The Israeli political and military leadership is betting that the growing field pressure is coupled with the tightening of humanitarian restrictions, the Islamic Resistance Movement (the movement of the Islamic Resistance (agitation) To accept the plan of the American envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkev.
The Israeli writer, Tsafi Barail, refutes this assumption, which he says does not withstand the political and military reality, and may turn into a strategic achievement of Hamas, which enhances its position instead of undermining it.
The American envoy had agreed with Hamas on a plan to stop the war and to launch humanitarian aid with an international mechanism, but Israel’s opposition to it called for a new plan that Tel Aviv later adopted, while Hamas called for amendments to it that included the full Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip, and the return of the application of the humanitarian aid protocol led by United Nations institutions.
The failure of the Israeli plan
In an analytical article published by the Haaretz newspaper, today, Tuesday, Barail considered that the Israeli appreciation that military and humanitarian pressure “will force Hamas to refraction and acquiescence”, was not achieved on the ground. “Despite the tremendous destruction, and the death toll from 60,000 people, including thousands of women and children, Hamas has not been released from the prisoners, and the only party is able to negotiate them.”
He adds that “military pressure”, a term that Israel uses to describe extensive destruction, mass killing, and displacement of population, has not yet led to tangible results. On the contrary, “the elimination of the Hamas military and political leadership in Gaza and abroad is the weakest of its grip, but it did not rob it of its central position as the owner of the final word in any possible deal.”
In this context, the Israeli writer addresses the decision of the US President Donald Trump Acceptance of direct negotiations with Hamas, considering it “a violation of a red line that was the cornerstone of American politics”, and is considered a very important political achievement for Hamas, even if it is not a final goal in itself.
According to the article, Hamas believes that the role of the United States does not stop when pressing for Israel, but rather “providing guarantees that lead to a ceasefire, and pave the way to end the war within a comprehensive agreement.” This agreement, if achieved, will not only maintain Hamas, but will enhance its position as a key component of the future of Gaza.
According to Paralyl’s estimate, Hamas sees in a plan to be an opportunity to impose a new equation: that the release of the prisoners cannot be achieved without an actual or almost actual Israeli withdrawal from the sector. He adds that this equation “appears as if the United States is ready to coexist with it”, in light of the worsening humanitarian catastrophe.
The writer describes this achievement as a “strategic shift”, because Israel was hoping to push the local population to turn against Hamas under the weight of suffering, but this did not happen. “Despite the local protests, it did not develop into a civil uprising against the ruling,” in his opinion, in his opinion, part of the original Israeli hypothesis.
Negotiation and assassination of leaders
The Israeli writer says that the hard -line Israeli position weakened the role of regional mediators, such as Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, and also led to a gradual decline in their influence.
He described the Israeli policy as “random and lacking planning”, as the closure of the Rafah crossing, for example, weakened the Egyptian role.
He also believes that the American threats and pressure on the external leadership of Hamas did not fruit anything.
Although he says that the leadership of the outside in Hamas during the era of its former martyr president Yahya Al -Sinwar It was considered a mere “messenger who does not have the authority of the decision” according to his claim, but he is trying to highlight the occupation, the leader of Hamas and the head of the negotiating delegation. Khalil al -HayyaHowever, he leads the movement in the field along with Ezzedine Al -Haddad, the military commander of the Al -Qassam Brigades, after the martyrdom of the commander in chief, Muhammad Al -Dhaif.
And when he indicates the threat of the Israeli war minister Israel Katz Last week that the serpent and the mortality are “the next in the list of assassinations”, yet Muhammad Al -Sinwar (Who announced Israel to enable it to assassinate him), he wonders with the cynicism, “Who will Israel choose to negotiate after their assassination?”, Referring to the contradiction of the Israeli position.
Political and human dilemma
Paralyl believes that the Witkeov plan is not only related to a 60 -day ceasefire, but also includes an unlimited almost limited entry for humanitarian aid, and distributed by United Nations organizations. But he warns that despite the amendments to which it was made, it allows Hamas to restore its role in managing aid, which gives it “direct financing to its needs during the calm period.”
He notes that Israel, which was rejecting the United Nations participation in the distribution, is now obliged to invite it to participate in the new mechanism, through a relief organization operating under American sponsorship, which was rejected by international institutions.
He points out that this shift “may open the way for the possibility of Hamas to benefit from this channel, whether through direct or indirect receipt of aid.”
According to the data reported by the author of the Gaza Relief Organization, about 18,720 foodstuffs were distributed yesterday, sufficient for only 103 thousand people. “But they are sure that they will receive parcels tomorrow, while hundreds of thousands do not reach any aid.”
He adds, “If we assume that this aid is an excellent program, as the US Humanitarian spokesman depicts it, according to the original plan, it is expected to benefit from about one million and a quarter of only people, while about a million people will remain without any response, and this result ensures that Israel continues to be exposed to severe international pressure, and will depend on the humanitarian crisis as a pressure tool to change the nature and scope of its military activity in Gaza.”
Parail also refreshes an argument that Israel raises, that the distribution of humanitarian aid through the American Public Aid Fund deprives Hamas of an important source of income, and perhaps essential.
“This path at the same time is exempt Hamas from the care of the population, and its operation is responsible for dealing with the humanitarian catastrophe on Israel and the United States,” he says.
At the conclusion of his article, Barail concludes that the Witakouf plan, despite Israel’s adoption of it, carries with it threatening elements of its official novel. If its current mechanisms are applied, it will force Israel to accept the role of Hamas, even indirectly, in formulating the end of the war, and perhaps in the future of the sector as well.
He points out that “any American guarantees granted to the movement – even if it comes in the form of a vague presidential declaration – will be binding on Israel to negotiate,” which means in practice that Tel Aviv may find itself forced to continue the war diplomatically after it stops militarily.
He adds that “if Israel claims that Hamas has lost control of the sector, then why does it insist on continuing the human pressure that is not renewed? And who is the target party then?”