| Two weeks ago, Israel announced a US-backed ceasefire plan that would entail a 45-day truce and the phased release of Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. In its proposal, Israel ruled out a permanent ceasefire in order to retain the right to continue the war to wipe out Hamas. The US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, said it was a “good strong proposal” and that “there is some real hope going forward”. Here’s what happened next. The counterproposal After deliberating, Hamas has come back with its own proposal that includes a three-phase ceasefire, with each stage lasting 45 days. In the first phase, all Israeli women, males under the age of 19, elderly people and the sick would be released in exchange for Palestinian women and children in Israeli prisons. During the second stage, the rest of the male hostages would be released in exchange for more Palestinian prisoners and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. This would be followed by the exchange of bodies and remains in the final phase. The plans also include an increased flow of food and other aid, the reconstruction of Gaza, and retention of Hamas control in the strip. Hamas has said a permanent ceasefire is not required from the outset; however by the end of the ceasefire there would have to be some kind of agreement for a permanent truce before the release of the last hostages. Sticking points and compromise Even though some mediators viewed the counterproposal as a positive step, Israel’s government unequivocally rejected its terms. Netanyahu reiterated his stance that “absolute victory” against Hamas was the only solution that would secure Israel. He added that it would take months more fighting before Hamas was defeated. Despite Netanyahu’s push back, Blinken has said there is “space for agreement to be reached”. Any proposal that leaves Hamas in charge of Gaza will be deemed unacceptable by the Israeli government. “Israel has offered the leaders of Hamas to go into exile in the past, and that idea has recently been floated again, but Hamas will probably not agree to that,” says Bethan. Then there is the issue of the prisoner exchange: in November, the Palestinian prisoners who were returned to Gaza were generally women and children who had been imprisoned for misdemeanour crimes or on trumped-up charges, but Bethan explains “this time Hamas has written a long list of prisoners they want released, including hardened militants who are serving life sentences”, which is proving to be a point of contention. Although both sides are digging their heels in, they have also indicated there is room for compromise. “The length of the ceasefire, the amount of aid and goods allowed into Gaza and the way the hostage and prisoner release mechanism would work in practice” are all areas either or both sides may be willing to move on, Bethan says. What’s next? The outcome of these negotiations could not be more critical to the security of the region and the worsening of the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza. Pressure on Israel from the Americans to agree to a deal has increased, especially as they hope that a hostage and ceasefire deal will lead to a wider resolution in the Middle East. During the November ceasefire, Hezbollah stood down and stopped firing at Israel – whether that would happen again is unclear but there is still a chance that it could de-escalate hostilities between the Lebanese militia group and Israel. Bethan notes that it is unlikely to make much of a difference with the Houthis in Yemen, who “had their own calculations and interests in mind when they got involved and are unlikely to stand down. They would need their own separate negotiations.” The consensus among mediators is that this is the closest Israel and Hamas have been to a ceasefire since November; Bethan, though, is not as optimistic: “We’re still really far off a meaningful deal where hostages and prisoners are released and there is a real ceasefire on the ground in Gaza.” Ramadan, a period where tensions tend to flare up in the West Bank and Jerusalem, is also fast approaching – if a truce has not been declared before mid-March, hostilities could get even worse. However, a ceasefire deal that the Israeli government is not on board with could fling Netanyahu, who is deeply unpopular, into another political crisis. Bethan says the core problem on the Israeli side is that “no one is willing to negotiate a two-state solution … The short-termist thinking is making these negotiations near impossible. How can you plan a ceasefire if you don’t know what you want to happen in Gaza after the war is over?” A truce based on the idea of all-out victory for Israel seems unrealistic even to its allies. While Israel can “degrade Hamas’s capabilities and make Gaza completely uninhabitable, they are not going to kill Hamas as an ideology or political force”, Bethan says. In the coming weeks, both sides are likely to continue to blame the other for the failure to reach a truce, as the death toll continues to rise. | 