The Gaza ceasefire that never existed (The Atlantic)

As the Israel-Hamas war rages on, hasty headlines sometimes hide more than they reveal.

Awaiting details

CNN reported in March that “the Israelis have ‘virtually accepted’ a proposed six-week truce in Gaza,” citing a US official. And yesterday the Associated Press wrote that Hamas said it had “accepted a truce proposal by Egypt and Qatar.” Each piece of information quickly spread across the Internet, fueling disputes among the camps’ sympathizers around the world and raising hopes among Palestinians and Israelis alike, writes The Atlantic.

Of course, as anyone who follows the conflict knows, the fighting continues now. These pseudo-truces are far from the only such cases of inconsistency between news and reality in recent months. Just remember the flurry of rushed news surrounding Iran’s attack on Israel and Israel’s response, both presented as a prelude to a regional, possibly even world war, only for the whole thing to end with a whimper instead of a bang .

Confused? Trying to realize how you can discern between truth and untruth? You are not alone. I have this problem too. Here are four criteria that guide me in my work as a journalist on the armistice negotiations and that help me decipher the events.

1. While negotiating, both camps try to manipulate the international press – and their statements must be interpreted in this light

In professional sports, when major contracts are signed between clubs and athletes, there are frequent leaks to the media about possible contract terms. Most of them turn out to be false. /…/ Why are there so many such erroneous news stories? Sometimes they reflect genuine offers in the midst of dynamic negotiations; other times, however, it is an attempt by one of the parties to strengthen its negotiating position.

Political journalism is not the same as sports journalism, but it is subject to a similar dynamic. In the case of Israel and Hamas, both camps provide information selectively to manipulate the media narrative so that they are portrayed as reasonable and their opponent as recalcitrant.

In some cases, this tactic can cause some publications to release news that is not thoroughly verified or to be unknowingly influenced by those who want to manipulate them. It’s also what seems to have happened yesterday, when Hamas unilaterally announced that it had “agreed to” a ceasefire, and several publications picked up on that claim without sufficiently verifying what the terrorist organization had actually agreed to.

As The New York Times pointed out, it later turned out that “Hamas had not actually ‘accepted’ a truce, but had made a counteroffer to a proposal already on the table and already accepted by Israel and the US.” Moreover, Hamas refused to commit to releasing only live hostages, not dead hostages, in the first phase of the proposed multi-stage deal. Here, and in other cases where you are faced with sensational news, you will benefit from waiting for more details, rather than assuming that the first news gives you the whole picture.

2. Israel and Hamas are not the only negotiators – which greatly complicates the situation

Israel and Hamas had no formal relations even before they went to war in October. Consequently, they have been communicating through intermediaries for a long time.

Now the truce negotiations are taking place in Cairo with the support of several external mediators, namely the US, Egypt (which shares a border with Israel and the Gaza Strip) and Qatar (which houses the political leadership of Hamas). Each of these actors comes with their own proposals and suggestions for compromise, a fact that can help the two camps to progress, but also to make propaganda by accepting a more advantageous proposal from one of the third mediators, one that they could not have get it from the opposite camp.

Understanding these dynamics can help decode the news. There will never be an agreement as long as the headline is “Israel accepts US ceasefire proposal” or “Hamas accepts Egypt and Qatar proposal”, there will only be agreement when the headline is: “Israel and Hamas agree on the same truce proposals”.

3. Several fundamental thorny issues still remain unresolved

To know if the parties are really close to an agreement, it helps to know why they haven’t reached one yet. In addition to Hamas’s reluctance to release hostages who are still alive – it has yet to even provide a list of the Israelis it is now seizing, apparently intending to use the living as bargaining chips in the final stages – both sides they have fundamental disagreements about continuing the war after an agreement. Hamas insists the deal is binding to end the war, but Israel wants to reserve the right to intervene in the Strip to hunt down the Hamas leadership, even after a long pause in hostilities.

The “permanent truce” dispute may seem symbolic: Israel and Hamas have been at war, on and off, for over a decade, and such a thing cannot be changed on a piece of paper. And yet, symbolism matters. Both camps – but especially their political leadership – want to be able to proclaim victory when the deal is signed.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, dependent on far-right coalition partners and dead in the polls, does not want to appear to have caved in to Hamas. Yahya Sinwar, the commander of Hamas in the Strip, is desperate to leave the impression that he has achieved something after all the destruction that Hamas and its massacre of October 7 has unleashed on the population of Gaza. Being able to come out of hiding and proclaim that he had long resisted the vaunted Israeli army would be enough for him.

With slightly more concrete ambitions, Israelis are divided over the ultimate goal of the war: to destroy Hamas (in which case they cannot stop the war until the last terrorist battalions are annihilated) or to free the hostages (option in which Israel could abandon the war now and resume fight with Hamas later). Israel’s leadership has so far refused to choose between these two goals, but the moment of decision seems to be arriving.

4. There is no agreement, but negotiations exist and are at a crucial point

What happened yesterday was that Hamas made a counteroffer in the negotiations, and then accepted its own counteroffer. Obviously that’s not how a bilateral agreement works, but at least it proves that negotiations are moving forward. In response, Israel announced yesterday that it is sending another delegation to Cairo to resume talks. CIA Director William Burns is said to be there in person to facilitate a deal. At the same time, Israel began an operation in southern Gaza, in Rafah, where it says the Hamas leadership is hiding among the more than 1 million Palestinians sheltered there.

President Joe Biden has warned the Israelis not to go all-out on Rafah, which partly explains the limited scope of the current operation — it began with an evacuation order for 100,000 civilians, with the rest staying put while Israel maneuvers in – a restricted area.

The move no doubt put even more pressure on Hamas, but also hastened the moment when Israel will have to decide whether or not to continue the assault on Rafah to the end, at the risk of completely chilling its relationship with the Biden administration. This prospect, in turn, increases the pressure on Israel to reach an agreement. Although the outcome of this rapid succession of events is uncertain, a crucial point is fast approaching – and at that point it may be time to exercise our patience again, as incomplete news pours in.

Material produced with the support of Rador Radio Romania