Dr. Raed Al-Dabai: It is important for Hamas to be more transparent with the public and the media about what is happening in the negotiating rooms, without compromising the security of the negotiations.
Suleiman Basharat: The Israeli delegation's two-week stay in Doha is an important indicator that the negotiations have not completely collapsed and paves the way for a transition to new phases that offer a glimmer of hope.
Dr. Aqel Salah: Washington is exerting indirect pressure on Hamas through mediators to push it to accept new maps that do not entail a complete withdrawal and do not portray Israel as defeated.
Hani Abu al-Sabaa: Hamas will deal flexibly in this round to convince mediators of its seriousness and deprive Israel of its pretext for continuing the massacres.
Dr. Saad Nimr: The resistance has succeeded in preserving its minimum basic demands without compromising the rights of the Palestinian people, and the ball is now in the court of Israel and America.
Sari Samour: The future of the agreement is tied to American will, and the de-escalation or continued escalation is in the hands of the United States more than any other party.
With Hamas's revised response to proposals for a ceasefire in Gaza and a prisoner exchange, there is renewed hope for a revival in negotiations with Israel, after a long period of stagnation and mutual rejection.
In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, experts, and university professors say that Hamas's latest response, which was conveyed through intermediaries and officially received by Tel Aviv, demonstrates a new flexibility on the part of the movement in its attempt to break the cycle of siege and famine imposed on Gaza and end the suffering of its crippled residents.
Although the Israeli tone has been less strident this time, writers, analysts, and professors warn that the shift remains limited. The ball remains in the Israeli government's court, which is balancing domestic pressures with the reservations of right-wing parties. Meanwhile, Hamas faces a delicate test of making calculated concessions without compromising its core demands.
They point out that the most likely scenario is a preliminary agreement that could pave the way for a more comprehensive deal, if the mediators succeed in bridging the gap on the most contentious issues, particularly the prisoner issue. Netanyahu is particularly interested in an agreement that would reshuffle his portfolio.
A relative change in the Israeli tone
Dr. Raed Al-Dabai, head of the Political Science Department at An-Najah National University, says that Israel's initial response to Hamas's amended statement Wednesday evening indicates a relative shift in its tone regarding prisoner exchange and truce efforts in Gaza. However, it does not necessarily signify a fundamental shift in Israel's strategy toward a complete end to the war.
Al-Dabai explains that Israel's Channel 12's confirmation that Tel Aviv has received Hamas's response to the proposed prisoner swap and ceasefire and has begun studying it reveals a new, albeit cautious, Israeli approach to the proposed proposals, in contrast to the categorical rejection it has traditionally expressed.
Al-Dabai explains that this partial shift is due to several factors: first, pressures on the ground that have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip, which has been experiencing unprecedented famine conditions for months. Second, pressure from mediators who had previously described Hamas's remarks as unacceptable has clearly shifted their position this time.
Al-Dabai points out that the declared American and Israeli threats to use excessive force if Hamas did not make concessions played a role in creating this limited flexibility.
Al-Dabai points out that the Israeli mood is undergoing a shift driven by explicit American pressure, internal pressure from Israeli public opinion, and the role of Egypt and Qatar in influencing Hamas. This has given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the leeway to approach this round of negotiations differently.
Despite this, Al-Dabai emphasizes that the current agreement is nothing more than a preliminary agreement that opens the door to a difficult and costly round of negotiations that will be determined by four main factors: the American position and its intensity, Netanyahu's electoral calculations, especially with the approaching internal Likud elections, the position of the Israeli public, and the positions of Hamas itself.
Hamas's transparency about what is happening in the negotiating rooms
Al-Dabai points out the importance of Hamas being more transparent with the public and the media about what's happening in the negotiating rooms, without compromising the security of the negotiations. He points out that the information leaked often comes from the Israeli side or mediators, not directly from the movement.
Al-Dabai asserts that the most likely scenario is a continuation of the prolonged stalemate, with maps and prisoner names being exchanged without any substantive concessions. He also warns that Netanyahu may exploit any ceasefire in Gaza to advance other issues, particularly in the West Bank.
Al-Dabai points out that the recent Knesset vote to annex the West Bank by an overwhelming majority, while symbolic, carries dangerous implications and reflects the extreme right-wing Talmudic religious discourse that has come to describe Palestinian cities like Nablus, Bethlehem, and Hebron as "Talmudic lands."
Al-Dabai asserts that the challenges ahead will be complex, and that major questions will be raised by Hamas and the Palestinian people regarding the day after Gaza, the future of governance, reconstruction, and the humanitarian situation amid the ongoing occupation and the absence of a comprehensive political solution.
Hamas's response is an updated version of a previous response.
For his part, writer and political analyst Suleiman Basharat says that the response Hamas recently submitted to the mediators and the Israeli occupation is an updated version of a previous response. The movement presented its observations via the mediators, who relayed them to Israel, which initially rejected them. Hamas then resubmitted an amended version that seemed acceptable to the mediators. The ball is now firmly in Israel's court, awaiting an official response.
Basharat points out that these indicators may provide a positive impression regarding the course of the negotiations, but they remain contingent on how Israel interprets this response and its willingness to deal with it with flexibility that opens the door to serious discussion on some points of contention and the achievement of genuine points of convergence.
Basharat stresses that the direction of this phase will become clearer following the upcoming meeting between US envoy Witkoff and Israeli official Dermer in Italy, a meeting that could give the negotiating process additional momentum or reveal the need for more time.
Basharat explains that current conditions within Israel have become more conducive to moving toward an agreement, especially after Netanyahu successfully appeased far-right parties like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir by announcing the commencement of the West Bank annexation project, while also promising the possibility of returning to war later.
At the same time, Basharat points out that the demands of the Israeli army and the soldiers' families have become more urgent to reach a deal that ends this ongoing attrition.
Images of famine in Gaza embarrass Washington and the world
Basharat asserts that the American position has become more pressure-intensive, driven by humanitarian and moral motives, with the escalating images of famine in the Gaza Strip, which are embarrassing to Washington and the entire world. This may prompt a search for a formula to relieve this humanitarian tension.
Basharat points out that Hamas also finds itself facing a pressing humanitarian imperative: breaking the cycle of starvation. This was evident in its demand for the Rafah crossing to be opened in both directions to provide a humanitarian outlet for Gazans, both those leaving and those returning.
Basharat explains that all these indicators make the current situation more ripe than ever, but ultimately, the political decision remains subject to the last-minute calculations of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who holds the key to guiding the final outcome.
Basharat asserts that Netanyahu is now in a better position to advance a potential agreement, especially given the pressure from Likud members who are pushing for an agreement for fear of losing the confidence of the Israeli public before the upcoming elections.
Basharat points out that the Israeli negotiating delegation's continued presence in Doha for two weeks is a significant indicator that the negotiations have not completely collapsed, but rather will continue to explore the details in preparation for moving to new stages. This offers a glimmer of hope that differs from what occurred in previous rounds.
Hamas and Israel desperately need a truce
In turn, writer and political researcher Dr. Aqel Salah asserts that reading the current situation requires starting from two basic principles: First, both Hamas and Israel are in dire need of a truce, but Hamas's need is even greater due to the starvation war that has raged in the Gaza Strip for 144 days, and the continuing scenes of death by starvation, which are putting intense pressure on the movement to end the massacre and seek an agreement that saves face in the eyes of the Palestinian people and commensurate with the enormous sacrifices.
Salah points out that Israel—and Netanyahu at its head—also needs a truce, albeit a partial one that would give it political room to maneuver with the far-right parties. The Israeli army has suffered significant human and moral losses, while Israeli writers and experts speak of discontent, possibly bordering on rebellion, within the ranks of soldiers who realize they are fighting for political, not military, objectives. This is pushing Netanyahu to seek a truce that would give the army a chance to catch its breath and reduce the criticism directed at his government.
The second rule, according to Salah, is that both Hamas and Israel refuse to emerge from the negotiations as defeated. Hamas does not want to give Israel what it failed to achieve militarily during more than 650 days of genocidal warfare. Israel, with American support and some regional actors, is eager to appear victorious, having achieved its war goals and subdued the resistance.
The stalling in the negotiations aims to buy time for Netanyahu.
Salah explains that the current stalling in the negotiations is intended to buy time for Netanyahu, who is seeking to prolong the discussions until the end of this month's deadline, leading up to the Knesset's summer recess. This gives him time to resolve complex equations related to the satisfaction of the United States on the one hand and the satisfaction of his extremist partners, such as Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, on the other. These parties reject any comprehensive deal that might completely end the war.
Salah explains that Washington is exerting indirect pressure on Hamas, via Egyptian, Qatari, and even Turkish mediators, to push it to accept new Israeli maps that do not entail a complete withdrawal and do not portray Israel as defeated.
Despite this enormous pressure, Salah believes that the two sides' need for an agreement will soon lead to a comprehensive settlement, the price of which could be paid by the Palestinian people alone, amidst conspicuous international and Arab silence.
Salah stresses that the Palestinian resistance and the people, who have sacrificed 60,000 martyrs, will not surrender to Israeli intransigence, despite the horrific suffering.
In Salah's opinion, Gaza's steadfastness and patience will remain a pressure factor until an agreement is reached that preserves its fundamental rights without compromising the resistance's strategies. He noted that the Israeli army's own turmoil may hasten the imposition of a compromise that opens the door to a near-term truce, despite Netanyahu's evasive attempts to buy time.
Skeletons and body parts cast a shadow over the negotiations.
For his part, writer, political analyst and expert on Israeli affairs, Hani Abu Al-Sabaa, asserts that the images of skeletons and body parts scattered across the Gaza Strip cast a heavy shadow over the ongoing negotiations to halt the aggression. He explains that Hamas is striving, through mediators, to reach an agreement that will end the killing and siege imposed on the Palestinian people in the Strip, while the far-right Israeli government, headed by Benjamin Netanyahu, continues its policy of killing, destruction and siege with the aim of achieving political gains at the expense of Palestinian blood.
Abu Al-Sabaa explains that Hamas responded to the Israeli position with a clear demand for the occupation army to withdraw to a distance of 800 meters from the Gaza Strip border, while Israel agreed to withdraw to a further distance of 1,200 meters. However, the core of the dispute revolves around the issue of prisoners, as Israel is insisting on releasing some leaders it describes as "senior terrorists," such as prisoner Abdullah Barghouti, while the resistance considers these figures to be national symbols who cannot be excluded from any exchange deal and must be freed unconditionally.
Abu Al-Saba' refers to statements made by the military spokesman for the Qassam Brigades, Abu Obeida, who clearly declared the resistance's readiness to conclude a comprehensive exchange deal based on the principle of "all for all," in addition to a complete cessation of the aggression against Gaza.
Netanyahu will not accept Hamas rule over the Gaza Strip.
Abu Al-Sabaa explains that in this context, the American mediator, Witkoff, is monitoring the mediators' movements after receiving detailed reports on the stages of the indirect negotiations.
Despite the atmosphere of cautious optimism, Abu al-Saba' notes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly declared that he will not accept Hamas rule over the Gaza Strip and will not stop the war as long as the movement controls it. He claims that Hamas is "stealing aid" in the north, despite his own previous declaration that he "crushed the resistance there."
Abu Al-Sabaa believes that this contradiction reveals the true intentions of the Netanyahu government, which is maneuvering to prolong the war to achieve two goals: killing as many Palestinians as possible and forcing those who remain to emigrate under the pressure of hunger and siege.
Abu al-Saba'a asserts that Hamas will be flexible in this round to convince mediators of its seriousness and to strip Israel of any pretext for continuing its massacres of Palestinians in Gaza. He considers what is happening to be the "massacre of the century," to which the world is witnessing with its silence and blatant complicity, even from countries that boast day and night about human rights and democracy.
The ball is now in the court of Israel and the US administration.
Dr. Saad Nimr, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, believes that the Palestinian resistance in this round of negotiations has succeeded in preserving its minimum basic demands without compromising the rights of the Palestinian people. This leaves the ball now in the court of Israel and the US administration, which are considering a response to Hamas before issuing their final positions.
Nimr points out that the United States appears to be the most determined to push both sides toward ending this phase of the war, even if it goes against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's wishes. However, Netanyahu is now compelled to proceed in this direction for reasons that go beyond his personal calculations.
Nimer points out that Netanyahu's recent meeting with Eyal Zamir, the Israeli Chief of Staff, was crucial in this context. Zamir conveyed a clear message to Netanyahu that the army was experiencing extreme exhaustion and was in dire need of a ceasefire more than ever.
Nimr explains that the Palestinian resistance has succeeded in escalating its operations in the last two months—specifically June and July—in both quantitative and qualitative terms. In June, approximately 20 Israeli soldiers were killed, dozens more were wounded, and numerous vehicles were destroyed. In July, approximately 15 additional soldiers were killed, while military equipment continued to be destroyed.
New resistance tactics, especially attempts to kidnap soldiers.
Nimr explains that the resistance has adopted new tactics, most notably focusing on attempts to kidnap soldiers, which has further confused the Israeli army, which is now unable to stop these operations.
Nimr asserts that these facts prompted Netanyahu to realize that failure of the negotiations would mean the continuation of the war, with the devastating losses it would entail for his already exhausted army.
Nimr points out that observers' expectations lean toward a positive Israeli response, or at least reopening the door to negotiations to make some minor adjustments, leading to an agreement leading to a ceasefire.
Nimr explains that Netanyahu's calculations are not only military, but also relate to his political survival within his far-right government. He points out that the Knesset's recent decision to annex the West Bank and settlements has given right-wing parties like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir what they consider their "prize," which could make them more flexible in accepting understandings regarding the Gaza Strip and a ceasefire.
Nimr asserts that the continued withdrawal of the occupation army from areas within Gaza is a clear indication of its desire to end the war, but without appearing to be offering gratuitous concessions.
According to Nimr, despite Netanyahu's attempts to suggest he is achieving successive victories, this rhetoric has begun to erode even within the Likud party itself, increasing pressure on him to seek a settlement that preserves minimal gains in the face of the difficult reality on the ground imposed by the Palestinian resistance.
The future of the agreement is in the hands of the US administration.
For his part, writer and political analyst Sari Samour says that the news circulating about the expected agreement on Gaza appears positive so far, but it is not without its caveats and pitfalls, particularly since Israel is interested in prolonging the war and turning it into an all-out massacre.
Samour asserts that Israel is using starvation as a means of further pressure on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, with clear intentions to impose further destruction and siege.
Samour links the future of the agreement to American will, noting that the key to de-escalation or continued escalation lies with Washington more than any other party. He explains that the most important question is: Does the United States truly desire to halt this bloody war for a relatively long period, or will it be content with temporary solutions that do not exceed a few weeks?
Samour points out that one indicator that could strengthen the chances of reaching an agreement is the arrival of Witkoff, the US envoy known for his pro-Israel stance. Witkoff's meeting with Israeli Ambassador Dermer, also appears likely to be a meeting in Sardinia, which could accelerate the process of concluding an agreement.
Sammour explains that the expected scenarios range across three paths. The first is the pessimistic scenario, which could see Israel reject the proposed recommendations, potentially expanding the scope of the massacres from 100 martyrs per day to multiples of that, amidst complete Arab silence and emergency summit meetings that carry no real threat, such as severing ties with the occupation. He also emphasizes that the threat to navigation in Bab al-Mandab is a real pressure factor on Israel to push it toward a de-escalation.
A scenario for a temporary truce in the devastated Gaza Strip
According to Samour, the second, more optimistic scenario suggests that Israel could reach an agreement that includes a temporary ceasefire in the already devastated Gaza Strip, with the crossings opened, aid flowing in, and the wounded allowed to leave for treatment. International and Arab delegations would also be allowed to enter the Strip. This could be accompanied by a prisoner exchange deal, which would mean a period of relative calm.
The third scenario – the "Lebanese model," according to Sammour – involves freezing the war while continuing bombing and assassinations of specific targets.
Samour points out that this scenario would free up Israel's time for another front, perhaps escalating against Iran or launching operations against the Houthis in Yemen, exploiting the gap in military capabilities between Yemen and Iran.
Samour believes that the coming days will be decisive in testing the sincerity of American policies and their ability to rein in the Israeli right-wing government, while the Palestinian people remain alone in confronting the war machine.
شارك برأيك
Hamas's response: Netanyahu maneuvers to prolong the massacre