Akram Atallah: The Lebanese scenario cannot be applied in Gaza, and the regional context makes Israel believe that Hamas may be ready to make concessions

Dr. Jamal Harfoush: Protests by families of Israeli detainees and Israeli political criticism put Netanyahu under tremendous pressure to strike a deal

Dr. Hussein Al-Deek: The Biden administration is seeking in its final weeks to achieve a temporary truce in Gaza amid the lack of interest from the Israeli government

Fayez Abbas: Netanyahu faces internal pressure from the extreme right to prevent a deal with Hamas and to continue the war until its goals are achieved

Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh: The visit of the Hamas delegation to Cairo, despite its momentum, is not linked to any official Israeli initiative regarding the possibility of concluding a swap deal

In light of the visit of the Hamas delegation to Cairo, and with statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Joe Biden talking about the importance of concluding a deal in the Gaza Strip, questions are being raised about the possibility of repeating the truce scenario between Lebanon and Israel in the Strip.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, political analysts, university professors and specialists believe that regional and international circumstances play a fundamental role in determining the course of the situation in the Gaza Strip, indicating that Israel will continue its military strategies with more pressure on Hamas in order to achieve broader goals that go beyond the exchange deal and temporary calm, such as expanding settlements and tightening control over the Strip.

On the other hand, internal and external pressures on the Israeli government are emerging, especially in light of popular protests and criticism from politicians, which poses major challenges to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to writers, specialists and university professors.

They point out that diplomatic moves, such as the visit of a Hamas delegation to Cairo, confirm regional efforts to try to find a way out of the conflict, but doubts remain about the effectiveness of these initiatives in light of Israeli intransigence and continued American support, while Hamas insists that any agreement must include a ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip.

In a parallel context, analysts are assessing the difference between the situation in Gaza and the Lebanese scenario, noting that the political and geographical conditions in the Strip differ significantly from those that helped conclude agreements in Lebanon, as Gaza is occupied and Lebanon is a sovereign state.

Hamas faces difficult internal and regional circumstances

Writer and political analyst Akram Atallah believes that Hamas is facing difficult internal and regional circumstances, reflected by the changes that have occurred in the balance of power in the region since the negotiations between it and Israel stopped last July.

Atallah points out that Israel was able to invest this period to achieve strategic and security successes, such as assassinating prominent leaders, most notably the heads of the Hamas political bureau, Ismail Haniyeh and Yahya Sinwar, as well as Israel’s success in targeting the military leadership of the Lebanese Hezbollah, which reflects a major shift.

Atallah stresses that Israel succeeded in separating the arenas between the Palestinian factions and the Lebanese Hezbollah, which led to the weakening of Hamas's ability to maneuver politically and militarily.

Atallah asserts that this changing regional context makes Israel believe that Hamas may be willing to make concessions that were not possible at the height of its power, especially after its recent regional losses.

Speaking about the American position, Atallah believes that President Joe Biden cannot be considered a serious mediator in light of the absolute support his administration provides to Israel.

Atallah explains that Biden has shown clear bias over the past months, as he has used his veto power in the Security Council to protect Israeli positions.

Atallah points out that his statements regarding the Israeli prisoners, as an indication of the need to recover them, come as part of an approach that is consistent with Israeli desires, without presenting any initiatives that contradict the Israeli position.

Regarding comparing the situation in Gaza to its counterpart in Lebanon, Atallah explains that the Lebanese scenario cannot be applied to Gaza, for several reasons. Hezbollah operates on the margins of the Lebanese state, while Hamas assumes actual rule in the Gaza Strip.

Atallah believes that Israel will not accept Hamas' return to rule in Gaza even after the end of the current war, pointing out that Netanyahu will not be able to return to the Israelis by keeping Hamas as part of any future agreement in which the movement rules the Gaza Strip and its continued existence means a threat to Israel.

Israel seeks to impose a new project in Gaza that goes beyond security control

Atallah believes that Israel is seeking to impose a new project in Gaza that goes beyond the issue of security control to include expanding settlements and tightening military control.

Atallah points out that Israel will not leave the Gaza Strip under international supervision as happened in Lebanon, but rather aims to maintain a direct security and military presence, and it believes that there is no one yet who rules Gaza on its behalf.

Atallah points out that there are Israeli plans to complicate living conditions in Gaza with the aim of pushing the population to emigrate outside the Strip, in an attempt to change the demographic composition in Israel's favor.

Atallah believes that Israel is working to escalate the situation in the Gaza Strip as part of a broader strategy aimed at achieving its security and demographic goals, ruling out any short-term solutions that might return the situation to what it was before October 7, 2023.

Complexities beyond the political surface

Professor Dr. Jamal Harfoush, Professor of Scientific Research Methods and Political Studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, explains that talk of intensive political and diplomatic movements regarding a new deal indicates complications that go beyond the political surface. The arrival of a delegation from the Hamas movement to Cairo reflects the continuation of Egyptian efforts as an effective mediator, and is an affirmation of its pivotal role in regional issues, including the prisoners’ file.

What is new here, according to Harfoush, may be a change in Israeli calculations as a result of internal and external pressures. The ongoing protests by the families of Israeli detainees and the criticism within Israeli political circles are putting Netanyahu under enormous pressure to strike a deal, in addition to the changes in the international mood, as it seems that the international community has become more aware of the need to find a comprehensive solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

On the other hand, Harfoush points out that Israeli pressures on the Palestinians remain part of its negotiating tools, but the Palestinian side, especially the resistance, realizes the importance of this stage and understands that steadfastness and adherence to rights are the way to achieve legitimate and just gains.

Regarding US President Joe Biden’s statements, Harfoush believes that they reflect the sensitivity of the detainees’ file in Israeli-American policy, as these statements can be interpreted as an implicit message to Netanyahu’s government to speed up action and show tangible results before this issue turns into an additional weak point.

Harfoush points out that Netanyahu, who is fully aware of the American influence on Israeli decisions, is using these statements as a pretext to justify his attempts to reach a deal quickly. The American statements also suggest an implicit coordination between the American administration and the Israeli government to achieve joint political gains. However, American pressure on Israel does not absolve it of responsibility for the continuation of the occupation and the aggressive policies that caused these humanitarian crises in the first place.

Harfoush believes that talk of the “Lebanese scenario” alludes to the experience of indirect negotiations with the Lebanese resistance and the pressures and political tactics that accompanied it, but the Palestinian issue is distinguished by a historical, geographical and political specificity that differs from any other experience.

Harfoush explains that Israel may be trying to emulate some of the negotiation methods it used with Lebanon, but the context in the Palestinian experience is more complex. The Palestinian resistance does not only work within the framework of deterring the occupation or securing the release of prisoners, but rather struggles for the rights of the entire Palestinian people, including the right to self-determination and ending the occupation.

Harfoush believes that any attempt to impose a similar scenario will be futile, because the Palestinians today are more aware and determined to uphold their legitimate rights, as the resistance in Palestine proves that it often takes the initiative, and that it does not submit to pressure as much as it works according to a well-thought-out strategy that preserves the dignity of its people and guarantees their rights.

Israeli attempts to impose surrender terms on the resistance

The writer and political analyst specializing in American affairs, Dr. Hussein Al-Deek, believes that the administration of US President Joe Biden is seeking in its final weeks to achieve a tangible political achievement, represented by reaching a temporary truce in the Gaza Strip, but these efforts face field and political complications, as the Israeli government led by Benjamin Netanyahu seems not to be interested in such an agreement.

Instead, Israel is seeking to impose surrender terms on the resistance in Gaza, taking advantage of continued US support and Trump’s readiness to return to the White House, adding an additional political dimension to this battle, according to Al-Deek.

Al-Deek points out that Netanyahu considers what happened in Lebanon a strategic achievement, as he was able to separate the Hezbollah front from Gaza, which led to turning the Gaza Strip into the only arena for the conflict. This separation reflects an Israeli success in neutralizing the influence of the Lebanese resistance, especially after the agreement that ended military operations in the north.

According to Al-Deek, Netanyahu believes that this agreement enabled the Israeli army to refocus its operations on the Gaza Strip, which increases the targeting of the Palestinian resistance more intensively.

He explains that Israel seeks to establish its presence in the Gaza Strip, citing the Israeli Housing Minister and the head of the Settlements Council storming areas near the Gaza Strip, accompanied by representatives of the Nahala settlement movement. This storming included studying detailed maps and distributing land to settlers, which indicates Israel's intention to build new settlements in Gaza, similar to its projects in the West Bank.

Israeli government working to cancel the 2005 disengagement law

Al-Deek points out that at the legislative level, the Israeli government is working to cancel the 2005 Disengagement Law, which led to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza settlements, and new legislation is currently being discussed in the Knesset that would allow settlers to return to some of the areas that were previously evacuated, as happened with a similar law regarding the settlements in the northern West Bank from which they withdrew.

Al-Deek points out that in addition to this, Israel has begun to establish military infrastructure, including observation towers and permanent military sites along corridors such as Netzarim and Kosefim, reflecting a clear intention to maintain a permanent military presence in the Strip.

Al-Deek explains that the Palestinian resistance realizes that the only card it has is the issue of the Israeli prisoners, and therefore, it will not give up this card easily, but will stick to its demands, which are the complete withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Strip and the achievement of a permanent ceasefire. Also, any attempt by Netanyahu to release the prisoners without committing to a complete withdrawal will be met with rejection.

Al-Deek believes that Netanyahu's strategy aims to use the prisoners' issue as a negotiating card to complete military operations, which makes any truce or temporary agreement unlikely at the present time.

Al-Deek points out that the comparison between the Lebanon agreement and the situation in Gaza is not accurate due to the great difference in internal and external determinants. In Lebanon, there is an existing state with its legitimate institutions, which helped to reach an agreement between two states under a regional engineering that included France and the United States, in addition to local factors such as the Taif equations and the March 14 forces.

As for Gaza, Al-Deek confirms that the situation is completely different, as the Strip is suffering from a comprehensive war of extermination without the presence of local or international institutions capable of intervening, and Israel is exploiting this situation to implement its occupation policies, which makes any talk of a scenario similar to Lebanon in Gaza unrealistic.

Al-Deek points out that the entry of Turkish mediation into the crisis may contribute to resolving some issues, but he rules out that this will lead to a comprehensive agreement, especially since the main dilemma remains Israel's rejection of any complete withdrawal from the Strip.

Al-Deek believes that the Palestinian resistance will not give up its demands, which makes reaching a permanent truce or comprehensive agreement out of reach under the current circumstances.

Major obstacles facing Egyptian efforts

Fayez Abbas, a writer specializing in Israeli affairs, explains that Egyptian efforts to reach a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange deal face major obstacles due to Israel’s rejection of Hamas’s conditions, as Hamas’s demand for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is considered non-negotiable by the Israeli side.

According to Abbas, on the contrary, there are clear Israeli plans regarding settlement in the northern Gaza Strip, as the Israeli Minister of Housing prepared detailed maps in cooperation with settler leaders, during which land was distributed to right-wing settlement organizations, which confirms that Israel seeks to achieve long-term strategic goals that go beyond the ceasefire.

Abbas points out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared his readiness to consider a ceasefire, but he refuses to end the war completely.

Abbas believes that this position reflects the intentions of the Israeli government to continue military operations to achieve its goals, most notably imposing a new settlement reality in Gaza.

Abbas points out that Netanyahu's statements indicate a lack of serious intention to reach a comprehensive agreement, which further complicates international diplomatic efforts.

Regarding the American position, Abbas believes that President Joe Biden is seeking to achieve a diplomatic achievement before the end of his term, which is the release of Israeli detainees, especially those who hold American citizenship, and stopping the war in Gaza, but Biden's attempts have faced obstacles from Netanyahu, who opposes reaching a deal for personal and political reasons.

Abbas points out that Netanyahu wants to give this achievement to his friend, US President-elect Donald Trump, instead of Biden.

Abbas explains that Netanyahu is facing internal pressure from the extreme Israeli right, especially from Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who reject any deal with Hamas and call for continuing the war until its full goals are achieved. This pressure threatens the future of Netanyahu's government, as these ministers have threatened to topple it if any settlement is accepted.

A radical difference between the Lebanese and Palestinian cases

In the context of comparing the war on Lebanon and Hezbollah, Abbas points to a fundamental difference between the two cases. In Lebanon, an agreement was reached between two states, while in Gaza there is no recognized state or government that can negotiate with Israel. Moreover, the Israeli army in the Lebanese war was in dire need of ending the war due to military exhaustion and a lack of supplies. This is a situation completely different from the war in Gaza, through which Israel aims to achieve long-term strategic and security goals.

Abbas stresses that the continuation of military operations reflects Israel's desire to impose a new reality in Gaza that includes controlling larger areas of land and completing its settlement project.

International mediation lacks the momentum needed to pressure Israel

The writer specializing in Israeli affairs, Muhammad Abu Allan Daraghmeh, explains that the visit of a Hamas delegation to Cairo, despite its momentum, is not linked to any official Israeli initiative regarding the possibility of concluding a prisoner exchange deal, as the head of the Israeli occupation government, Benjamin Netanyahu, adheres to his position of rejecting any prisoner exchange deal linked to a cessation of the war or the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip.

Draghmeh points out that Netanyahu had previously expressed his willingness to conclude a limited exchange deal that he described as “humanitarian,” but he refuses that this step will lead to an end to the aggression or the withdrawal of the occupation forces. This approach is in line with his previous statements in which he called for occupying Gaza for several years with the aim of what he described as “reshaping the mentality of the population,” ending their support for the Palestinian resistance, and eliminating the threat of Hamas that threatens Israel.

Draghmeh points out that international mediation, whether Qatari or Egyptian, lacks the momentum needed to pressure Israel, while behind-the-scenes moves continue, and the pressures seem focused on Hamas, not Israel.

He explains that the current situation reflects a decline in the effective international role, especially with the absence of a decisive American position, whether before or after the presidential elections. In addition, Qatar, which was previously a major mediating player in the mediation efforts, has not resumed its role after it was suspended, which leaves the door open for timid moves by other parties.

Regarding US President Joe Biden’s statements in which he described the Trump administration’s waiting to conclude a deal as “madness” against the backdrop of the visit of the families of the Israeli detainees to the White House, Daraghmeh points out that these families requested direct intervention from Biden and called for the involvement of President-elect Donald Trump in the negotiations to pressure Netanyahu.

American influence remains limited

However, Draghmeh believes that the American influence on the file, whether before or after the elections, remains limited, and is unlikely to witness a major change during the remainder of Biden's term.

On the other hand, Draghmeh points out that there is talk within Israeli circles about re-settling the Gaza Strip as part of the Israeli government’s plans, which confirms that this trend is no longer limited to the Israeli Ministers of National Security and Finance, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, but has become an issue adopted by multiple components of the government coalition, including ministers, Knesset members, and settlement institutions. This trend reflects an Israeli strategy aimed at imposing a new reality on the ground, which complicates the possibility of reaching a comprehensive calm.

Regarding the possibility of applying a scenario similar to what happened on the northern front with Hezbollah to the Gaza Strip, Draghmeh believes that the situation in Gaza is radically different.

The occupation refuses to withdraw from Gaza or stop the aggression

Draghmeh asserts that the Israeli occupation seeks to achieve military and political gains in the Gaza Strip, but it rejects withdrawal or a comprehensive cessation of aggression, as the broad Israeli government support for the continuation of operations reinforces this trend, which makes the Lebanese scenario unlikely under the current circumstances.

Draghmeh believes that the current scene comes in the context of a reflection of the intransigence of Israeli positions, as Netanyahu rejects any concessions that may be interpreted as weakness, and while international and regional movements continue, the prisoner exchange file remains stuck in the absence of effective international will and pressures limited to the Hamas movement.