An Israeli negotiation team would have extended his stay in the Qatari Doha capitalOne day after the American envoy in the Middle East Steve Witkoff was in town to try to find a path to follow between Israel and Hamas.
The agreement would have on the cards is an extension of the ceasefire for a maximum of 60 days in exchange for five and 10 living Israeli captives held in Gaza.
While Hamas previously rejected a similar agreement, they can be more temporary after direct meetings between US hostage sent Adam Boehler And the best officials in Hamas in recent weeks. Boehler had said that the meetings had gone well and suggested that an agreement was on the cards for a potential long-term ceasefire, which caused a reaction of Israel and pro-Israeli politicians.
There are even reports that Boehler has been removed from the Israel-Gaza file, but these reports can be premature.
Let’s take a closer look.
What is the agreement under negotiation?
An agreement between Israel and Hamas had already been concluded, which included three phases and was ultimately leading to a permanent ceasefire. The first phase involved a limited exchange of Israeli captives and Palestinian prisoners, as well as a temporary cease-fire and Israel allowing an increase in humanitarian aid in Gaza. The details of the second phase were to be negotiated, but the previous American administration of President Joe Biden clearly indicated that the first phase would continue until the second phase could be agreed.
Israel ignored this, and even if he did not restart a total war against Gaza, he threatened to do so and blocked the entry of all humanitarian aid, as well as electricity.
At the beginning of March, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu presented a new proposal, which he said came from Witkoff – although the American envoy has never been published. Netanyahu’s office said the agreement would see the ceasefire extended for six weeks and half of the captives in Gaza – Dead and Alive – released on the first day of the extension.
Although this was initially rejected by Hamas, the current agreement under negotiation in Doha seems to be similar, although criticisms always say that Netanyahu has no desire to end the war permanently, because he fears that his government collapses if he does it.
What about Boehler’s negotiations?
While Boehler’s mandate did not extend to the five Israeli-American captives, including four dead, it seems that direct talks had the possibility not only to obtain a lasting ceasefire, but potentially the release of all the captives held by Hamas.
Addressing both the Israeli and American media last Sunday, Boehler said he had taken advantage of the opportunity to engage directly with Hamas, winning a commitment to maintain a cease-fire from five to 10 years old, laying down and renouncing control of the Gaza Strip.
Boehler clearly indicated that he had not coordinated with Israel before speaking with Hamas, and added in an interview that the United States was “not an agent of Israel” and had his own “specific interests at stake”.
How did Israel react to the news of direct talks?
Not well.
The Minister of Finance of Israel, Bezalel Smotrich [Boehler] that he cannot speak on our behalf, and if he wishes to negotiate on behalf of the United States, then good luck to him. “
Ron Dermer, the Minister of Strategic Affairs of Israel and a close confident of Netanyahu, would have been “fallen several times” to Boehler at night before the news of the talks became public.
The former head of the Israeli Security Service, the Shin Bet and the current Minister of Agriculture, Avi Dichter, also criticized the American initiative, saying to Israeli radio that the United States direct talks compromised Israeli negotiations. “It is very dangerous when you undertake movements without knowing and without coordinating with the Israeli side,” said Dichter.
The Israeli campaign against Boehler continued in the press, with an Israel editorial separating the comments from Boehler, to mark the “complacent, confused and dangerously naive” envoy.
Did Trump abandon Boehler?
When the news of the American talks emerged at the beginning of the month, the press secretary of the White House, Karoline Leavitt, said that Trump had supported them because they were “the right thing for the American people”.
But following Boehler’s comments to the press last Sunday, Israeli reports emerged by saying that the hostage envoy did not represent the position of the White House, and that Witkoff would continue to take the lead on the negotiations.
Then, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose most important portfolios in Ukraine and the Middle East seem to have been taken by Witkoff, said on Monday that talks were a “punctual situation” that had failed.
The reports alternated Thursday between the claims which said that Boehler would no longer deal with Israel and Gaza, and others who said that he would continue to support Witkoff.
A Jewish Insider report included quotes from several anonymous Republican senators repressing Boehler, with a suggesting that he had “lost all confidence”.
Does this count?
Until Trump himself speaks, it is difficult to assess what is his real position on the issue. It may be that it may simply be decided.
But in any case, the fact that the senators mentioned did not want their name to be published can show that they always hide their bets and avoid being considered as coupling.
Translections with Hamas, even if the United States does not repeat them, are a sign that the Trump administration takes the lead of Gaza and drags Israel and Netanyahu with them.
Israel depends entirely on the United States for military and diplomatic support. In addition, in the light of Trump’s unexpected increase in traditional American alliances, such as those with Canada and Europe, many in Israel fear that Trump’s support for their war against Gaza is also inconsistent.
Responding to the news of direct talks, the Israeli daily Haaretz has hypothesized that the existence of American negotiations with Hamas was the proof of both Trump’s “frustration” with Netanyahu, as well as the revelation of the own objectives of the American administration, mainly: “release hostages, put an end to war, regional peace, regional peace, [and] Saudi capital “, that he was ready to” realize … by all means “.
