The Israel-Hamas war and Iran
The Middle East’s bizarre waiting game: ceasefire or Armageddon?
Israel accepts a proposal to pause fighting but Hamas’s hardliners may not
IT WAS HARD not to detect a note of desperation about Antony Blinken.
The American secretary of state made his ninth visit to the Middle East since war in Gaza began over ten months ago.
The latest round of indirect talks between Israel and Hamas is, he insisted, “a decisive moment” that is “probably the best, maybe the last opportunity” for reaching a ceasefire and a release of Israeli hostages.
Yet no deal has been struck yet. During his visit Iran issued another threat of a direct attack on Israel, which “must await calculated and precise strikes”.
But the regime appears uncertain of its timetable.
It added that “time is on our side and it is possible that the waiting period for this response will be long”.
For months the Biden administration, along with Egypt and Qatar, which speak directly to Hamas, has been trying to push the recalcitrant sides towards a ceasefire agreement.
On August 16th they presented a “bridging proposal”.
This is basically a more detailed version of a framework for a deal proposed by Israel in May, which has yet to be ratified by the Israeli cabinet.
It envisages first a six-week halt in the fighting in Gaza, during which some hostages would be released in return for many more Palestinian prisoners.
During the truce further talks would be held about a full ceasefire and the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
A third stage includes plans for rebuilding the devastated enclave, but few are thinking that far ahead.
On August 19th Mr Blinken met Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, for three hours.
Afterwards the secretary of state told reporters that the Israeli prime minister had “confirmed” to him “that Israel accepts the bridging proposal”.
Mr Netanyahu did not go as far, saying he “greatly” appreciated “the understanding that the US has shown for our vital security interests as part of our joint efforts to bring about the release of our hostages”.
He did not mention a ceasefire of any kind.
Mr Netanyahu may have accepted the American plan in private but in public he is still reluctant to antagonise the far-right allies who control his political fate.
They have threatened to bring down the government if such a deal is reached.
Senior officials in Israel’s security establishment who support the deal have complained that Mr Netanyahu has limited the mandate of Israel’s negotiating team.
On August 20th he promised a right-wing group representing families of Israeli soldiers that Israel would remain in key locations within Gaza.
If true, this would probably scupper any deal.
For Israel a big issue is the presence of its troops in the “Philadelphi corridor”, a strip of land along the border between Gaza and Egypt.
Mr Netanyahu insists this is vital to prevent weapons smuggling that would allow Hamas to re-arm once there is a truce.
Israel’s generals disagree.
They claim that with Egypt they can establish a mechanism for the border without troops.
The American proposal probably mirrors this, requiring Israel to withdraw but keep a right of surveillance.
Yet it is unclear if this will satisfy Mr Netanyahu.
Another sticking-point is Israel’s demand that armed Hamas members be prevented from returning to northern Gaza.
On August 21st Joe Biden called Mr Netanyahu in yet another attempt to press him to show more flexibility on the corridor.
There is no sign yet that Israel’s prime minister is willing to do so.
Even if Israel has accepted America’s plan, Hamas still needs to be convinced.
The group says it is “keen” on a deal but has so far rejected the American proposal, claiming it includes new conditions set by Israel and does not guarantee a full ceasefire or Israeli withdrawal after the initial truce.
Without those, Yahya Sinwar, Hamas’s leader in Gaza, is reluctant to release hostages, just a few dozen of whom are thought still to be alive.
They are his last bargaining chips, and Israeli intelligence believes that some are being held close to him to protect him from assassination.
Hamas’s internal politics are hampering the talks as well.
On August 6th Mr Sinwar was appointed as the movement’s interim political leader, following the assassination by Israel of his predecessor, Ismail Haniyeh, in Iran.
Mr Sinwar, an uncompromising figure who masterminded Hamas’s atrocities in Israel on October 7th, will have the final say on whether Hamas agrees to any deal.
But he is believed to be hiding deep within Hamas’s tunnel network; communicating with him can take days.
Hamas’s leaders outside Gaza lack the authority to make decisions in the negotiations.
Khalil al-Hayya is the main negotiator in Cairo and Doha.
He is in a power struggle with Zaher Jabarin, who is in charge of finances and prisoner affairs within Hamas and has a big influence on the list of prisoners Hamas wants to be released in return for the Israeli hostages.
Mr Blinken, who went on from Israel to Egypt and Qatar, is hoping that the mediators can persuade Hamas to come around.
His bosses—Mr Biden who is anxious not to leave an ongoing war as the major foreign-policy legacy of his presidency, and Kamala Harris, now the Democratic presidential candidate—are both keen to have a ceasefire in place before the presidential election campaign enters its final stretch.
While the talks drag on Iran has yet to respond to Israel’s assassination of Haniyeh in Tehran, despite threatening bloody retaliation.
Hizbullah, an Iran-linked militia, has continued its daily barrage of rockets and drones on Israel but avoided escalation.
The three-week delay may reflect a lack of good options, as Iran tries to think up an attack that is more impressive than its missile and drone strike on Israel in April (which was largely intercepted) but does not trigger a full-blown war.
The new Iranian president, Masoud Pezeshkian, is anxious to avoid starting his term with an unpopular conflict.
And his boss, the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei, seems to be feeling the pressure, as shown by a string of social-media posts inveighing against the “psychological warfare” that “the US, the UK and the Zionists” have waged against Iran and calling on his people to resist “the demands of the enemy”.
Israel could claim that its main objectives have been met, Hamas’s rump could boast of survival, and Iran and its proxies could claim that their intimidatory tactics have forced Israel to compromise.
But the final decision still rests with Messrs Netanyahu and Sinwar.
And for both, their personal and political survival comes first.
0 comments:
Publicar un comentario