Bridging Proposals A Bridge Too Far For Hamas

Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the continuing terrible Israel/Gaza war. For those viewing events from the outside who genuinely want the conflict to end, never resume and all the hostages released, there is a deep sense of futility in engaging in further commentary, expression of opinion or speculation. 

Only those directly engaged in the continuing on and off peripatetic discussions behind the scenes truly know what is happening and what, if any, real progress is being made in effecting a ceasefire and the release of hostages. Only they also fully understand the shapes thrown by each side  both in private and in public to pressurise the other to achieve the deal each seeks, the extent to which their postures are real or mere strategy and whether related public commentary is simply political applause or sympathy seeking propaganda.  

But sometimes those engaged on the inside are so immersed in their well intended bubble of activity and hope and so overwhelmed by detail, political pressure, machinations and complexity that some portion of reality is lost. A focus on the desirability of a ceasefire by well intended mediators can lose sight of an important fact- that one or more of the primary protagonists or their backers and cheerleaders may have no real interest in a ceasefire and an end to conflict or certainly no interest in a permanent ceasefire and a permanent end to conflict. 

Whilst a rational analysis of the events since October 7 leads to the conclusion that for both Israelis and Palestinians the conflict is a disaster and the sooner it ends the better, it is agreeing what arrangements should follow its ending that is the greatest obstacle to the conflict permanently ending at all. But like all conflicts it must and will eventually end and that issue can be thrashed out after trustworthy arrangements are agreed that accommodate the concerns and conditions of both sides to facilitate a temporary ceasefire. It is also a mistake in mediated negotiations to assume that rationality and common sense will eventually override emotion, religious fanaticism, ideology, fear and perceived political opportunism.

Viewed through Israeli eyes, the ultimate objectives are the release of all the hostages, a permanent ceasefire and a permanent end to Hamas governance of Gaza and all Israeli/ Palestinian conflict. These objectives reflect those of the United States, Israel’s strongest ally and guardian. What the Israeli government, as currently constituted and divided, is incapable of agreeing is practical arrangements for the post conflict governance of Gaza nor a permanent resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict. United in its opposition to a reinstated Hamas governance, it is divided as to who should exercise Gaza’s future governance instead of Hamas. It is also divided on the arrangements required to ensure Israel’s security to prevent the possibility of any repetition of the October 7 atrocities nor resumption by Hamas or any other Palestinian terrorist group of the regular missile fire from Gaza that has plagued Israel since 2007. The resolution of these divisions will require either an Israeli general election or the departure from the current government of extremist ministers who advocate the restoration of Israeli settlements in Gaza and the formation of a new temporary government including some current opposition parties.  

Viewed through Hamas eyes, that is by Hamas Supreme Leader Yahya Sinwar, the ultimate objective is Israel’s total destruction. It is an objective with historical continuity which reflects the failed objective of Israel’s neighbouring Arab states when launching their unsuccessful 1948 war in the immediate aftermath of Israel’s UN sanctioned Declaration of Independence. This objective is shared by Iran, which perceives Hamas as its proxy, as is Hezbollah in Lebanon and by all Iranian Islamic terrorist proxies within Iran’s self styled Axis of Resistance. 

Despite claiming he seeks a permanent ceasefire, Sinwar views any ceasefire that might be agreed as a temporary arrangement to facilitate the release of the maximum possible number of Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, to relieve Hamas and its fundamentalist allies of Israeli military pressure and as an opportunity to re-arm, rebuild his militant force and to reinstate Hamas rule of Gaza. The well being of civilians in Gaza is not something he prioritises. The hostages held in Gaza, both dead and alive, are perceived by him as mere pawns on a political chess board to be strategically deployed as bargaining chips and human shields and to be exploited to maximise both the distress of hostage families and internal Israeli division in order to pressurise the Israeli government to agree a ceasefire deal that facilitates Hamas reinstating its governance of Gaza. These objectives reflect those of Iran, Hamas’s most dedicated supporter and sponsor. To afford space for their achievement Iran has postponed its promised retaliatory attack on Israel for the assassination in Tehran of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh.  Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, in co-ordination with Iran, has also postponed Hezbollah’s promised retaliation for the assassination of the terror organisations chief of staff Fuad Shukr in Beirut. In the meantime Hezbollah continues its daily lethal targeting of Israel with missiles and Israel continues to target Hezbollah in Labanon.

The current ceasefire talks are focused on the unpublished bridging proposal that emerged in Doha last week designed to reconcile differences between Israel and Hamas to bring about a temporary ceasefire. Whilst Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu has been criticised by many due to no ceasefire deal yet being agreed and 114 hostages still remaining in Hamas captivity, the reality is that no Israeli prime minister after the Hamas atrocities of October 7 can agree a deal that enables Hamas’s brutal terrorist rule of Gaza resume, facilitates another October 7 and Israel again being rapidly targeted by Hamas missiles. The bridging proposals to which Netanyahu has announced his agreement are being publicly rejected by Hamas as a bridge too far because they do not implement Sinwar’s demand that the IDF vacate the entirety of Gaza facilitating Hamas rule resuming. The demand is made to enable Hamas later resume its war and Sinwar to wrongly claim to be victorious despite the dreadful carnage in Gaza resulting from a war he initiated. Unless delusional, which is a possibility, it is a demand he must know to be unrealistic.

What is missed by too many following the recent Doha talks is the pivotal role of Iran. There is a perception of some that Iran’s and maybe also Hezbollah’s delayed retaliation against Israel, with the possibility of no retaliation at all should a ceasefire be agreed, will force Israel to agree Hamas’s unrealistic demands. That in some way by so acting Iran is positively contributing to resolving the conflict it stoked. Iran likely also perceives its restraint as facilitating avoidance of the devastating consequences for both Iran and Lebanon should it launch a major attack on Israel in co-ordination with its Axis of Resistance. 

Whilst Hamas may hope Iranian threatened retaliation will result in Israeli capitulation to its demands, there is no likelihood of that. What the United States and others engaged in the mediation process need to digest is that while Israel genuinely wants a temporary ceasefire that facilitates the release of all the hostages, Hamas may want no such ceasefire. If Sinwar cannot get his way, lost in an Islamic terrorist fantasy, what he likely hopes is that Iran’s and Hezbollah’s promised retaliation and further embroilment in Hamas’s war will advance the terrorist group’s objective of Israel’s destruction. Their threatened retaliation may be incentivising his recalcitrance. 

If Iran wishes to avoid the devastating consequences to it and to Lebanon of it and its terrorist proxies so engaging and has any genuine interest in the Israel/ Gaza war now ending, it needs to stop its bellicose rhetoric and privately communicate to Hamas that the game is over. It’s war must now end and it should agree the bridging proposal that will result in a temporary ceasefire. Unfortunately, the likelihood of Ayatollah Khamenei  doing so and Hamas co-operating during the week of the Democratic Convention in Chicago is minimal. While I would love to be proved wrong I believe neither would want the USA, as the great Satan, nor President Biden depicted during the convention as having successfully secured a ceasefire, the release of hostages and an upsurge in aid to Gaza. But maybe the following week or the week after?  For that to happen it is essential that a greater spotlight is shone by the international community and media on Iran to bring about an end to the dreadful Israel/Gaza conflict. 

Alan Shatter

19th August 2024

 ..