The End of War or a New Political Process?

One might say finally, hoping this sigh is the final one. The war seems to be nearing its end after an agreement was reached on the first phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s proposal; however, as usual, one remains worried until the agreement is definitively established, despite the fact that the subsequent phases of Trump’s proposal indicate national catastrophes concerning the future of the Gaza Strip. For a moment, a follower can realize that everyone seems to be more concerned with just the first phase, which raises fears of an explosion of the situation afterward. This concern stems from understanding the nature of all players' motives and anticipating their actions based on these motives. Nothing is certain at the moment, except that the ceasefire has come into effect even though the war has not actually ended. There are great hopes and huge expectations that accompanied the efforts of the American president, who received praise from all parties, except for the one entity he sought approval from, referring to the Nobel Committee. Nevertheless, the agreement remains fragile and weak, while digging deeper into the parties' motives leads to pessimism that carries real disasters in case the situation erupts again. Nonetheless, as we know, the war has ended, meaning any escalation may take on different forms. Furthermore, this is not a matter of guesswork or conjecture, as all indicators suggest that everyone was concerned with the first clause of the agreement since it is the essence of preventing the continuation of the war.

For Israel, the top priority is the return of the twenty living prisoners and then the bodies of those killed during the war, especially for a number of reasons, the first of which relates to the aspirations of the Israeli street, not Prime Minister Netanyahu’s desire. If Netanyahu wants three things, they are war, then war, and then war. When asking the smallest Palestinian how much he trusts the Israeli side, the answer will not exceed zero; thus, there seems to be a justified doubt that once Netanyahu obtains the prisoners, he might think about how to escalate the situation. He will use the issue of the bodies as a pretext to claim that "Hamas" has not adhered to what was agreed upon. If he is deterred, he will develop the work of the international committee to become an Israeli tool (which may not please some countries participating in it and may withdraw later) to legitimize the continuation of Israeli military presence in the sector. This requires some relationship with "Hamas".

Note that the formation of an international force, with the participation of Israel and the United States, will necessarily mean the presence of "Hamas" with it to coordinate the search operations; after all, who can speculate about the places of burial or disappearance of the prisoners’ bodies but "Hamas"? Accordingly, we may witness a "halal" security and field coordination this time because it will be under the presence of the "haram," which is represented by international forces. Remember that one of the main features of politics in the Middle East is that the temporary becomes permanent. The Oslo Agreement, which was supposed to last only five years, has extended for thirty years, among other evidence in neighboring countries, for instance, the conflict in Syria before the fall of Assad persisted for almost 15 years. What this suggests is that the maps that have been published for the Gaza Strip, which divide the sector into four sectoral areas (Oslo used letters A, B, and C, and Trump’s agreement used colors because we must be different from the cursed Oslo) may become permanent areas or the basis upon which the future of the Gaza Strip is determined.

As for "Hamas," it knows that accepting all of Trump’s proposals means its complete exclusion from the political and national scene, especially after its voluntary acceptance to dismantle its weaponry and hand it over, and the exile of its leaders. Thus, the best solution was to entice Trump with the Israeli prisoners. Remember those for whom Gaza paid such a heavy price to capture. Partially, "Hamas" succeeded in making Trump’s document a subject for negotiation after it was offered to them either to accept it or reject it. And "Hamas" might think that by doing so, it will evade the other provisions of Trump’s document, and it would be wrong then; because it will have to choose between implementing the remaining provisions or returning to war or a comprehensive agreement with Israel under a new peace process. Note how Trump has recently been talking about a peace process and "Hamas's" readiness for peace. Also, when asked about his opinion on the two-state solution, he said he was not sure about it. Because the inevitable result of the arrangements that Trump’s agreement laid down if implemented to the letter or if "Hamas" were tamed to enter into a political process with Israel concerning Gaza is a "Palestinian entity" in Gaza. Here we can question the role of the Authority and its position in all that is happening; although many say the Authority should not attend the negotiations that took place so it does not bear the consequences of "Hamas’s" mistakes in its wars, the painful question still remains: Was this absence justified? And if so, will there be a moment when it will have a role? To put it plainly, "Did we talk to anyone on the subject, did anyone talk to us?".

As for Trump, all he cares about is embracing the Israeli prisoners and recording that he is the one who released them and that he is the one who stopped the war, even if it will flare up afterward, at least he succeeded in pressuring everyone, and in fact, what happened could not have been achieved without his aggressive personality with everyone. Generally, Trump will try to achieve what he spoke of regarding a political process, and this time "Hamas" will be a party in it.

For Israel, once again, anything is possible and acceptable except for the establishment of a Palestinian state. Everything is possible, even an agreement with "Hamas." As for the objectives of the war, they have always been mere propaganda material, nothing more, subject to change from time to time, and that is exactly what Netanyahu did.