In recent weeks, a flurry of diplomatic activity has emerged in an attempt to revive the stalled negotiations between Hamas and the Israeli occupation, following Netanyahu’s abrupt reversal of the January 17 ceasefire agreement. His new demands — including the handover of captives, the disarmament of resistance factions, the redeployment of Israeli forces inside Gaza, and redrawing the strip’s future under occupation terms — effectively aim to institutionalise permanent control and pave the way for forced displacement.
Facing this wall of unrealistic and colonial conditions, Hamas proposed a comprehensive package deal: a full exchange of captives in return for a permanent ceasefire, complete Israeli withdrawal, open crossings for humanitarian aid, and reconstruction efforts overseen by a Palestinian technocratic committee under Egypt’s mediation.
Reviving Negotiations: Hamas Takes the Initiative
Under the leadership of Mohammad Darwish, Hamas initiated shuttle diplomacy, holding high-level meetings in Doha, Ankara, and Cairo to push this proposal — which aligns with both Israeli public opinion and Washington’s interests, as expressed by U.S. hostage envoy Adam Boehler.
This diplomatic campaign culminated in direct discussions between Qatari Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff in Washington. At the same time, Turkey exerted pressure on the U.S. to accelerate humanitarian access and revive serious negotiations.
Shortly after, President Trump himself publicly acknowledged he had called Netanyahu to demand the entry of aid and medicine into Gaza.
Netanyahu’s Two Calculated Moves
Facing rising pressure, Netanyahu responded with two parallel tactics:
-
- Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich suggested the Israeli army take full control, aiming to drag the military into long-term governance of Gaza.
-
- Others proposed a third-party American company, operating under Israeli military and intelligence supervision, to handle aid distribution near the Morag Axis between Rafah and Khan Yunis.
Plans also surfaced to transform Rafah into a tent city for displaced Palestinians, trapped between the Salah al-Din axis (south to Egypt) and Morag (north to Khan Yunis). Under this scenario, aid would be used to control, register, and detain Palestinians based on need — turning humanitarian relief into a weapon of occupation.
Even more dangerous: the concentration of civilians in Rafah could set the stage for a mass casualty event — with Israel later blaming Hamas — to justify forced displacement toward Sinai.
“Hamas presented a proposal, but Netanyahu refuses it. He wants the captives but has no vision for how to end the war.”
These diplomatic maneuvers appear to be stalling tactics — aimed at deflating internal and external pressure while consuming time without intent to reach resolution.
War and Election Calculations
With talks deadlocked, Israeli media leaked that the war may continue until October, while Dermer estimated a 12-month timeline. This indicates Netanyahu’s real fear: losing power. He’s prolonging the war to secure one of two outcomes:
-
- Military victory over Hamas and the submission of Gaza — allowing him to declare “total victory.”
-
- Redrawing Gaza’s future — reoccupying the territory, displacing its people, and reshaping it under American cover.
But if, as expected, resistance in Gaza continues to hold firm, Netanyahu may pivot back to negotiations, claiming falsely that Hamas has been defeated and the war objectives achieved.
Either scenario would serve one purpose: a political lifeline ahead of the 2026 Israeli elections.
Netanyahu’s War for Power — Not for Israel
What’s clear is that this war has become personal. The Israeli army is exhausted, with over 50% of reservists refusing to return. Public opinion has turned. Families of captives fear for their loved ones, while the wider public questions why the war persists with no strategic benefit.
This isn’t a war for Israel’s security — it’s Netanyahu’s war for political survival.
At the same time, Israel faces growing regional instability:
-
- Ongoing tensions with Syria, including Israeli efforts to incite Druze armed rebellion.
-
- Rising resentment in Turkey, which links its national security to Syrian sovereignty.
-
- Ongoing confrontations between Yemen’s Ansarullah (Houthis) and U.S. naval forces, as Yemen continues to back Gaza.
-
- Iran, still engaged in nuclear negotiations with Washington, yet aligned with resistance forces across the region.
Final Thought: Netanyahu Can Start a War — But He Cannot Control Its End
This multi-front volatility makes it increasingly difficult for Israel to control outcomes. As the region shifts beneath its feet, Netanyahu finds himself trapped by his own aggression.
In truth, not every war can be managed — and not every war ends on the attacker’s terms. Netanyahu, despite his bravado, may soon learn this the hard way.
