Hatim Karim Al-Falahi: The United States is pushing towards moving to the second phase because it has a project in the region that requires calm

Dr. Jamal Al-Shalabi: The threat of returning to war comes in the context of attempts to destabilize the other party to push it to make concessions

Johnny Mansour: The new Chief of Staff is known for his hatred of the Palestinians and his bloodiness since his participation in the Lebanon War and the Sabra and Shatila massacres

Dr. Ibrahim Abu Jaber: Netanyahu will try to find a justification to return to war as a lifeline for him on the Israeli level

Amir Makhoul: Israel will resort to war only if it gets an American green light for displacement, which seems unlikely now

Ismat Mansour: Not returning to war has become in itself a price that Israel pays in exchange for releasing more prisoners

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly used the language of threats and warnings to return to war, during the first phase of the truce agreement or the exchange deal, whenever he felt that the resistance in Gaza had scored some points against him, during the operations of handing over Israeli prisoners, or whenever voices rose within Israeli society protesting his failure to eliminate the resistance in Gaza for fifteen months, or whenever he wanted to achieve some gains that he was unable to achieve on the ground.

The latest chapters of threats and intimidation were launched by Netanyahu in an attempt to avoid entering into negotiations for the second phase of the exchange deal and ceasefire, which completes the prisoner exchange operations and the withdrawal of the occupation army from all areas of the Gaza Strip until the declaration of a ceasefire, as well as to cover up his failure to abide by the terms of the agreement, especially the entry of humanitarian aid and mobile housing and the withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor.

As for the war that Netanyahu threatens to return to, it is the bombing, killing and genocide operations targeting civilians in the Gaza Strip who have returned to their destroyed homes, affirming their adherence to their land and the rubble of their homes and their refusal to be displaced outside their homeland, whether by intimidation or by enticement.

Writers and analysts who spoke to "Y" considered that Netanyahu's threat to return to war comes in the context of attempts to destabilize the other party to push it to make concessions. They said that Israel will resort to war only if it receives an American green light for displacement, which seems unlikely now, and that the United States is pushing to move to the second stage because it has a project in the region that requires calm.

Netanyahu's government now has two options

Military and strategic expert, Colonel Hatem Karim Al-Falahi, said that sending the negotiating delegation to Egypt aims to determine whether Hamas will agree to extend the first phase or reject it.

He explained that the delegation's trip to Egypt came after the Israeli delegation was certain that Hamas did not want to extend the first phase, but rather wanted to move to the second phase of the agreement after Israel implemented what was agreed upon in the first phase, in which Israel reneged by not implementing many of its provisions.

He added: "Netanyahu's government now has two options: either maintain the current government coalition, or move to implement the second stage, which represents a direct threat to Netanyahu's government."

He pointed out that the United States of America is pushing towards moving to the second stage, because it has a project in the region that requires calm, and regarding this it has put pressure on Netanyahu through the Trump administration to accept a cessation of fighting and move to the first stage.

He pointed out that the Arab position, whether Jordanian or Egyptian, has become more stringent in rejecting the issue of the displacement of Palestinians, which makes the Palestinian issue, especially the Gaza issue, of utmost importance to Egypt and Jordan, unlike in past periods.

He stressed that any deal related to displacement would pose a threat to the national security of both countries, which requires taking strict and firm positions in dealing with Israel, especially since the continuation of the occupation in the Philadelphi corridor represents a coup against the Camp David Accords of 1979, the Oslo Accords of 1995, in addition to the disengagement agreement of 2005.

Returning to combat would harm American interests.

Al-Falahi considered that these measures threaten Egyptian national security, pointing out that Netanyahu's government is facing great internal pressures that push it towards moving to the second stage, even if this leads to Hamas remaining in power or stopping the war completely.

He explained that Netanyahu is seeking to exert political and military pressure by threatening to use force again with American support, and the war may return to pressure Hamas to make concessions that include disarmament and the removal of leaders.

Al-Falahi pointed out that the nature of the second phase will depend on the concessions that the two parties can make to reach a solution that satisfies all parties, but Netanyahu's insistence on Hamas' surrender according to Israeli conditions is met with a categorical rejection from Hamas, which did not lose the war.

Al-Falahi stressed that returning to fighting would harm American interests, normalization efforts with Saudi Arabia, as well as the interests of Egypt and Jordan, adding, "War is not just about human and material power, but also about moral power and popular anger in Israel due to the continued detention of prisoners."

Al-Falahi expected that Israel would use force for a limited period to pressure Hamas to make concessions, while Israel would make some concessions to reach a solution that satisfies all parties.

Stumbling is tactical, not strategic.

For his part, Dr. Jamal Al-Shalabi, a professor of political science at Hashemite University in Amman, said that this stumbling block is tactical and not strategic, meaning that the Arab mediation, represented by Egypt and Qatar, and supported by the United States of America, took into account all the differences and expected assessments between the parties to the conflict, whether Israel or Hamas.

He pointed out that these differences in viewpoints can be overcome, especially in light of the ongoing violations by the Israeli side with the aim of obtaining new gains not included in the agreement, which is a common approach for Israel.

Al-Shalabi stressed that the threat of returning to war comes in the context of attempts to destabilize the other party, i.e. Hamas and the resistance forces in Gaza, to push them to make more concessions, especially with the transition to the second stage, which will discuss issues that go beyond the bodies and prisoners to the question of who will rule Gaza in the future.

He questioned the extent to which the United States and Israel would accept Hamas’ continued rule of Gaza, or whether there was a possible role for the Palestinian Authority, an option rejected by the active parties. He also raised the possibility of sending Arab forces, such as Egyptian, Jordanian or Turkish, to control the situation in Gaza, an option that might be acceptable to the United States and Israel, but is unpopular.

Scenarios for the "day after"

He pointed out that these questions and scenarios related to the "next day" constitute the current problem, explaining that the threat of war in the media and political speeches, whether American or Israeli, aims to pressure Hamas.

Al-Shalabi believes that the solution may lie in recognizing that Hamas resisted and did not surrender, even though it did not achieve a clear victory. However, the problem lies in its non-acceptance by Israel, America, and even most Arab countries, with the exception of Qatar and perhaps Oman.

He pointed out that the Gulf countries, such as Saudi Arabia and the Emirates, do not want to pay huge sums of money to rebuild Gaza and then have Israel destroy it again.

He explained that the conflict in positions between Qatar, which supports Hamas and is leading the mediation, and the axis of Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Egypt and Jordan, complicates the scene.

He stressed that the possibility of resuming the war remains, despite his personal exclusion of it, noting that Israel does not respect values or commitments.

Global Geopolitical Shifts

Al-Shalabi touched on global geopolitical transformations, such as Russian-American relations, Gulf-Iranian rapprochement, and the Kurds’ readiness to enter into a political process with Turkey, considering that entering into a war against the Palestinian people under these circumstances would be a humanitarian farce and a tragedy.

He suggested that the US administration is not enthusiastic about returning to war, because it has become a politically and morally suicidal option, even though America does not pay much attention to humanitarian values.

Al-Shalabi concluded by saying: “The political solution has become the most likely option, although it will be within a framework that serves Israeli and American interests, which are in line with the supporting Arab interests.”

Al-Shalabi called on Hamas to negotiate intelligently, exploiting its strengths and avoiding its weaknesses, while adapting a little to the strong winds that seek to end it completely.

Breach of agreements: Netanyahu's usual behavior

In his turn, historian and researcher in Middle East affairs Johnny Mansour said: “It is known to us through years of experience in following Netanyahu’s behavior that he does not respect any agreement at all. He always seeks to violate agreements and adhere to positions that he considers to be in the interest of Israel’s security and the future of its existence in the region.”

He stressed that anyone who examines his refusal and rejection to follow up on the implementation of the ceasefire agreement and the prisoner and detainee exchange deal from both sides will clearly notice that he is following his usual path of buying time, firstly, to keep his government in power for the longest period during the current session, and secondly, to ensure that the extreme right-wing parties remain with him in the government coalition. In addition, he wants to appear as the person who is subjected to pressure, opposition and opposition from the extreme right in Israel. In this case, he wants to show them that he is in line with them.

On the other hand, Mansour believes that Netanyahu is threatening to return Israel to war if the Islamic Resistance Movement - Hamas does not implement what must be implemented, which is the release of the Israeli hostages. It is as if he is blaming the Palestinians, noting that the reality indicates that he is the main and only obstacle to the deal.

The United States has the final say.

He said: “From here we see him insisting on extending the first phase without entering the second phase, the basis of which is to stop the war, explaining that Netanyahu wants to continue the war or return to it to achieve victory over the resistance. The reality is that he has not yet achieved the absolute victory that he threatened since October 7 and promised his people.”

On the other hand, researcher Mansour pointed out that the appointment of a new Chief of Staff for the Israeli army usually requires that he fight at least one battle to be recorded in his historical record as a gain. He said that the new Chief of Staff is known for his hatred of the Palestinians and his bloodiness since his participation in the Israeli war in Lebanon and the Sabra and Shatila massacres.

Mansour wondered: Will the Chief of Staff influence Netanyahu and drag him into the process of returning to war? Will the opposition within the government and the army intensify in its various leaderships to prevent a return to war because it will not achieve more than what is obvious and apparent?

Mansour concluded his statement to Al-Quds by saying: “There are many questions facing Netanyahu that require him to provide answers, explaining that his maneuvers so far are answers that raise great concern in that he is hesitating to enter the second stage. However, we believe that the United States is the one that can bring Netanyahu back to the negotiating table immediately and quickly.”

finger biting stage

For his part, Dr. Ibrahim Abu Jaber, a specialist in Israeli affairs, confirmed that the current stage is witnessing what can be described as finger-biting between the two parties.

He added: Each party is trying to get the most gains in light of the critical situation.

He explained that Netanyahu is facing major challenges at the local and political levels, as he seeks to please the extreme right by returning to war and fighting, while at the same time facing pressure from the families of the prisoners who are pushing for the continuation of the deal and the return of their sons.

Abu Jaber pointed out that the demands of the Palestinian resistance are represented by the complete withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip, including the Salah al-Din axis, in addition to implementing humanitarian requirements, such as the entry of medical and food aid and heavy equipment.

He explained that Netanyahu faces two options: either continue the fighting to please the extreme right, which could lead to the anger of the families of the prisoners and the Israeli opposition, or submit to the demands of the Palestinian resistance, which is unlikely.

He expected that Netanyahu would try to find a justification to return to war again, considering that a lifeline for him on the Israeli level, especially in light of the green light given to him by the American administration to do whatever he wants in the Gaza Strip.

Abu Jaber pointed out that the meeting that was held recently may have dealt with the Palestinian side’s adherence to its conditions, in contrast to Israel’s failure to achieve the war’s goals, which could be used to resume the fighting.

Israel refuses to withdraw from the Philadelphi Corridor

He stressed that the Israeli political level has repeatedly stated that it will not withdraw from the Salah al-Din axis, no matter the pressure, considering that the ball is now in the court of mediators, such as Qatar, Egypt and the United States, to work on bridging the gap and finding compromise solutions that prevent the continuation of the war.

Abu Jaber explained that Netanyahu sought to extend the first phase with the aim of releasing all Israeli prisoners, especially those who are still alive, and then returning to war, because he does not want Hamas to remain in power in the Gaza Strip, whether administratively or militarily, and demands that it be disarmed and step down, in addition to the exit of its leaders from the Strip.

He considered the situation to be complex and vague, as each party is trying to harden its positions, stressing that the Palestinians are sincere in their demands, while the Israeli side is seeking to blackmail the Palestinian resistance to satisfy the extreme right and maintain the survival of the government coalition.

Abu Jaber concluded his statement to Al-Quds by saying that expectations, according to Israeli analysts and the Israeli media, indicate that Netanyahu is unfortunately heading towards war.

The US administration is interested in continuing the deal.

Amir Makhoul, a researcher at the Progress Center for Policy, said that the current mutual rejection is a type of negotiation that will ultimately lead to stability.

He explained that the US administration is interested in the continuation of the deal, which will ultimately decide Netanyahu's decision more than the Israeli war whims, whether from Smotrich, Ben-Gvir, or Netanyahu himself.

Makhoul added: Things indicate that negotiations will resume, and he expected that the first phase would be extended.

He explained that this could be done in exchange for adding the number of released Palestinian prisoners or by keeping some of the Israeli prisoners with Hamas. He stressed that all of this is possible within the vision of the final stage, which is actually the second stage that puts an end to the war.

He pointed out that there is a development in the region represented by the Arab Summit in Cairo, which is expected to result in the initial formula for the reconstruction of Gaza and how to manage it.

He stressed that an Arab consensus at the summit would have decisive weight in the equations, while Israel is betting on the existence of an Arab disagreement. In the event of a disagreement, matters will be referred to a small group to formulate an integrated project that includes the administration of Gaza.

Threatening war within the framework of negotiations

Makhoul said that things do not seem to be heading towards war, noting that Israel will resort to war only if it gets an American green light for displacement, which seems more unlikely now than it was about a month ago when Trump raised it. He explained that the idea of displacement has declined significantly.

He added that Israel may try to hint at the possibility of starting a war by carrying out one or two operations, but that will be within the framework of negotiations and not outside them, with the aim of moving the negotiation process forward and not actually returning to war.

He pointed out that Israeli society is not interested in war, and that the families of the detained prisoners will confront this forcefully in the street this time with greater momentum than before, with direct accusations directed at Netanyahu and his government of obstructing the deal and endangering their detained relatives.

Makhoul stressed that the conditions within Israeli society, along with the possibility of refusing military service, may reinforce the belief that military preparations and the threat of war are part of negotiations rather than a real field threat.

The option of war should never be ruled out.

For his part, journalist and analyst specializing in Israeli affairs, Ismat Mansour, said that the option of war has remained in place since the first moment, and should not be ruled out at all.

He added that the ideology and project of the current Israeli government are based on achieving its goals in an atmosphere of war, as war and escalation abort any aspirations for peace, calm or understandings.

Analyst Mansour pointed out that Israel is using the war option as a tool for intimidation and blackmail, as it demands an extension of the first phase and the cancellation of the agreement in exchange for not returning to war.

He explained that not returning to war has become in itself a price that Israel pays in exchange for the release of more prisoners.

Mansour stressed that the laxity of the American position and its support for Netanyahu makes the option of war tempting for him, especially if we know that returning to negotiations or moving to the second stage may lead to the cracking of the ruling coalition and perhaps its collapse in one way or another.