By John Q. Hosedrinker 
U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff deemed Hamas’s counter-proposal for a 60-day ceasefire “totally unacceptable,” demanding their acceptance of the U.S. framework. Hamas offered the release of 10 hostages and 18 bodies in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, contingent on a temporary independent authority being established. Witkoff insisted on immediate proximity talks based on the U.S. proposal, emphasizing Hamas compliance as the only path to a ceasefire. The White House confirmed Israel’s approval of the U.S. framework, though official Israeli comment remains pending.
Read the original article here
The U.S. envoy’s outright rejection of Hamas’s ceasefire proposal as “unacceptable” underscores the deep chasm between the two sides. The proposal, while framed as aiming for a permanent ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and sustained humanitarian aid, is fundamentally flawed in the eyes of the U.S.
The core issue lies in the proposed exchange of prisoners. The idea of releasing captured terrorists, some of whom have committed heinous acts, in exchange for the return of Israeli hostages is viewed as an unacceptable concession. This perceived imbalance, where Hamas essentially seeks to reward terrorism, is a major stumbling block.
Moreover, the U.S. likely sees the proposal as a tactical maneuver rather than a genuine attempt at peace. Hamas’ insistence on a full Israeli withdrawal before releasing hostages and bodies suggests a lack of good faith negotiation. It hints at a strategy to achieve significant territorial gains while leaving the door open for future conflict.
The envoy’s rejection also reflects a lack of trust in Hamas’ intentions. Hamas’ history of using negotiations as a tool to gain leverage, rather than a genuine path to lasting peace, is well-documented. Past prisoner exchanges have revealed instances of deception, including the use of empty coffins or the release of terrorists who quickly resumed hostile activities. This history fuels deep skepticism regarding Hamas’ commitment to abiding by any ceasefire agreement.
The proposal’s call for a “temporary independent authority” to manage Gaza raises further concerns. This ambiguous phrasing raises doubts about its actual function and whether it would effectively prevent Hamas from maintaining control and power, ultimately undermining any potential long-term peace. The lack of clarity around the authority’s powers and jurisdiction is a recipe for future disputes and potential breakdowns in the agreement.
The envoy’s background, while lacking formal experience in international relations, is arguably less significant than the fundamental flaws in the Hamas proposal itself. The deal appears inherently unbalanced and risks legitimizing terrorist tactics, undermining the credibility of any future negotiations. Even a seasoned diplomat would find it difficult to reconcile the proposal’s underlying flaws.
The criticism surrounding the envoy’s background should not overshadow the significant problems with the Hamas proposal itself. The offer is fundamentally unacceptable, not because of the envoy’s qualifications, but because of the inherent risks and lack of genuine commitment to peace demonstrated by Hamas. The proposal itself is, simply put, a bad deal, and the envoy’s rejection reflects this reality.
The lack of international consensus regarding Hamas’ actions further underscores the deep-seated issues with the proposal. The absence of a unified global condemnation of Hamas’ actions and pressure for them to surrender hostages and cease hostilities is itself a concerning indicator of the international landscape.
In summary, the rejection of Hamas’s ceasefire proposal stems from a fundamental lack of trust, a perceived imbalance in the terms, and a deep-seated concern that the proposal is a strategic maneuver rather than a genuine pathway to a lasting peace. While the envoy’s background might be subject to debate, the inherent flaws in the proposal are undeniable. The situation calls for more than just negotiation; it demands a substantial shift in Hamas’ tactics and a clear commitment to peaceful co-existence.