Yes, things have changed, but…
I’ve been skeptical about the prospects for a ceasefire in Gaza. I wrote just three weeks ago that the conditions for a negotiated outcome did not exist. Those three conditions are a mutually hurting stalemate, a mutually enticing outcome, and security for the belligerents. Has something changed?
What has changed
Yes, as usual. War is dynamic affair.
For Israel, the big change is on its northern border with Lebanon. The tit-for-tat strikes across that border with Hizbollah are escalating. Yesterday Hizbollah fired 200 rockets into Israel, in retaliation for an Israeli assassination of one of its field commanders. The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) leaders are rightly concerned about fighting on two fronts at the same time. Having achieved what they could in Rafah, at the southern end of Gaza, the IDF is open to quieting Gaza so it can focus on Hizbollah. A temporary ceasefire has become more attractive than it was three weeks ago.
It is more difficult to fathom Hamas’ current attitude. It has certainly suffered more losses in the last three weeks, but there is no evidence it has suffered a clear defeat. More important than its military losses may be the growing complaints about Hamas among Palestinians. A ceasefire would provide a much-needed opportunity to improve living conditions conditions in Gaza.*
What has not changed
Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu remains opposed to a ceasefire, despite the IDF attitude. He still wants to fulfill Israel’s war objectives: an end to Hamas’ military and governing capabilities. That presumably includes the death (or maybe exile) of Hamas’ military and political leaders, which would give Netanyahu the victory he needs to try to ensure his own hold on power.
Hamas leaders want any ceasefire to be permanent and complete, thus enabling their own survival. No outcome that leaves Israel free to continue striking in Gaza will be attractive to them.
The known unknown
What we know we don’t know are the details of the negotiations. Negotiators were supposedly assembling again in Doha today. But the Mossad chief has already returned to Jerusalem. The latest draft agreement I’ve seen is from June 6, when Israel was still proposing “a sustainable calm which would achieve a permanent ceasefire.” That was not acceptable to Hamas, which wanted a guaranteed permanent ceasefire.
Now @DavidMakovsky, for whom I have a lot of respect, is suggesting the question of a limited hostage/prisoner exchange may advance without a ceasefire, or perhaps a limited one. Certainly that is what Netanyahu would want. He stands to gain a great deal politically with release of more hostages, as Hamas does with release of Palestinians from Israeli prisons.
So yes, things have changed, but the outcome is still unclear. It could be far short of the negotiated end to the Gaza war many of us would like to see.
*The Wall Street Journal adds that Qatar has threatened to throw Hamas’ political leadership out of Doha and Turkey has refused to take them in. It also notes that Israeli seizure of the Philadelphi corridor on Gaza’s southern end may be heightening pressure on Hamas.
RSS - Posts
