Gaza between the hammer of Israel and the anvil of Hamas

After more than 600 days of Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, in an attempt by its army to defeat Hamas and free 58 Israeli prisoners from its grip, and after several rounds of American negotiations mediated by Doha and Cairo to reach a truce for a prisoner exchange, Hamas responded with a "no" to the proposal of the American envoy, Witkoff. The Israeli army opened the gates of hell in the Gaza Strip, and the sound of explosions was heard from locations more than 60 kilometers away from the Strip, amid scenes of a Somali-style famine.

Today, Hamas and Israel stand at a critical crossroads, facing a complex dilemma that goes beyond the confines of a military conflict to encompass political, humanitarian, and strategic dimensions, amid an increasingly complex regional and international reality. The conflict, which has been raging since October 7, 2023, and now entering its twentieth month, is no longer simply an armed confrontation between two parties. It has transformed into a geopolitical dilemma with dimensions that extend beyond the battlefield in Gaza.

European countries such as Germany, Britain, France, Spain, and others have begun pressuring Israel and publicly demanding that it halt the war. Some of these countries have already moved to impose sanctions on Israel, which continues to wear the American shield to protect it and continue its military operations. However, this shield may not last long, as Washington appears to be providing it to Tel Aviv for now to avoid obstructing the US-Iranian negotiations. Netanyahu may one day soon wake up to a change in Trump's position, and then the landscape could change completely.

It is true that large segments of Gazan civilians hold Hamas responsible for the killing, destruction, and hunger they have suffered, and they demand that it agree to any truce proposal, regardless of its content and dimensions, in order to stop the Israeli killing and destruction machine, even for a few days. However, Hamas may not respond (and most likely will not) because it believes that the worse the situation in Gaza becomes, the more pressure will be placed on Israel, which will lead to its rescue at the last moment before its complete collapse.

Hamas has no headquarters in the Gaza Strip to which Gazans, who have broken their fear barrier (because they have nothing to fear), could turn to express their discontent with Hamas's refusal to accept Witkoff's proposal or any other truce proposal. This fear barrier has also been broken regarding the Israeli army, which may find itself confronting hungry masses living in the middle of nowhere, knowing that the Israeli death machine will harvest them sooner or later.

In addition, the chaos and scenes of starvation, represented by children with sunken faces and protruding rib cages, could lead to increased international condemnation of Israel, which could find itself in a situation similar to that of apartheid South Africa, when the UN General Assembly imposed an economic and military boycott on it in 1962.

Despite Israel's violent military escalation in the Gaza Strip, Netanyahu's declared political goals, primarily "destroying Hamas" and "returning all hostages," remain out of reach. The military, economic, and humanitarian costs are rising daily, amid mounting pressure from the hostages' families, who have staged protests demanding a halt to the fighting and a prisoner exchange deal. The Israeli government, facing deepening internal divisions, is aware that a continuation of the war could lead to increased international isolation.

For its part, Hamas finds itself today in a very delicate position. On the one hand, it continues to insist on its conditions for accepting any ceasefire agreement, foremost among which are a comprehensive and permanent cessation of hostilities, a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip, guaranteed freedom of entry for humanitarian aid, and the implementation of a prisoner exchange agreement that includes the release of large numbers of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons.

However, these Hamas proposals were not accepted by the mediators. US envoy Steve Witkoff described the response as "completely unacceptable," noting that the latest Palestinian demands weaken the chances of reaching a final agreement. With this US rejection, the pressures of negotiation have turned into an internal impasse for Hamas, as the movement faces accusations within the Palestinian territories of stalling or setting unachievable conditions. Meanwhile, the humanitarian situation in Gaza is deteriorating at an unprecedented rate, and the suffering of the population trapped between the blockade and destruction is increasing.

Hamas faces pressure from the United States, Israel's strongest ally, demanding unbalanced solutions, such as the release of Israeli prisoners without similar guarantees for Palestinian prisoners, or a ceasefire without guarantees that the aggression on Gaza will end. The American role goes beyond diplomatic pressure to direct threats, as occurred when Washington threatened to veto any international resolution condemning Israel, or when it supplied it with weapons used in the massacres in Gaza. Thus, Hamas faces two choices: either surrender to the American-Israeli conditions, or bear the consequences of rejection, which often involves a fierce media, political, and military campaign.

In addition to pressure and threats from Washington, Hamas faces pressure from Arab "mediators," directly or indirectly, to accept Witkoff's truce proposal and other previous proposals, placing it in a difficult strategic dilemma. In every round of negotiations, Arab voices emerge that adopt the Israeli narrative, whether by demanding a cessation of hostilities without guarantees of ending the occupation, or by promoting unequal prisoner exchange deals. Arab parties even go so far as to justify Israeli aggression or remain silent about it, while placing Hamas in a position of blame if it rejects unfair conditions.

What is happening in Gaza today is not just another war, but a humanitarian and political tragedy that exposes the limitations of force in imposing stability and confirms that the path to security passes through justice and realistic compromises, not through insistence on humiliation or hegemony. Hamas's dilemma is that of those who have no choice but resistance in the face of a stifling blockade, and Israel's dilemma is that of those who believe that military superiority is sufficient to subdue a complex and intertwined reality. Between these two dilemmas, peace is lost, and with it, countless lives.