Why are negotiations for a ceasefire in Gaza failing to produce results?

The humanitarian tragedy in Gaza has caused the international community to turn its eyes to the conflict. However, ceasefire negotiations have failed to materialize. What are the main reasons behind this situation? Why have negotiations between Israel and Hamas stalled?

At the beginning of the negotiations, Israel’s position was very clear: The decision not to withdraw from Gaza. Israel rejected demands for a complete withdrawal from Gaza as a condition for a ceasefire. The Israeli government, led by Netanyahu, argued that withdrawal from Gaza would pose a major threat to Israel’s security. Over time, however, there have been some detente between the parties. However, these détente did not prevent the negotiations from breaking down.

American pressure: fruitless attempts

Despite US Secretary of State Antony Blinken taking an active role in the negotiations, no lasting solution has been reached between the parties. On May 31, Hamas announced its acceptance of a ceasefire plan proposed by US President Joe Biden. However, Israeli conditions prevented the implementation of this plan. Netanyahu’s conditions, especially those put forward due to security concerns, are seen as the biggest obstacle to the ceasefire.

Hamas Proposals and Israel’s Reaction

At the beginning of the negotiations, Hamas presented a plan for a gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This plan envisaged a gradual Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, starting with a withdrawal from the settlements, followed by a withdrawal to the border areas and finally a complete withdrawal. However, it was not possible for Israel to accept this plan due to Netanyahu’s security concerns. In particular, the area known as the “Philadelphia Corridor” stands out as one of the most important points that caused the negotiations to stall.

Philadelphia Corridor: The Key Point of the Negotiations

The Philadelphia Corridor was of strategic importance even before the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. The corridor is located on the Egyptian-Gaza border and is known as the site of tunnels used by Hamas to smuggle weapons, ammunition and other supplies. Israel argues that staying in this corridor is vital to prevent Hamas from resuming operations. However, Hamas does not want to accept Israel’s presence in this area.

Second Strategic Corridor: The Risk of Gaza Dividing in Two

Another critical point is the second strategic corridor that bisects Gaza. Israel wants to control crossings from north to south. Hamas, on the other hand, says that this corridor is unacceptable because it allows Gaza to be divided in two. This is another important reason for the deadlock in the negotiations.

America’s Guarantorship and Turkey’s Role

For the negotiations to be successful, a mechanism is needed to ensure that the parties are under guarantee. Turkey’s involvement as a guarantor country is considered an important step in this sense. However, this proposal has not yet been fully accepted by the parties.

The Fragility of the Ceasefire and Iran’s Position

In the Middle East, speaking with certainty can be very misleading, but in the current situation there is a faint hope that a ceasefire can be reached. However, it should be kept in mind that this ceasefire will be extremely fragile. Meanwhile, it is known that Iran is planning to retaliate against a possible assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. However, Iran prefers to postpone this retaliation for the time being, prioritizing its national interests.

Conclusion Problems Awaiting Resolution

Negotiations on a ceasefire in Gaza are bogged down by the security concerns and strategic interests of the parties. Israel’s insistence on remaining in the Philadelphia Corridor, Hamas’ opposition to the division of Gaza in two, and Netanyahu’s insistence on his conditions despite American pressure stand out as the biggest obstacles to the negotiations. For a lasting peace in the Middle East, it seems imperative for the parties to find a common ground. However, under the current circumstances, it remains unclear when this compromise will be achieved.