Over the course of a few hours, news from the Middle East came fast and furious into the White House Situation Room.
Israel orders 100,000 civilians to leave Rafah in prelude to invasion.
Hamas “accepts” a ceasefire agreement, which could exclude invasion.
Israel carries out attacks on Rafah, possibly initiating an invasion.
Monday’s events left White House officials scrambling to track what was happening and what it all meant. At the end of the day, they came to believe that each of the measures indicated less than it originally seemed, but reflected efforts to gain leverage at the negotiating table with no clear resolution yet in sight.
In fact, Hamas did not “accept” a ceasefire agreement but rather made a counteroffer to the proposal that was on the table previously blessed by the United States and Israel, a counteroffer that in itself was not considered acceptable but a sign of progress. . At the same time, Israel’s attacks on Rafah were evidently not the beginning of the major operation they had long threatened, but rather a targeted retaliation for the Hamas rocket attacks that killed four Israeli soldiers over the weekend, and together with the warning to civilians, a way to increase pressure. about Hamas negotiators.
The flurry of actions underscored how fluid the situation is in the region as President Biden and his team try to negotiate a deal they hope will ultimately end the war that has devastated Gaza, killed tens of thousands of fighters and civilians, inflamed the region and caused riots on American university campuses. In recent days, the talks went from high hopes that an agreement was close, to a new impasse that seemed to leave them on the verge of collapse, and to a renewed initiative by Hamas to get them back on track.
“Biden is continuing all efforts to thread multiple needles at once,” said Mara Rudman, former deputy special envoy for the Middle East under President Barack Obama, who is now at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. The president continues to warn Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel that a “ground invasion of Rafah is a terrible idea,” he said, while “pressuring Hamas in every way possible to remove the hostages and receive more humanitarian aid.” .
Biden called Netanyahu on Monday to brief him on the US assessment of the status of ceasefire talks and to again pressure the Israeli leader to call off any full-fledged attack on 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 diplomatically suspenseful as any since Hamas launched a major terrorist attack against Israel on October 7, killing some 1,200 people and taking more than 200 hostages. After months of stalled talks, Israel returned on April 26 with a proposal that U.S. officials said changed the dynamic and offered a serious chance of reaching a deal.
Under the first phase of the proposal, Israel would halt the war for 42 days and release hundreds of Palestinians held in its prisons, while Hamas would release 33 hostages, specifically women, elderly men, and the sick and injured.
The 33 number was an increase from the 18 proposed by Hamas but lower than the 40 originally demanded by Israel, largely because Israeli officials came to understand that there were no more than 33 hostages who met the criteria, according to people briefed on the discussions. who insisted on anonymity to describe sensitive conversations. In fact, Hamas revealed to Israelis on Monday that the 33 would include the remains of hostages who have died as well as those still living.
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 were met; To that end, the ceasefire would allow for a large increase in the flow of humanitarian aid. In trying to call Hamas’s bluff, people briefed on the talks said, the Israelis practically cut and pasted some language from a Hamas proposal in March and put it into their own.
During the six-week ceasefire, the two sides would draw up plans for a second phase, which would involve another cessation of hostilities for 42 days and the release of more hostages. At this stage, the hostages to be released would include Israeli soldiers, a category of captives that Hamas has always been most reluctant to give up. To overcome that obstacle, the Israelis agreed to release a higher ratio of Palestinian prisoners for each hostage who returned home.
The Israeli concessions left American, Egyptian and Qatari brokers optimistic that a deal could be reached. But a week passed without a clear response from Hamas, perhaps in part because of the challenges of communicating with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader believed to be hiding in the Gaza tunnels.
When negotiators arrived in Cairo on Friday, the Israelis did not send a delegation, which was interpreted by some Netanyahu critics as a snub. But Israeli and American officials denied this, saying that no Israeli delegation was needed at the time because Israel had made its proposal and was waiting for a response from Hamas.
Hamas’s response over the weekend frustrated brokers because it rejected some of the same language it had previously proposed and that had been adopted by the Israelis, according to people briefed on the talks. The American side declared Hamas’s new position unacceptable and suggested that if Hamas really did not want an agreement, perhaps the negotiations would have ended. But Hamas indicated that he was not trying to torpedo the talks and that he would return with a new version.
That was the counteroffer Hamas sent on Monday. The Israelis and Americans did not find it acceptable, but believed it left room for future negotiations. Talks at the technical level are expected to resume in Cairo, probably on Wednesday, to discuss details. This time, Israel agreed to send a delegation to review Hamas’ counteroffer.
Israeli actions in Rafah on Monday could increase pressure on Hamas to reach a deal or sabotage talks, according to analysts. The attacks focused on targets in the border areas of Rafah, rather than main population areas, but could portend what is to come.
It was not entirely clear to veterans in the region whether either side necessarily wants 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 thought that “precipitating a massive Israeli operation in Rafah would be worth the cost, because it would isolate Israel.” globally and deepen the division between the United States and Israel.”
At the same time, he said, it could be that Netanyahu is “looking for a trifecta” with Monday’s attacks: pressure Hamas to concede, show the Israeli public that he hit Rafah as promised and get credit from Biden. government for not mounting the large-scale attack that Washington fears will result in a civil catastrophe.
“There are secrets here that I just don’t know,” Alterman said. “At the same time, neither side knows the other’s breaking point, and I am concerned that neither side accurately understands the other’s assessments.”
Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and a former adviser to Palestinian leaders during past peace negotiations, said he remained skeptical that Netanyahu really wanted a ceasefire deal because of his own domestic politics.
“I do not believe that the movements towards or within Rafah, including the evacuation orders, are just a negotiation tactic,” he said. “Netanyahu needs Operation Rafah to stay in power and appease his coalition fanatics.” He added: “Simply put, Netanyahu has little to gain from a ceasefire agreement and much to lose.”
That distrust on both sides, of course, makes any agreement even more difficult to reach. While the two sides appear reconciled in the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage release, there are still other differences between the two competing proposals, according to people briefed on them. But the most fundamental dispute is whether an agreement would ultimately end the war.
Negotiators have tried to achieve this with a traditional diplomatic tactic of using language vague enough for each side to interpret it as they wish. Under the agreement, the two sides would use the temporary ceasefire to achieve the return of “sustainable calm.” Hamas wants “sustainable calm” to mean a permanent cessation of hostilities, while Israel does not want to make that commitment explicit.
U.S. officials are content to leave the definition of “sustainable calm” a little fuzzy, but they are banking on the idea that once the guns stop firing for six and potentially 12 weeks, the push for longer-lasting peace will be inexorable. That’s why they’re devoting so much energy to the next few days.