Israel, Hamas both have incentives to derail latest talks, says analyst

Key Concepts

• 20-point truce and peace deal: A comprehensive plan proposed by President Trump for a ceasefire and peace in Gaza.
• Hostage release: A critical, unresolved condition involving the release of remaining hostages held by Hamas.
• Organizational suicide: The concept of Hamas laying down its arms and effectively ceasing to exist as a military and governing entity.
• All for all hostage release: Hamas's proposed exchange of all hostages (living and dead) for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and the release of designated security prisoners.
• International stabilization force: A proposed international policing force to take security control of Gaza.
• Gaza City offensive: Israel's military operation in Gaza, currently on pause, which could resume with greater force if talks fail.

Current Peace Talks and Their Significance

Delegates from Israel and Hamas, along with mediators Egypt, Qatar, and the US, are holding crucial talks in Sharmashik, Egypt. These discussions occur on the eve of the second anniversary of Hamas's attack on Israel, which initiated the war in Gaza. Both warring parties have largely agreed to a 20-point truce and peace deal proposed by President Trump. However, they are meeting to address unresolved areas, particularly the key condition of releasing all remaining hostages. The US and Israel express hope for a deal within days, but the IDF warns of resuming fighting if hostage release talks fail.

Dr. Simon Frankle Pratt, Senior Lecturer of Political Science at the University of Melbourne, characterizes these negotiations as the "most consequential since the start of the war." He attributes this significance to President Trump's full commitment to the plan and the substantial pressure he is exerting on Prime Minister Netanyahu and the Israeli government to agree. This contrasts with previous plans, such as the one proposed by Egypt in March, where the Israeli government, and specifically Netanyahu, had been more non-committal, even pulling out of a staged ceasefire plan approximately six months prior.

Skepticism and Challenges to Progress

Despite the high stakes, Dr. Pratt expresses low optimism for real progress, citing ongoing strikes and fuzzy timelines. His skepticism primarily stems from Hamas's position rather than Israel's.

Hamas's Non-Committal Stance:

• Hamas has made initial positive indications but remains largely non-committal.
• It has declined the proposed 72-hour window for hostage release.
• There is no clear indication that Hamas is willing to lay down arms, which would effectively be "organizational suicide" as a military entity.
• Hamas has not committed to being part of an internationally led governing coalition, instead stating it would defer to a coalition composed of Palestinian officials in Gaza.
• Its only firm commitment is to an "all for all hostage release in exchange for designated security prisoners," which is a limited scope compared to the broader peace plan.

Israel's Incentives to Spoil the Deal:

• Prime Minister Netanyahu faces limited buy-in from his far-right coalition partners, Ben-Gvir and Smotrich.
• If Netanyahu agrees to a ceasefire that doesn't involve Hamas ending its existence, his coalition partners might abandon the government, leading to its collapse.
• Such an outcome could end Netanyahu's political career and potentially his freedom, given his ongoing corruption charges.
• Both Israel and Hamas appear anxious not to be perceived as the party responsible for the plan's collapse in President Trump's eyes.

Hamas's Negotiation Strategy and Hostage Release

Dr. Pratt analyzed Hamas's statement regarding the 20-point plan, describing it as a "congenial statement that actually does not accept very much at all." He believes Hamas does not intend to agree to all points and is using initial diplomatic engagement to negotiate its way out of laying down arms and ending its existence as a governing and military organization. This explains why Hamas has not clearly defined its red lines from the outset, hoping for significant room for maneuver and negotiation.

Regarding the hostage release and prisoner exchange, Hamas has consistently maintained its position: it is willing to release all its hostages, both living and dead, in exchange for an Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. This offer has been consistent in previous negotiation rounds. However, Hamas is not willing to entirely step out of the question of what authority will replace Israel unless it receives specific reassurances, which are currently lacking.

Challenges of an International Stabilization Force

The Trump plan also proposes an international stabilization force to police Gaza. Dr. Pratt highlights the immense challenges of such a mission. He notes that there have been no truly analogous missions in conflict zones where former parties to conflict are as well-armed and established militarily, organizationally, and infrastructurally as in Gaza.

A significant question mark exists regarding whether such a force could effectively engage in the necessary "domestic security and counterterrorism duties" to reassure both the Gazan people and Israel that militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad could not steadily regain their former status. Dr. Pratt considers this an "enormous undertaking."

Potential Outcomes if Talks Fail (Trump's Plan B)

Predicting President Trump's actions is difficult. However, both Israel and Hamas are actively trying to avoid being blamed if the talks falter.

• If Hamas is deemed responsible: Trump has indicated that the US would permit or allow Israel to unleash "significantly greater force." This would likely lead to a very powerful resumption of Israel's Gaza City offensive, which is currently paused. Such an escalation would cause extensive damage to Gaza and significantly greater misery to the displaced Palestinian population.
• If Israel is deemed responsible: It is unclear what Trump's response would be. Dr. Pratt speculates he might push for some form of unilateral solution.

A lot of "ego and credibility" are invested in this "one last push" for a deal. The timing is also considered auspicious, as Trump appears to be aiming for a resolution before the Nobel Peace Prize winners are announced.