By John Q. Hosedrinker US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff deemed Hamas’s counter-proposal to the hostage exchange deal unacceptable, asserting it undermined progress. Hamas’s response, while claiming to seek a permanent ceasefire and aid for Gaza, included demands for a full Israeli withdrawal and a longer timeframe for prisoner releases, exceeding the original framework. This was rejected by both Witkoff and the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, who stated that Israel remains committed to securing the release of hostages. Reports indicate Hamas’s counter-offer also included a seven-year ceasefire and US guarantees against future conflict.
Read the original article here
Hamas’s demand for a complete IDF withdrawal and a permanent ceasefire in response to the Witkoff proposal immediately raises questions about the very nature of such a ceasefire. The term “permanent ceasefire,” as used in this context, seems highly misleading. Historically, agreements intended to end conflict have been termed armistices or peace treaties, suggesting a more formalized and legally binding commitment. Hamas’s use of the phrase hints at a lack of genuine commitment to lasting peace.
This interpretation is further solidified by the fact that Hamas’s demands include retaining power, maintaining their arsenal, and continuing to hold hostages. These conditions render any ceasefire inherently unstable and unreliable. It suggests that this is not a genuine effort towards peaceful co-existence, but rather a tactical maneuver. A “permanent ceasefire” for Hamas appears more akin to a “hudna,” a temporary truce used to regroup and rearm, setting the stage for future violence.
The very idea that Hamas, after launching a large-scale attack that resulted in significant civilian casualties, is in a position to dictate terms is questionable. Their actions on October 7th, including the horrific acts against civilians, have negated any claim they might have to leverage in negotiations. The fact that they’re not even considering the release of hostages or accountability for their atrocities points to a fundamental unseriousness about achieving lasting peace.
The demand is strikingly similar to an aggressor nation demanding a cease-fire while retaining occupied territory and refusing to account for war crimes, akin to Germany at the end of World War II demanding Allied withdrawal. This brazenness underscores the disconnect between Hamas’s demands and the realities of their weakened position. Their military capabilities are severely diminished, making their negotiating stance seem entirely out of touch with reality. They are in no position to demand anything, let alone a “permanent” ceasefire.
The deeply ingrained goal of Hamas – the destruction of Israel – casts further doubt on the sincerity of any peace overtures. This inherent conflict of goals makes any attempt at a true and lasting ceasefire impossible, reducing any agreement to nothing more than a temporary reprieve. Their strategy seems centered around dragging out the conflict as long as possible, hoping that international pressure will force Israel’s hand. This is not a negotiation for peace; it’s a protracted campaign of attrition.
The current situation presents a unique challenge. While Hamas seeks to portray the conflict through a specific lens, aiming to gain support and leverage, this manipulation of narratives has a limit. The brutal reality of their actions and stated goals undermines their demands. Furthermore, the potential for this “ceasefire” to be merely another temporary pause to allow Hamas to rebuild its capabilities is extremely high.
The international community’s response is crucial. Succumbing to Hamas’s demands would set a dangerous precedent, rewarding terrorism and emboldening other groups to employ similar tactics. A decisive stance that demands the unconditional release of hostages, disarmament, accountability for war crimes, and a clear commitment to peaceful co-existence is necessary to establish genuine lasting peace, instead of a cyclical pattern of violence. This will require a robust international effort to address the underlying issues and counter Hamas’s propaganda. A strong response, rather than appeasement, is critical for regional stability and the security of Israel’s citizens.
Ultimately, any “permanent ceasefire” under these conditions is inherently flawed and a deception, designed more to manipulate the international discourse than to achieve genuine peace. Without a fundamental change in Hamas’s ideology and behavior, any attempt at lasting peace will likely be short-lived. The core issue isn’t just about a ceasefire, but a profound and deep-seated ideological clash that needs to be addressed comprehensively.