Dr. Amr Hussein: Intensive efforts to reach a temporary truce in Gaza before Trump’s inauguration.. and Israel will not make any political concessions at this stage

Nizar Nazzal: Israel does not seek a comprehensive cessation of war, considers the Palestinian state an existential threat, and is trying to fragment any efforts to achieve this goal

Yasser Manna: Israeli near-consensus on accepting a partial deal and rejecting any talk of understandings that would give the Palestinians long-term political gains

Imad Moussa: Netanyahu's government is not interested in establishing a Palestinian state, but rather seeks to achieve temporary calm that allows it to focus on other issues

Mohammad Hawash: Linking talks on the deal to any steps towards establishing a Palestinian state or normalizing relations with Israel is far from reality

The region is witnessing intense diplomatic activity, with talk of the possibility of reaching a deal in the Gaza Strip soon, while there is talk of a series of deals that include establishing a Palestinian state and normalization with Israel.

There are increasing indications that a deal could be reached within the next two weeks. According to Israeli media, there is talk of arrangements for a ceasefire in Gaza, coinciding with the arrival of the Director of the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in Doha to follow up on developments in the deal. At the same time, reports have emerged that the team of US President-elect Donald Trump has received Saudi messages stressing that normalization with Israel will not be achieved until the war on the Gaza Strip stops.

In separate interviews with “I”, writers, analysts and specialists explain that the prisoner exchange deal between Israel and the Palestinian factions in Gaza includes a temporary truce and a ceasefire in the Strip. At the same time, the efforts of the United States have reached their peak, as American reports confirm the existence of pressure on Israel, while the Director of the American Central Intelligence Agency is following up on movements related to the deal during his visit to Doha. However, questions remain open about the nature of this agreement and the extent of Israel’s readiness to withdraw completely from Gaza and achieve a permanent cessation of war.

On the other hand, there is talk about efforts to establish a Palestinian state, but writers, analysts and specialists believe that there are major obstacles to it, as Israel has issued laws that criminalize any attempts to reach an agreement that leads to this goal.

They point out that Benjamin Netanyahu's government insists that the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders constitutes an existential threat, and therefore it shows no willingness to make concessions, especially with Israeli policies focusing on annexation and control in the West Bank.

As for normalization, according to writers, analysts and specialists, there are indications that the official Saudi position links normalization with Israel to achieving tangible steps towards stopping the war in Gaza and achieving progress in the Palestinian political track.

According to writers and specialists, these developments put the region at a crossroads, between a temporary calm that may last, and the continued ambiguity about achieving comprehensive solutions that address the roots of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Large gaps hinder reaching an agreement

The writer and political analyst specializing in international relations and strategy, Dr. Amr Hussein, believes that there are intensive efforts to stop the war in the Gaza Strip before the inauguration of US President-elect Donald Trump on January 20.

Hussein points out that the United States is working hard to reach an agreement to end the war, which may provide an opportunity to begin a phase of temporary calm and rearrange the cards.

Hussein explains that American reports show that there are large gaps between Hamas and Israel that prevent reaching a final agreement, or even a partial agreement.

Hussein believes that the form of the settlement is still unclear, as all the terms of the agreement have not yet been determined. However, the negotiations may lead to a 60-day truce that includes a ceasefire and a prisoner exchange. However, the expected Israeli withdrawal will be partial, with no indication of a complete withdrawal from the Strip.

Hussein asserts that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has destroyed everything in the Gaza Strip and no longer has new military targets. The Israeli aggression has also resulted in the martyrdom of 45,000 Palestinians and the injury of 130,000 others, making the Gaza Strip a completely disaster area.

Regarding any deal or agreement that includes the establishment of a Palestinian state, Hussein points out that Israel will not make any political concessions at this stage, as the Israeli Knesset has issued a decision preventing the establishment of a future Palestinian state, considering that the establishment of a state on the 1967 borders constitutes a threat to Israel’s security.

Regarding the regional role, Hussein points to the intensive Egyptian efforts to stop the war, as Cairo plays a pivotal role in relation to the deal, and the visit of the Director of the American Central Intelligence Agency, William Burns, to Doha, all of which enhance the proximity of reaching an agreement on the deal, and these visits aim to enhance diplomatic efforts to achieve a calm in Gaza.

Despite the international efforts, Hussein stresses that the biggest challenge in the next phase is the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip.

Hussein points out that the Gaza Strip needs more than $100 billion for reconstruction, stressing that reconstruction requires international coordination and integrated efforts to restore life to the Strip, which is suffering from a catastrophic humanitarian crisis.

Hussein points out that the next stage may witness an initial agreement that reduces the tension, but it will not be the final solution to the conflict.

Hussein stresses that any calm will be temporary unless the root causes of the crisis are addressed, noting that reconstruction and ensuring long-term stability require significant international support and courageous political decisions.

Intense diplomatic activity and moves towards major regional deals

Nizar Nazzal, a researcher specializing in Israeli affairs and conflict issues, believes that the region is witnessing intense diplomatic activity, amid clear moves towards major regional deals.

Nazzal points out that US President-elect Donald Trump has practically begun working on his political agenda before he officially assumes office on January 20, and it appears that there is intense and direct pressure from the United States on Israel, which is evident in the change in the tone and statements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which have become less severe compared to what they were during the past 14 months.

He explains that the scene in the Gaza Strip is heading towards a temporary truce in stages, but it is governed by a limited timetable.

Nazzal believes that Israel is not seeking a comprehensive cessation of the war in Gaza, but rather a temporary ceasefire, which would allow it to rearrange its strategy in the Strip.

Nazzal believes that Netanyahu is relying on replicating the experience of southern Lebanon, where Israel is focusing on partial withdrawal and positioning itself in locations that allow the use of air power and artillery when needed without the need for a permanent military presence.

Nazzal believes that the strategy of “intermittent truces” reflects Israel’s desire to achieve its goals without an official or written commitment with the Palestinian factions, which shows Netanyahu’s refusal to sign any comprehensive ceasefire agreement or complete withdrawal from Gaza. Instead, he aims to manage the conflict intermittently to achieve interim goals, especially with regard to the release of Israeli detainees in exchange for a temporary calm.

Regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, Nazzal stresses that Israel categorically rejects this option, explaining that the Israeli Knesset has passed multiple readings of decisions criminalizing any attempts or signing of agreements that lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian entity.

Nazzal believes that the current Israeli government considers the establishment of a Palestinian state an existential threat, and adopts policies aimed at fragmenting any attempts to achieve this goal.

He points out that the next stage will be full of diplomatic activity, but these movements will not lead to any real political breakthrough.

Calming the fronts without extinguishing them

Nazzal describes these diplomatic moves as "political maneuvering", aiming to calm the fronts without extinguishing them.

Nazzal believes that the coming scenario will be a cooling of the conflicts, with the continuation of the “intermittent conflict” based on air strikes and limited confrontations when Israel sees a specific threat.

Nazzal points out that Israel is now moving from confronting Palestinian movements and factions to confronting regional countries, speaking about the possibility of Israeli strikes on Yemen and Iraq in the near future, as part of its efforts to limit Iran’s influence in the region, noting that Israel may target Iranian nuclear facilities as part of its strategy to confront the Iranian threat.

Nazzal believes that these steps may shuffle the political cards in the region, but they will not achieve long-term stability.

He points out that the United States and some Arab and Gulf countries are exerting great pressure on Israel to end the escalation in Gaza.

In his opinion, these pressures come as a result of the absence of clear military objectives for Israel inside the Strip after the last months of military operations. However, Israel prefers to manage the conflict rather than resolve it radically, which explains its adoption of a strategy of intermittent truces.

Nazzal believes that the next phase will be very sensitive, as Israel will move towards managing the conflict using the “vertical conflict” method, which depends on gathering intelligence and directing concentrated strikes when needed, while maintaining a state of relative calm. However, Nazzal warns that this strategy could lead to continued instability in the region.

Nazzal points out that the intermittent truces that Israel seeks to impose are nothing but attempts to cool the fronts without a radical solution to the conflict.

Nazzal stresses that this strategy aims to prevent a comprehensive escalation while keeping the Palestinians under constant pressure.

Nazzal believes that this policy reflects a long-term Israeli vision of containing the conflict without making real concessions, which makes regional stability an unattainable goal under these conditions.

The possibility of achieving an interim agreement that may begin with a ceasefire

Writer and expert on Israeli affairs Yasser Manna believes that the talks related to concluding a prisoner exchange deal between the Palestinian factions in Gaza and Israel indicate the possibility of achieving a transitional agreement that may begin with a ceasefire, then be implemented in stages until the war ends completely.

Manaa explains that there are signs of optimism coming from the Israeli media and statements by Palestinian factions, which enhances the possibility of reaching partial understandings. However, the most important question for the Palestinian factions remains: Is Israel prepared for a complete withdrawal from the Strip and a permanent cessation of the war?

Manaa points out that one of the most prominent Israeli questions at this stage is related to how to manage the Gaza Strip after the end of the war.

He asked: "Does Israel want to have only a service administration in Gaza, while keeping security in its hands?" He explained that Israel might be prepared to end the war if this form of administration is agreed upon, but he doubts the possibility of achieving a comprehensive agreement that guarantees full Palestinian sovereignty over the Strip.

Regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state, Manna believes that this option is out of reach, especially in light of Israeli policies that focus on annexation and control of the West Bank.

Manaa stresses that Israel considers annexation necessary not only for political reasons, but also for security reasons, especially after the events of October 7.

Manaa points out that the next stage will witness intensive Israeli attempts to consolidate its control over Area C in the West Bank, while marginalizing any idea of establishing a future Palestinian political entity.

Regarding the ongoing talks on the deal, Manna indicates that the expected deal in Gaza may be partial and not comprehensive, as Israel views the deal from the perspective of releasing Israeli detainees only, without making major concessions.

It shows that the Palestinian view of the deal differs radically, as the Palestinian factions believe that the deal must include a complete Israeli withdrawal and an end to the war.

Manna explains that Israel is not yet showing any seriousness in discussing broader political issues related to ending the war comprehensively or offering a political price in exchange for the deal.

Manna points out that there is a near consensus within Israel to accept a partial deal, while rejecting any talk of comprehensive political understandings that might give the Palestinians long-term gains.

Manaa points out that there are clear Palestinian fears that Israel may break the agreements after reaching them.

In this context, Manaa explains that Hamas is demanding written pledges to ensure Israel's commitment to the agreement.

Manaa points out that Israel seeks, through these understandings, to end the war in Gaza in order to devote itself to plans for annexation and control in the West Bank.

He stresses that Israel's strategic goal is to separate the Palestinians from each other geographically and politically, which hinders any possibility of achieving national unity or establishing a future Palestinian political entity.

Manaa believes that Israel seeks to achieve this goal by imposing a new reality on the ground in the West Bank, after ensuring a calming of the situation in Gaza.

Manna believes that the potential deal in Gaza, despite the relative optimism surrounding it, may be only the first stage in a larger Israeli plan aimed at reordering its settlement priorities in the West Bank.

The region is heading towards a phase of geopolitical restructuring.

Writer and political analyst Imad Moussa believes that the region is heading towards a sensitive phase of geopolitical restructuring, where there are no real intentions for calm or peace.

Musa believes that the main goal of these moves is to redraw the regional map with the double exclusion of both Russia and Iran, paving the way for Israel to become the dominant regional player, at a time when the roles of other regional powers such as Egypt are declining.

Mousa points out that Israel is doing everything in its power to destroy any chance of establishing an independent Palestinian state. Mousa cites Israeli measures aimed at keeping the idea of a Palestinian state as “ink on paper” confined to the files of the United Nations.

Musa points out that the international institution, which recognized Israel as a full member state, is today facing continuous Israeli attacks to weaken its role in maintaining global security and peace.

Among these attacks, Musa points to Israel’s targeting of UNRWA employees, systematic attacks on its schools in the Gaza Strip, and direct targeting of UNIFIL peacekeeping forces in southern Lebanon. The International Criminal Court is also being subjected to a systematic Israeli attack, coinciding with US moves to activate the “Hague invasion” law, reflecting a harmony between Washington and Tel Aviv in disrupting international institutions that could hinder their policies.

Musa explains that Benjamin Netanyahu's government is not interested in establishing a Palestinian state in any way, but rather seeks to achieve temporary calm that will allow it to focus on other issues.

According to Moussa, the first of these issues is Syria, where Israel is keen to secure its share of the gains there, including freedom of military action inside Syrian territory to pursue what it describes as “terrorist organizations.” Moussa points out that Israel continues to target sites inside Syria, not only through air strikes, but also through strategies aimed at asserting its regional hegemony.

The second issue, according to Musa, is the potential escalation against Yemen and Iran.

Musa believes that Israel, in cooperation with the United States and some Arab allies, may launch dual military strikes targeting vital sites in Iraq and Yemen, creating a state of regional confusion, as these operations aim to demonstrate Israeli military superiority and enhance its deterrent capacity.

On another level, Musa believes that Turkey is playing a growing regional role, as it has surpassed Egypt as an influential regional power, as Turkey seeks to divide Syria by emptying Aleppo, Syria’s major economic base, of its residents, who were displaced to Turkish territory.

Musa believes that these moves aim to expand Türkiye's influence at the expense of traditional powers in the region.

Mousa points out that Israel seeks to establish itself as the dominant state in the Arab region through coordinated military, diplomatic and economic moves, with the aim of redrawing the region in line with Israeli and Western interests, while marginalizing major Arab issues, most notably the Palestinian issue.

The Israeli right still insists on rejecting the establishment of a Palestinian state

Writer and political analyst Muhammad Hawash believes that the recent developments related to the prisoner exchange deal and talks on a temporary ceasefire in Gaza, despite reaching advanced stages, do not reflect a fundamental change in Israel’s positions on the Palestinian issue.

Hawash asserts that the ruling Israeli right is still adhering to its principles that reject the establishment of a Palestinian state and the right of self-determination for the Palestinian people, pointing out that these positions are based on expansionist plans at the expense of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Hawash explains that the current talks regarding a prisoner exchange deal include limited details, such as the release of Israeli detainees in Gaza, especially those with dual nationalities.

Hawash points out that this issue is of particular interest to the United States and Western countries, noting that the deal also includes partial withdrawals from hubs such as Netzarim and Philadelphia.

However, Hawash stresses that these steps are not linked to any complete withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip or a permanent ceasefire.

Hawash explains that negotiations are now revolving around the finer details of the exchange deal, including the number of Palestinian prisoners to be released and their classifications, without any clear political framework for these talks.

Hawash points out that Hamas, which previously demanded a complete withdrawal from the Strip, has now agreed to partial withdrawals, reflecting a change in its positions as a result of field and political pressures.

Hawash points out that the idea of a two-month ceasefire that could be extended based on the success of the deal could create important regional and international changes. However, achieving a permanent ceasefire depends on developments that may occur later and not on any previously signed agreements.

Hawash confirms that the talks are taking place in the context of international and regional desires, especially from the United States and Arab and Islamic countries, which seek to end the war and establish a comprehensive ceasefire.

Hawash confirms that there is a desire within Israeli society to stop the war, especially after achieving the main military objectives and exhausting the Israeli military targets in Gaza.

However, Hawash points out that there are concerns about the resumption of settlement in Gaza, which could lead to a long-term conflict with the Palestinians.

However, Hawash warns that Israel may re-use the scenarios of procrastination and failure of agreements as happened previously, especially in light of the widening internal opposition in Israel to any deal that it may consider concessions.

Hawash points out that the US administration is dealing cautiously with these developments related to the deal, fearing that Israel will not abide by the deal, which would complicate matters further.

Hawash stresses that the success of the exchange deal and the continuation of the ceasefire requires strong international and regional commitment, amid ongoing doubts about Israel's intentions.

Hawash stresses that the current scene indicates limited but risky progress, leaving all possibilities open in light of the volatile political and military conditions.

Hawash believes that linking the current talks on the deal to any steps towards establishing a Palestinian state or normalizing relations with Israel is far from realistic.

Hawash asserts that the official Saudi position rejects normalization without achieving a reliable and irreversible path towards establishing a Palestinian state, pointing out that Israel’s bypassing of the Palestinian issue by expanding the scope of normalization with Arab countries represents Israeli wishes that do not reflect reality.