The Hebrew newspaper "Haaretz" revealed on Wednesday that Israel had previously committed to the United States and Egypt to limit the fighting at the Rafah crossing only and control it in preparation for transforming its management into a security guard company.

The newspaper explains, based on Israeli sources, that in a conversation with the American and Egyptian sides, the Israeli side said that the goal of the operation in Rafah was to extract Hamas’s control over the crossing, which allows it to smuggle weapons and collect taxes.

Haaretz explains that deliberations are taking place in recent weeks with an American guard company, and continues: “Israel has committed to Egypt and America that the operation will remain limited to eastern Rafah. Control of the Rafah crossing will be transferred to the American company after the Israeli army finishes the operation in the place, and Israel has pledged not to harm the infrastructure so that it remains possible to operate it later. During deliberations on this, she said that the operation in Rafah aims to put pressure on Hamas to push through the prisoner deal and to harm an authoritarian symbol of the movement, as it is the only external lifeline linking the Gaza Strip to the world and which Hamas uses to smuggle weapons and collect taxes,” according to the newspaper.

Detainees not Rafah

Haaretz said in its editorial today, under the title “Yes to the kidnapped, no to Rafah,” that the text approved by Hamas is not the original text, and some of its provisions are problematic, and there is logic to Israel’s demands to improve it. But instead of taking Hamas' approval and turning it into a deal that returns all the detainees as the families demand, Netanyahu prefers to occupy Rafah.

The newspaper goes on to warn of the consequences of the Rafah operation: “It is true that no one was surprised by Netanyahu’s office’s statement that the war council unanimously decided to continue the operation in Rafah in order to exert military pressure on Hamas with the aim of liberating the detainees and achieving the rest of the war’s goals, but it is a shame that Gantz also repeated this.” Lying by saying that the operation in Rafah is part of the continuation of the efforts and our commitment to recover detainees and change the security reality.”

Threatening the lives of detainees

Among its warnings, Haaretz explains that in reality, despite the endless fighting, those who pay the price for these policies are the detainees themselves: the continuation of the fighting has killed many of them, and continues to threaten those remaining alive. It stresses that an operation in Rafah will not lead to their liberation, but rather the opposite, as it harms this possibility, and would deepen the humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip and increase the number of Palestinian victims.

“Haaretz” notes that it revealed that Israel committed to Washington and Cairo to specify the operation in Rafah, and this is important, but it is forbidden that a possible failure in negotiations on a deal would lead to a violation of the commitment and exacerbate the situation on the ground, warning that the fighting in Rafah also threatens diplomatic relations with Egypt and Jordan. This would thwart possible normalization with Saudi Arabia.

The newspaper concludes by saying: “The Americans claim that the gap between Israel and Hamas can be bridged. Now there is an opportunity: an Israeli delegation and a Hamas delegation are in Cairo, and they can reach consensus. This is the moment to put aside the populism of Ben Gvir, Smotrich, and the rest of the far-right members within the government, and show leadership and make sound decisions. The only way to get the detainees back is to act courageously and sign a deal, even if it comes at a painful price.”

Warning of a massive invasion

Amos Harel, a military analyst at Haaretz, joins the warnings about the consequences of the operation in Rafah, who says that it is taking place somewhere between the two goals of the war: dismantling Hamas’ capabilities and liberating the detainees. In a very optimistic scenario, the military pressure now being exerted in Rafah will lead to assistance in an exchange deal, but there is still a danger if the process expands to the point of occupying Rafah, which will prevent progress in the negotiations.

Harel believes that the operation in Rafah was limited only as a result of disagreements over its usefulness and priorities, and primarily Washington's opposition to it.

It is also believed that the operation aims to extract an important authoritarian symbol from Hamas, which is the Gaza Strip’s only crossing with the world, claiming that the killing of the four soldiers in Kerem Shalom encouraged the occupation of the crossing. He says that new losses will motivate Israel to expand the occupation towards the city to reduce shooting at the occupying forces.

Harel warns that Israeli stubbornness to work in the heart of a crowded area in Rafah will precipitate a direct conflict with the Biden administration, and would take the deal off the agenda and leave the detainees to die in the city.

That is, Rafah.. Why a deal?

The prominent political commentator in Yedioth Ahronoth, Nahum Barnea, also warns that the Rafah operation is limited, seeks a symbolic goal, and involves a double maneuver, saying that Israel did not attack Rafah, but only the crossing, and there is a difference between the two cases. He says that the Rafah operation has nothing to do with the deal, as it did not soften Hamas' position, nor did it disrupt the negotiations.

Baniyaa adds: “Netanyahu is present in the slingshot: he cannot allow himself to postpone the deal publicly, and he cannot allow himself to accept it either.”

He warns that, in contrast to the messages that the Israelis have received in the last two days from the government, there are two matters or facts: First: The deal proposed by Hamas is not far from the text that Israel ratified. There are gaps between the two parties, but they are not the basis now. The most important news is that there is a detailed and clear sample. This is how the world understands it, from Washington to Gaza.

Barnea, who ignores the fact that the devil lies in the details, once again doubts Netanyahu's intentions: The question: What does Hamas want is a clear question, and what remains is what Netanyahu wants. A document received by decision makers addressing Netanyahu's claim that Hamas' response closes the door on negotiations demonstrates that this is completely inaccurate. There is something to talk about. The second thing that contradicts the messages of the Rafah story, according to Barnea, who speaks in a sarcastic language, is that Israel did not attack Rafah, did not occupy it, and did not thank God for our salvation in Rafah. Rather, it took control of the crossing and raised the Israeli flag there. The battalion commander said: “Rafah is in our hands,” as if it had occupied Har Habayet (the Holy Mosque). Explaining that Netanyahu's decision on Sunday night to go to Rafah is the basis of his unique maneuver. He says to the Americans, “We did not occupy Rafah,” and to his right-wing fans, he says: “We occupied Rafah.”