Gaza ceasefire negotiations hit a new impasse over an old dispute

Israeli military strikes on Gaza have added to the suffering of Palestinian civilians as cease-fire talks have dragged on.

By Patrick Kingsley

Through nearly 20 months of war in the Gaza Strip, a changing carousel of mediators and negotiators have tried — and failed — to reach a lasting truce between Hamas and Israel. William J. Burns and Brett McGurk led the way for the Biden administration, before Steve Witkoff tried on behalf of President Donald Trump.

Whoever the mediator, one intractable dispute has consistently prevented a deal. Hamas wants a permanent ceasefire that would essentially allow the group to retain influence in postwar Gaza. Israel wants only a temporary deal that would allow it to renew its failed efforts to defeat Hamas.

Now, once again, that fundamental difference is the main obstacle to a new truce. After a renewed flurry of mediation from Witkoff and his team last week, Hamas sought stronger guarantees that any new ceasefire would evolve into a permanent cessation of hostilities.

Although the proposed new deal would officially last for 60 days, Hamas pushed for a clause that guaranteed “the continuation of negotiations until a permanent agreement is reached.” That wording would technically allow for the 60-day ceasefire to be extended indefinitely, scuppering Israeli hopes of returning to battle.

Hamas’ demand drew a familiar response from Israel. “Hamas’ response is totally unacceptable and is a step backward,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in a statement.

This new version of an old dispute has not immediately collapsed the negotiations. Egypt and Qatar, the two main Arab mediators, released a joint statement Sunday in which they pledged “to intensify efforts to overcome the obstacles facing the negotiations.”

Even as Witkoff condemned Hamas’ response, saying that it “only takes us backward,” he suggested on social media that talks over the details of a truce could “begin immediately this coming week” if the group softened its position.

Hamas subsequently said it was ready “to immediately begin a round of indirect negotiations to reach an agreement on the points of contention.” But, as ever, it included a caveat: those negotiations must lead “to a permanent ceasefire and a full withdrawal of the occupation forces.”

As has been the case throughout the war, much will depend on the United States’ willingness to push Israel and Hamas to reach a compromise. It was Trump’s pressure that convinced Netanyahu to accept a temporary truce in January. Netanyahu then broke the ceasefire two months later after consulting the Trump administration, a White House spokesperson said at the time.

It is hard to foresee an imminent breakthrough unless one side crosses the red lines that they have consistently set since the final weeks of 2023. Israeli officials have suggested they could agree to a permanent truce if Hamas disarmed and its leaders left Gaza for exile. While some Hamas officials have expressed openness to some kind of compromise over their weapons, the group has publicly rejected the premise.

In the meantime, Palestinian civilians in Gaza face growing hardship, amid continuing Israeli airstrikes, widespread food shortages and a chaotic start to a new Israeli-backed aid distribution scheme. And in Israel, the families of hostages held in Gaza are no closer to seeing their loved ones. More than 4,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Israel resumed fighting in March, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which does not differentiate between civilians and combatants.

On both sides, internal dynamics could prove decisive in shaping what happens next. Growing dissent against Hamas could encourage the group to agree to a temporary truce to shore up its short-term control over Gaza. A rise in looting, as well as Israel’s assassination of key Hamas leaders, have highlighted the group’s weakening grip on the territory.

In Israel, Netanyahu’s coalition could collapse if he agrees to end the war. But it is unclear if he can drag out the conflict indefinitely. The Israeli military is mainly staffed by reservists who have spent much of the past 20 months away from their day jobs and families.

Many of them are exhausted and, if the war continues, there are growing concerns that a significant number will refuse to serve as often or for such long stretches. That would make it hard for Israel’s military leadership to staff ground operations, let alone implement a full occupation that would require tens of thousands of troops to sustain.