

The Palestinian–Israeli negotiations have entered a highly sensitive phase following the recent Cairo meeting, which brought together Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Dahlan faction. These groups agreed to the U.S. proposal conveyed by the Egyptian and Qatari l mediators. The initiative calls for a 60-day truce, the release of 10 Israeli captives alive and 19 bodies, in exchange for extensive humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip and a redeployment of Israeli forces — paving the way toward a comprehensive agreement for a

permanent ceasefire.

This relatively late approval should have been adopted in earlier rounds, as the essence of the

proposal does not differ much from previous offers. Notably, the Democratic Front for the

Liberation of Palestine had already announced its position publicly last May, urging Hamas to

engage positively with Arab mediators and to accept a temporary truce that would provide space for regional and international initiatives. Meanwhile, Fatah was absent from the meeting, clinging to its opposition to the resistance in Gaza, particularly on the hostages and disarmament files, while the participation of Dahlan’s faction was seen as an added provocation.

Internal Shifts and Israeli Pressures

The Palestinian shift cannot be separated from mounting Israeli pressure. Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir declared that the army is preparing for a new phase of “Operation Gideon’s Chariots,” which has already displaced more than 300,000 Palestinians from the northern Strip toward the overcrowded western areas, where nearly one million people live under famine-like conditions and deadly displacement. This military threat, coupled with the latest Cabinet decisions, forced Hamas and other factions into a difficult choice: either accept a temporary truce, or face a large-scale invasion.

Indeed, the factions dropped some of their earlier demands, accepting the proposal by 98% and abandoning their insistence on strong international guarantees for Israel’s redeployment. They also agreed — after long rejection — to U.S. aid distribution through the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, provided that the UN and the Palestinian Red Crescent are involved.

The Israeli Position: Maneuver or Escalation?

Despite the Palestinian positive response, Netanyahu’s office issued a vague statement, affirming that “Israel’s policy has not changed” and that the goal remains the release of all fifty captives. While not an outright rejection of the proposal, it signaled Israel’s reluctance to endorse any partial deal. The Hebrew news site Ynet described the statement as a show of force, designed to extract further concessions and buy time for a major military step.

In this context, a high-level security meeting was held, chaired by Defense Minister Yisrael Katz and attended by the Chief of Staff, during which a plan to occupy Gaza City was discussed — underscoring that the military option remains firmly on the table. At the same time, the government faces mounting internal pressure from the captives’ families, who accuse Netanyahu of politicizing the issue and sabotaging previous opportunities.

Between Political Calculations and Humanitarian Risks

With the Knesset in recess, Netanyahu does not currently face the risk of his government

collapsing, leaving him freer in his decision-making. The true test of intentions will come with Israel’s expected response by the end of the week. If Netanyahu rejects the proposal despite Hamas’s acceptance, this would signal a determination to pursue mass displacement and redraw Gaza’s demographic map in line with a right-wing religious–ideological vision that threatens the entire region, from Lebanon and Syria to Egypt, Jordan, Yemen, and Iraq.

Analytical Reading: A Narrow Moment and an Open Window

Israel is moving on two parallel tracks:

 Militarily: by threatening invasion and dismantling the resistance’s infrastructure.

 Politically: by managing the conflict rather than resolving it, backed by the U.S. position.

The Palestinian factions, on the other hand, are betting on a shift in the U.S. stance that could

pressure Israel into accepting a temporary ceasefire, potentially opening the door to a broadersettlement.

Meanwhile, the Qatari–Egyptian mediation stands at a decisive juncture: either achieve a

breakthrough that saves Gaza from a bloody invasion, or leave the scene to a military explosion that would engulf politics entirely.

Conclusion

The current scene reflects an internal struggle in Israel: between the logic of statehood and

Netanyahu’s political survival, between temporary compromise and military decisiveness. For their part, the Palestinian factions — despite backtracking on some conditions — have adopted a pragmatic position that opens a window of hope.

The choice now is not between a partial or a comprehensive deal, but between two fateful paths: a political breakthrough that halts the bloodshed, or a new humanitarian–military catastrophe that could wipe out any chance for a near-term settlement.

Fouad Baker

Palestinian Politician, Jurist and Honourable Member of Cyprus Democratic Lawyers Association