What stands in the way of a Gaza ceasefire agreement?

The cycle of Gaza ceasefire talks has started to become predictable. Headlines initially spark hope with announcements of progress, only for other regional incidents to derail negotiations, leading to yet another collapse.
Last Sunday, Lebanon’s Hezbollah launched 320 drones and rockets towards Israel in response to the assassination of its commander Fouad Shukr. This was the group’s biggest escalation since the Israel-Gaza war began. Shortly before, Israel had launched a pre-emptive attack on Lebanon’s south, killing at least three.
This all happened against the backdrop of yet another ceasefire proposal that the US was strongly advocating for. But once again, it fell apart. Hamas rejected it, saying it was skewed too heavily in Israel’s favour and contradicted a version the group had agreed to in July. Meanwhile, Hezbollah said it had delayed its retaliatory attack to give this round of ceasefire talks a chance.
With the death toll of Palestinians in Gaza exceeding 40,600 and the war approaching its one-year mark, the prospects for a ceasefire are diminishing.
This week on Beyond the Headlines, host Nada AlTaher looks at how events on the ground could be sabotaging a ceasefire deal. She speaks to The National’s correspondents Nada Atallah and Hamza Hendawi and asks if talks still hold any weight.
Below is the full transcript of this episode:
Nada AlTaher: The cycle of Gaza ceasefire talks has started to become predictable. Headlines initially spark hope with announcements of progress, only for other regional incidents or attacks to derail negotiations. Eventually it all amounts to nothing.
Last Sunday, the Lebanese group Hezbollah launched 320 drones and rockets towards Israel in response to the assassination of its commander Fouad Shukr. This was the group’s largest attack since the war on Gaza began. Israel says it intercepted the attack, denying claims that the strikes caused any damage. Israel had launched a pre-emptive attack on southern Lebanon that killed at least three people.
This all happened against the backdrop of yet another ceasefire proposal backed strongly by the US. But once again, it fell through. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the deal. Hamas rejected it, saying it already agreed to a proposal in July that has since then been skewed too heavily in Israel’s favour. Meanwhile, Hezbollah said it delayed its retaliatory attack to give the latest round of ceasefire talks a chance.
But repeated warnings to prevent regional escalation have left too much room for interpretation about how serious the recent exchange of fire between Israel and Hezbollah really is. Meanwhile, the Palestinian death toll in Gaza has passed 40,500, with thousands more buried under rubble, and the war is approaching the one-year mark. For the hundreds of thousands now living in displacement and indignity, depleted and traumatised, running out of places to go, and resources having long run out, prospects for a ceasefire diminish each time talks fail. Yet a truce can’t come soon enough.
I’m Nada AlTaher and this is Beyond the Headlines. This week, we look at how events on the ground could be sabotaging ceasefire talks, after so many failed attempts to end the fighting through diplomacy. We also ask if talks still hold any weight in the conflict and, if they’re not actionable, how will the war end?
Tension on the Israel-Lebanon border continues to be high, even if analysts say the fighting is still contained. I’m joined by The National’s correspondent in Beirut, Nada Atallah, to get an update on the situation there since Hezbollah’s recent large-scale attack on Israel.
Nada, the last time we spoke was just after the assassination of Fouad Shukr. At the time, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said part of the punishment the group wanted to inflict on Israel was the psychological warfare of waiting for retaliation. Is there a sense in Lebanon that this Hezbollah attack has achieved the goal of deterring Israel in any way?
Nada Atallah: It’s a bit hard to know exactly what happened, but both sides are claiming victory. On its end, Hezbollah says it demonstrated its ability to strike deep within Israel. In his speech on Sunday, Hassan Nasrallah said the retaliation over the assassination of Fouad Shukr was a victory. He said the barrage his group launched reached their targets, which included a key military facility near Tel Aviv.
Israel has denied the claim. It said it foiled the operation, saying most of the weapons were destroyed in a pre-emptive strike, launched just an hour before the retaliation, and denied any major damage was caused to the military base near Tel Aviv. So it’s quite hard to determine exactly what happened, because Israel is also known for its secrecy and for hiding its military losses. But what is certain is that the attack was designed to avoid any major escalation. It was more of a face-saving operation and for both sides.
The images of that night were dramatic. It was one of the most intense nights in terms of rockets launched and people in southern Lebanon told me it was the scariest night they ever experienced, with nonstop bombing, houses shaking. It was a scary night, but no red lines were crossed. No civilians were killed and it was not the deadliest night.
Nada AlTaher: One analysis I read said some people are actually criticising Hezbollah for not hitting harder. But I’m not quite sure that’s the mood in Lebanon. The waiting game and the uncertainty have weighed heavily on the Lebanese people. Is there a sense of relief? Is anyone actually criticising Nasrallah for not hitting harder?
Nada Atallah: I think that would be a very small part of the population and it would be the supporters of Hezbollah. But most people in Lebanon don’t want war. People are against the war.
The country has been going through a steep economic crisis for years now, so it’s the last thing Lebanon wants.In July, it was three weeks of waiting for Hezbollah’s retaliation. And it was an excruciating wait. Civilians were anxious, people were stockpiling, most of the expats had to cut their trips short. Sonic booms had become part of daily life.
There was lots of anxiety. I think people are relieved that there’s no full-scale war, because it was a very tense month and now there’s a sense that it’s over and we’re kind of back to some kind of normalcy, or whatever that means in Lebanon.
Nada AlTaher: We’ve heard repeatedly officials from the US and internationally saying the region was one mistake from an all-out war. But that doesn’t seem to be the case, because several mistakes happened and nobody, as you said, wants war.
But let’s not forget the people who have been impacted directly by all of this, and those are the people of southern Lebanon. What’s the situation in towns and villages near the border? And how have their day-to-day lives changed?
Nada Atallah: It’s actually a very good question because there’s no full-scale war, but there is a war at the border. And because it has less international attention, people tend to forget about it. But the people are suffering.
On the southern border, you have more than 100,000 people displaced because of the violence. You have a 5km to 10km region that’s now completely uninhabitable because of the constant shelling, which created a de facto buffer zone.
School, agriculture and economic life have been completely disrupted for 10 months, even without further escalation, even without a full-scale war. The situation is already unsustainable, especially because Lebanon has been grappling with a severe economic crisis, and it is in no position to help the displaced people and the people suffering from the border conflict.
Nada AlTaher: Netanyahu said that this is not the end, indicating there is more to come. But experts have said Hezbollah has the capability to strike Israel, causing massive damage. Do we expect anything more to happen? And what will it take for this war to spill over beyond Lebanon’s borders, knowing that it has already spilled over beyond Gaza’s borders?
Nada Atallah: I think this round of attack is over. Nasrallah said people can breathe now, they can go back to their houses. But we don’t know what’s going to be the next miscalculation. It’s not the first time tension is peaking, but it’s not going to be the last. So people are well aware of that.
We’re also still waiting for Iran’s retaliation. I think the ceasefire talks kind of delayed the potential retaliation. Maybe it’s buying some time, there’s still the sense that it’s not over, that one round is over.
But it’s very hard to tell what could trigger a full-scale war, because I think red lines are moving. I think, at the start of the war, we used to say that if a civilian was killed, then that would be a red line, if Beirut was targeted, that would be the red line. But we crossed all those red lines and there’s still no full-scale war.
But the longer that low-intensity conflict lingers, the more chance there will be a miscalculation that could trigger a broader conflict in the region.
Nada AlTaher: You mentioned the ceasefire. People in Gaza told us a ceasefire is the only glimmer of hope, even though we don’t seem to be moving any closer to one. What about in Lebanon? Was there any sense of optimism at all of what a ceasefire in Gaza could bring? And does anyone even believe that a ceasefire is going to be secured?
Nada Atallah: Hezbollah has made it clear that it will stop its attacks against Israel in the event there’s a ceasefire in Gaza. The fate of the border conflict is tied to Gaza in that sense. But so far, I don’t think people are very optimistic, because we’ve been hearing for months that the talks are going forward, but we have not seen anything on the ground showing a ceasefire is going to happen.
People have kind of lost faith and they don’t really believe anything is going to happen, until it really happens. I think the common feeling is that mediators are just buying time to push back the Iranian retaliation, but nothing is really happening on the ground.
Nada AlTaher: How much of this spillover is affecting ceasefire talks? I speak to The National’s Hamza Hendawi in Cairo about what led to the breakdown of this latest deal and what hope there is for a ceasefire.
Hamas has rejected the latest proposal but accepted a US proposal in July. How does this recent ceasefire proposal differ from the one Hamas accepted? And what are the sticking points?
Hamza Hendawi: I think Hamas is actually saying it accepted a set of proposals in July for a ceasefire and a swap of hostages for Palestinian detainees, and that those proposals were actually an offshoot of those made by US President Joe Biden on May 31. Sometimes the differences are basically syntax.
Why is Hamas rejecting the latest proposals? Because the latest proposal did not give Hamas what it has consistently asked for from day one, and that is a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a permanent ceasefire. Also, the unconditional return of displaced Palestinians to their homes in Gaza, including the north.
There are also differences that could be worked out, like who among Palestinian detainees held in Israel can be released. There’s also the question, and it’s a very important question, of the fate of the Palestinian side of the Rafah crossing between Egypt and Gaza. And also what happens in the strip that runs the entire length of the Egypt-Gaza border, which is about 14km.
These two areas were occupied by Israel in May, much to the dismay of Egypt, which sees it as a breach of agreements made in 2005 and 2014, and that have been added to the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel in 1979. That is another point Israel is refusing to budge on. It wants to retain forces in the border strip and wants to retain the right to come back and do military operations on any scale it chooses.
Really, Hamas cannot accept anything that falls short of an ironclad promise for a full Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and a permanent ceasefire, in addition to all its demands on the question of the Palestinian detainees it would like to be freed from Israeli jails.
Nada AlTaher: So it’s not just Hamas that has a problem with this proposal? It’s also Egypt?
Hamza Hendawi: Egypt has a very serious problem with the Israeli position on the border strip and the Rafah crossing. I understand that relations between Egypt and Israel are at their lowest ebb since the 1979 peace treaty. Israel is not budging and Egypt is also not budging. They want every single Israeli soldier to leave both areas.
But Egypt has also given in to some of Israel’s demands. Two of these are the construction of a formidable wall that is six metres high and six metres underground, spanning the length of the Egypt-Gaza border. Egypt also does not seem to mind if the Israeli troops in the Salah Al Din strip, also known as the Philadelphi Corridor, are replaced by some sort of a UN peacekeeping force that includes American troops.
As for the Rafah crossing, Egypt firstly insists that a Palestinian entity of some sort must run the Gaza side of the Rafah crossing. And if there is a need for international supervision of the operation there, then so be it. But no Israeli soldiers.
Nada AlTaher: Blinken called the most recent version of this agreement a “bridging proposal” that the Israeli Prime Minister accepted, and the US altogether put the responsibility of accepting it on Hamas. How is this proposal even drawn up? I mean, Hamas later came out with a statement saying it was astonished by the US claims that the group was the one shying away from an agreement. So what’s going on here? How was this most recent proposal drawn up?
Hamza Hendawi: I’m not privy to proceedings behind closed doors, but but it has been the policy of the US in these negotiations to try to put pressure on Hamas to accept whatever it is that Israel is comfortable with.
The bridging proposal that Blinken was speaking about is basically caving in to Netanyahu’s additions and the new conditions he has introduced to the original proposal from Biden.
The US has consistently asked Egyptian and Qatari mediators to put pressure on Hamas to accept whatever is on the table. Hamas can’t do that. Even with 40,000 people dead in this war, Hamas will not accept giving up on its core demands. Otherwise, it would have all been for nothing.
I also understand the bridging proposal between the US and Israel had very little, if any, input from Qatar and Egypt. So Hamas was perhaps correct in dismissing the so-called bridging proposals as yet another Israeli ploy backed by the US to get Hamas to agree to anything.
Nada AlTaher: So what’s the end game here, if we’re not able to reach any sort of agreement? Hamas has made its position clear. There was an agreement that it accepted in July and since then that agreement has changed, and the other mediators have been sidelined. Is there any hope at all of reaching a ceasefire?
Hamza Hendawi: We can’t entirely rule out that some sort of an agreement will be reached at some point in the future. However, there are some key questions about this, like does Israel want this war to stop? The answer is no, for a variety of reasons.
I think this war will drag on, perhaps not at the same level of intensity we have seen in the last 10 months, and it will drag on until after the US elections. The identity of the next US President is one factor, the political strength of the Israeli Prime Minister is another.
Another factor is how many more Israeli soldiers will lose their lives in Gaza and how much of Hamas’s military capabilities can be preserved, despite this devastating military onslaught by Israel. A lot of factors are in play, but if I am to hazard a guess, I would say this war will stay with us at least until the end of the year.
Nada AlTaher: Just as this round of talks began to fall through, Hezbollah and Israel exchanged attacks. We also have the assassination of Hamas political chief Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran. What effect do these events have on the prospects of a ceasefire? Or are diplomacy and military action separate?
Hamza Hendawi: They cannot be separated, diplomacy and military action, not in this instance anyway. But put yourself in Hamas’s place for just a minute, in a war that has been going on for 10 months, while diplomatic efforts to end that war continue simultaneously.
And then you have your enemy kill your chief negotiator. What kind of message do you think this sends to Hamas?
I think the prospect of a wider conflict that is rooted in the Gaza war is very real. But sometimes you get the impression the concerned parties – Iran and its proxies in the region, and Israel – have no interest in a wider war and that Iran’s retaliation for the killing of Haniyeh in Tehran will be more symbolic than deadly. I mean, everyone, including Hezbollah and Iran, are not really interested in seeing destruction and death spread across the Middle East, because if that happens, no one really can predict how it will end or when it will end.
So I think, amid all the bloodshed and destruction and suffering and the tragic events in Gaza, there is a glimpse of reason or caution. And the region probably can use some of that just to prevent a wider conflict from breaking out.
Nada AlTaher: That’s it from Beyond the Headlines. We cover all things Gaza, Lebanon, Hezbollah and ceasefire talks at thenationalnews.com, where you can also get all our latest episodes.
This episode was produced by Ban Barkawi and Arthur Eddyson. Yasmeen Altaji is the assistant producer and Doaa Farid is our editor. And I’m your host Nada AlTaher. Thank you for listening.