Has the United States and Israel abandoned negotiations for a ceasefire in Doha, evading their commitments? What is the fate of the deal amid the daily atrocities and scenes of bloodshed and destruction in Gaza? These questions have arisen among the people in Gaza, who were anticipating a second truce to halt the ongoing violence.
In Tel Aviv, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seems to be retreating towards warfare, likely driven by fears of trial and the potential collapse of his coalition government. The U.S. has withdrawn its delegation, while Israel has also called back its team, indicating a dire scenario where the parties involved in mediating the ceasefire are unable to stem the flow of bloodshed.
As the genocide continues to ravage Gaza, skepticism grows within political circles regarding Netanyahu’s willingness to finalize the agreement. Analysts suggest he prefers the continuation of conflict, possibly sacrificing the remaining Israeli hostages in the process.
Every proposed solution appears incapable of achieving a political resolution that would end the bloodshed. Signs indicate that the negotiations for a ceasefire may be spiraling out of control, threatening to ignite the region anew, as noted by political commentator Mohamed Draghma. He remarked that statements from U.S. envoy Steve Wietkov surprised even the mediators in Doha, as they seemed to signal the end of negotiations.
Draghma explained that the shock stemmed from the significant responsiveness of Hamas to the Egyptian and Qatari mediators’ proposals, which they believed paved the way for a potential deal. Recent discussions had made important progress across various issues, prompting optimistic expectations among mediators that a deal was imminent, until Wietkov’s remarks prompted speculation: was this a negotiating tactic intended to secure last-minute concessions?
In Doha, territorial maps have emerged as a central point of contention in the indirect negotiations between Hamas and Israel. The disagreements hindering an agreement are limited to mere hundreds of meters in each location, yet these areas are critical as they are situated within residential neighborhoods, particularly in Rafah, Khan Younis, and the Shuja’iyya and Al-Tuffah districts of Gaza, according to Draghma.
While Hamas insists on returning to the agreement from January 19, fearing new plans may be executed in inhabited areas—something Netanyahu currently opposes—questions loom over the rubble of destroyed homes in Gaza: What is the future of the deal? What has suddenly changed in the negotiations in Doha? Shouldn’t the events occurring in Gaza for the past 22 months prompt a shift towards diplomatic solutions and the continuation of negotiations towards a comprehensive resolution, rather than agreements that act only as temporary fixes?
Crumbling Coalition
Amid political corridors, many observers and analysts believe that Netanyahu’s fears of coalition disintegration, alongside his government allies’ insistence that the war has not achieved its goals as it nears its second anniversary, may lead to a failure of political efforts and an ongoing war. This is particularly true given the Israeli and American desires to diminish Hamas’s capabilities, which could result in political efforts being frozen once more.
Political analyst Hani Masri interprets the sudden shift in the U.S. stance as a response to Netanyahu’s wishes, following a meeting between Wietkov and Israeli delegation leader Ron Dermer, who is known for his close ties to Netanyahu. However, Masri does not rule out the possibility that this stance may simply be part of a negotiating tactic to extract further concessions just before the agreement is finalized.
Similarly, Israeli affairs expert Imad Abu Awad speculates that there may be a regional trade-off that has complicated or delayed the Gaza issue. He noted, “The atmosphere was positive and a deal was near, but suddenly Washington escalated its rhetoric, undermining the optimism they had previously conveyed regarding the agreement. This may either be pressure intended for negotiations or a strategic shift aimed at facilitating another agenda.”