Dr. Jamal Harfoush: The faltering Doha negotiations are an inevitable result of a series of failures to adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law and Security Council resolutions.

Nihad Abu Ghosh: The Palestinian issue was not raised as a prerequisite by the Arab countries hosting Trump for developing bilateral relations with the US.

Naaman Abed: Netanyahu is stalling negotiations to prolong the aggression against the Palestinians amid the absence of real American pressure.

Dr. Amjad Bashkar: The Trump administration is seeking a truce with a political horizon, the ultimate goal of which is to stop the war, while Netanyahu wants a temporary truce without a commitment to ending the war.

Yasser Manna: Netanyahu aims to impose the "absolute victory" equation to thwart any attempts to reach a permanent ceasefire.

Adnan Al-Sabah: The Palestinian issue is absent from the world's priorities amid the ongoing crimes of the occupation, and therefore we do not see any seriousness in the negotiations.

The faltering Doha negotiations reflect a deep political deadlock, threatening a dangerous escalation that could lead to a new humanitarian catastrophe in the Gaza Strip, given the marginalization of the Palestinian cause.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds, writers, political analysts, experts, and university professors believe this failure adds to a series of failures to adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law, Security Council resolutions, and the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians. This reality further exacerbates the legal and moral responsibility of international and regional parties, which appear unable to exert real pressure on Israel to push it toward an agreement that would end the brutal war on the Gaza Strip.

They point out that, at the same time, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's threats of military escalation continue, with the aim of achieving "absolute victory" and thwarting any attempts at a permanent ceasefire.

They assert that the ongoing negotiations, including the framework of the Witkoff Plan, show a lack of any indication of a permanent ceasefire. Netanyahu insists on a temporary truce that serves his tactical goals, such as the return of prisoners, without committing to ending the war. This truce furthers his expansionist agenda, which aims to render Gaza uninhabitable and prepare it for forced displacement.

UN resolutions have been systematically marginalized.

Professor Jamal Harfoush, professor of scientific research methods and political studies at the University of the Academic Research Center in Brazil, says that the faltering Doha negotiations are simply the inevitable result of a long series of failures to adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law and Security Council resolutions related to armed conflict.

Harfoush points out that this failure increases the legal, political, and moral responsibility of regional and international parties, calling for urgent action to confront the expected escalation.

Harfoush explains that UN resolutions such as (242) of 1967, which calls for Israel’s withdrawal from the occupied territories, (338) of 1973, which calls for a ceasefire, and (1860) of 2009, which affirms the protection of civilians in Gaza, along with Article (3) common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which protects civilians in non-international conflicts, constitute legal foundations that have been systematically marginalized.

Harfoush asserts that this failure presents international parties with crucial options to salvage the negotiation process and prevent a new humanitarian catastrophe.

Harfouche proposes several options for regional and international parties, including activating diplomatic pressure tools by issuing binding resolutions in the Security Council, or resorting to the UN General Assembly under the 1950 "Uniting for Peace" resolution, which allows for action if the Council is paralyzed due to a veto.

Harfoush calls for imposing diplomatic sanctions on Israel, considering it the party obstructing the negotiations due to its continued undermining of the negotiating process.

Use of economic and political influence

Harfoush asserts that influential states, such as the Gulf states and the European Union, can leverage their economic and political influence by reevaluating economic and technological relations with Israel and conditioning any future cooperation on tangible progress in negotiations, in accordance with the principle of "political conditionality."

Harfoush stresses the importance of activating international judicial mechanisms, such as submitting files to the International Criminal Court (ICC) relating to war crimes and systematic violations against civilians, believing this could constitute a legal deterrent that supports the negotiating process.

Among the proposed solutions, Harfoush calls for strengthening informal negotiations by expanding indirect dialogue between the parties via neutral mediators or academic and civil society institutions, with the aim of creating a political and psychological environment conducive to formal solutions. He also proposes providing written international guarantees to the Palestinian side to enhance confidence, especially in light of repeated Israeli violations.

Harfoush warns of the seriousness of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's threats, describing them as not merely media statements, but rather reflecting an ideological vision that denies Palestinian existence and criminalizes its resistance, in defiance of Article 51 of the UN Charter, which guarantees the right of legitimate defense, and international agreements prohibiting the targeting of civilians.

Three possible scenarios

Harfoush outlines three possible scenarios: the first is a comprehensive escalation, which he sees as the most likely following the failure of the Doha negotiations and Netanyahu's threats of a "fierce war," which could lead to a humanitarian catastrophe and forced displacement, which constitutes a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute. The second is conditional political pressure through limited military operations to blackmail the resistance, and the third is a temporary de-escalation to improve Israel's diplomatic image before resuming escalation later.

Harfoush asserts that a political solution is still theoretically possible, but it is conditional on international will to lift the political siege on the Palestinians and recognize their rights, such as self-determination and the right of return.

Harfoush believes that the coming escalation will not only be military, but also political, legal, and media-related. He warns against attempts to redefine international rules of engagement and empty international law of its substance through double standards, turning the conflict into a battle over the legitimacy of international law itself.

The potential for breakthroughs remains.

For his part, writer and political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh, who specializes in Israeli affairs, says that talk of a dead end in the negotiations to halt the brutal war on the Gaza Strip is inaccurate, noting that the potential for breakthroughs remains ever-present.

However, Abu Ghosh explains that the success of these breakthroughs in the negotiations depends on the positions of influential powers, most notably US President Donald Trump, who wields significant influence over Congress and possesses strong political momentum at the beginning of his term. Despite his recent visit to the region, there have been no serious indications of tangible progress on the Palestinian issue, which has seemed to be absent from his top priorities.

Abu Ghosh points out that the Palestinian issue was not raised as a primary condition by the Arab countries hosting Trump for developing bilateral relations with the United States, as everyone merely mentioned it in passing and symbolically, without any clear vision.

Abu Ghosh asserts that the Arab states have expressed a commitment to ending the war and halting the genocide against the Palestinian people, but these demands were not linked to binding conditions in the agreements and economic projects concluded during the visit.

The Witkoff Plan lacks any indication of a ceasefire.

Abu Ghosh expresses cautious optimism based on talk of a crisis in the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu. Trump has sidestepped Israel on regional issues such as Iran, the Houthis, and Turkey, in addition to the release of prisoner Idan Alexander, and his repeated statements describing the war as "brutal" and pointless.

However, Abu Ghosh asserts that these indicators have not translated into real American pressure on Netanyahu to end the war, noting that the Witkoff Plan, which is the only framework on the table, lacks any indication of a permanent ceasefire.

Abu Ghosh believes that the US administration could impose this condition if it wanted to, but has so far avoided doing so, reflecting a lack of clear political will.

Abu Ghosh cautions against speculating about the outcomes of unannounced bilateral talks, particularly between Trump and the Emir of Qatar, but notes that Trump has deliberately avoided discussing the Palestinian issue, focusing instead on Iran, Ukraine, and Russia.

Abu Ghosh explains that Netanyahu prefers a scenario that would prolong the war indefinitely, with the goal of rendering Gaza uninhabitable and facilitating displacement by dividing the Strip into separate zones or confining the population to limited areas deprived of the basic necessities of life.

The flexibility of the Palestinian resistance

Abu Ghosh asserts that this scenario serves Netanyahu's expansionist agenda and strengthens his political survival in the face of his domestic opponents, despite growing Israeli opposition. Polls indicate that 75% of Israelis support a ceasefire to return the prisoners.

In contrast, Abu Ghosh points to the flexibility of the Palestinian resistance, which has made significant concessions on the prisoners' issue and expressed its willingness to hand over power to a technocratic body under the supervision of the Palestinian Authority.

Abu Ghosh believes the resistance will reject any proposals that include handing over prisoners without compensation, dismantling the resistance's weapons, or allowing Israel to take control of the Gaza Strip. He believes these conditions are intended to enable the occupation to fully control the Strip and prepare it for displacement.

Abu Ghosh asserts that the resistance will not accept options that prevent Palestinians from returning to their homes or grant Israel the authority to intervene in disarming them, noting that Israel uses the pretext of "dual-use weapons" to impose its control over every aspect of life in Gaza.

Abu Ghosh points to Trump's silence on the displacement plans, his failure to confirm or deny them, and his avoidance of mentioning the Palestinian people's right to freedom and dignity. Abu Ghosh believes that Arab states bear responsibility for not exerting sufficient pressure to extract a clear position from Trump regarding halting the war on the Gaza Strip.

Netanyahu sends negotiating delegations without a mandate

For his part, writer and political analyst specializing in international relations, Noman Abed, believes that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's continued procrastination and lies during the ongoing negotiations are aimed at prolonging the aggression against the Palestinian people, in the absence of genuine American pressure.

Abed explains that Netanyahu is sending negotiating delegations without adequate authorization, in an attempt to buy time and continue committing crimes that include murder, reoccupation and settlement expansion, ethnic cleansing, and genocide, with the goal of erasing the Palestinian cause.

Abed points out that Netanyahu's government is based on an ideology of murder and displacement, and that the continuation of the aggression is closely linked to Netanyahu's political fate.

Abed asserts that Netanyahu understands that ending the war would mean the end of his government, and thus his return to court and prison on the charges against him. Therefore, Netanyahu voluntarily rejects any ceasefire agreement, taking advantage of the lack of real pressure from the United States and Western countries.

Abed explains that the United States shows no interest in exerting real pressure on the occupying Israeli state and Benjamin Netanyahu's government to halt its aggression against the Palestinian people. The US believes it has already achieved its economic and strategic interests in the region, including the release of Israeli soldier Idan Alexander, who holds US citizenship, without the need to pressure Netanyahu. On the contrary, the US administration has explicitly declared its unwillingness to take such a step.

Difficult days await the Palestinian people

Abed believes that the current situation portends extremely difficult days ahead for the Palestinian people, as the options available are limited to either continued escalation or a very short truce that will not end the war on the Gaza Strip. The absence of real American pressure on the occupation government allows Netanyahu to continue his aggressive policies without facing tangible international consequences.

Abed points out that Trump adopts a "peace through strength" approach to dealing with various international issues, but excludes the issue of war and the Israeli occupation from this approach. Furthermore, Trump and his team no longer consider the situation in the Palestinian territories to be an occupation.

Abed points out that despite US President Trump's approach to cooling and resolving international conflicts and wars, he has ignored the genocidal war in the Gaza Strip and political solutions to the Palestinian issue that would meet Palestinian aspirations.

International positions are limited to condemnation and denunciation.

Abed points out that international positions have not shifted from mere condemnation and denunciation to imposing economic or diplomatic sanctions on Netanyahu and his government, believing this shift is necessary to force the occupation to change its policies.

Abed points out that Netanyahu portrays himself as a leader who defies American pressure, attempting to transform the occupying state from a functional entity whose decisions are dictated to a state that formulates its own policies, ignoring international will.

Abed warns that the occupation government will continue its aggression against the Palestinian people, with increased assassinations, killings, and starvation, unless it faces real international pressure.

Abed calls on the international community, particularly the American mediator, to work to halt the "massacre" in the Gaza Strip, stressing that this will not be achieved without a clear American will that transcends fear for Netanyahu's political fate, as he relies on continued war and genocide to remain in power.

Netanyahu's strategy to prolong the conflict

For his part, political science professor Dr. Amjad Bashkar asserts that recent statements by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reflect an escalation directed primarily at his government and the right-wing bases that comprise the 30% of Israeli society who support the continuation of the war on the Gaza Strip.

Bashkar explains that Netanyahu considers the continuation of the war a "red line" for his government's survival, noting that Netanyahu is seeking a temporary truce that serves Israeli goals, but with conditions that reject a definitive end to the war, revealing his strategy to prolong the conflict.

Bashkar points out that the short-term goal of previous Israeli military operations, which followed ceasefire violations, was to push for a truce that would lead to the release of some of the living Israeli prisoners.

Bashkar explains that Netanyahu is focusing on a truce that would allow for the release of half the prisoners in the first phase, followed by the release of the remaining prisoners by the end of the truce. However, he rejects any proposal, such as Witkoff's, that would include the release of five prisoners followed by negotiations to end the war on Gaza.

The next 48 hours will be crucial.

Bashkar asserts that this refusal reflects Netanyahu's insistence on continuing the war after the truce, a point he reiterates daily in his statements.

Bashkar believes that the next 48 hours will be crucial in determining the course of the next phase, but he emphasizes that the fundamental variable lies in the strategic conflict between the American vision for the Middle East, led by President Donald Trump, and that of Netanyahu and the extreme right. While Netanyahu seeks escalation and direct control as an occupying power, as seen in the West Bank, Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, Trump is adopting a strategy focused on economic partnerships and calming tensions to achieve stability in the region.

Bashkar explains that the Trump administration is seeking a truce with a political horizon that would include a ceasefire, while Netanyahu wants a temporary truce without a commitment to ending the war.

Bashkar points out that Trump's recent visits to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE focused on joint projects, a vision that conflicts with Netanyahu's escalatory approach.

The release of Alexander's sticks and the cracking of the Israeli position

Bashkar points out that the release of prisoner Idan Alexander constituted a "strange paradox" that caused a crack in the Israeli position, particularly regarding plans to expand the military operation in Gaza.

Bashkar explains that Israel was planning a large-scale operation following Trump's visit, including the displacement of residents of northern Gaza to the south, but these plans were suspended and put on ice to make way for new negotiations.

Bashkar asserts that the US administration is seeking a truce with a political horizon leading to an end to the war, while the Israeli government wants a temporary truce without a political commitment to end the conflict.

Bashkar believes Netanyahu faces a dilemma, as the US administration demonstrates an unprecedented determination to create calm in the region, viewing Gaza as the primary flashpoint fueling the conflict.

Bashkar asserts that the continuation of the war contradicts Trump's vision of zeroing out wars, revealing the depth of the disagreement between Netanyahu's escalatory approach and the US administration's vision for Middle East stability.

A fundamental difference in the parties' visions

Writer and Israeli affairs expert Yasser Manna believes the faltering negotiations in Doha reflect a profound political deadlock, stemming from a fundamental divergence in the parties' visions for an agreement on the situation in the Gaza Strip.

Manaa points out that the claim that there is no political horizon may be a hasty assessment, as the current situation is on the verge of a dangerous escalation, which could have catastrophic humanitarian consequences in the Gaza Strip.

Manaa explains that regional parties, most notably Egypt and Qatar, hold the levers of pressure, but appear incapable of sufficiently influencing Israel to push it toward an agreement.

Manna asserts that real pressure should come from the United States, but the US administration's traditional bias toward Israel hinders this role, despite growing domestic opposition to this bias in the United States.

Manaa points out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's threats to resume fierce fighting after US President Donald Trump's visit to the region are not merely idle remarks.

According to Manaa, Netanyahu is seeking to exploit this visit as a political lever that will grant him American legitimacy, albeit symbolic, to launch a large-scale military operation in Gaza.

Imposing the "absolute victory" equation

Manaa believes that Netanyahu's goal, through his pursuit of a broader military operation in Gaza, is to impose the "absolute victory" equation and thwart any attempts to reach a permanent ceasefire.

In his analysis of possible scenarios, Manna warns of a dangerous scenario in which Israeli military operations expand to control additional areas of the Gaza Strip, with the resettlement of the Strip's population in specific areas, paving the way for a policy of forced displacement.

Manaa explains that this scenario could lead to an unprecedented wave of mass displacement, with catastrophic humanitarian consequences threatening the lives of tens of thousands of Palestinians.

The second scenario, which Mana'a considers less likely but still viable, involves temporarily postponing military escalation while awaiting the outcome of US proposals within the framework of the Doha negotiations.

However, Manaa stresses that the possibility of escalation remains high, especially in light of the pressing factors, most notably the US position following Trump's visit to Arab countries.

Manaa asserts that the current situation is manageable, provided there is a solid international political will capable of confronting the challenges and preventing a slide into a new humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza.

The Palestinian issue is absent from the priorities of the international community.

For his part, writer and political analyst Adnan Al-Sabah asserts that the Palestinian issue, including the war of annihilation in the Gaza Strip and the tragedy endured by the Palestinian people in the West Bank, remains absent from the international community's priorities. Therefore, he notes, we do not see any seriousness in negotiations. He points out that US President Donald Trump's recent visit to the region clearly exposed this absence.

Al-Sabah asserts that the political discourse during Trump's visit focused on issues related to Iran, Lebanon, Yemen, and Ukraine, while the Palestinian issue was "lackluster and weak" and did not receive the attention it deserved despite the scale of the humanitarian catastrophe and the crimes committed against the Palestinian people.

Al-Sabah points out that the ongoing negotiations on Gaza are not based on the Palestinian people's aspirations for a definitive end to the war, but rather on a vision aimed at a temporary ceasefire that serves the Israeli occupation's goals, foremost among which is the recovery of the largest possible number of prisoners before the war resumes. He emphasized that this reality is clearly evident in the continued unchanged demands of the occupation, and in the joint speech between Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which focuses on the issue of prisoners and ignores the suffering of the Palestinian people.

The differences between Trump and Netanyahu are just illusions.

Al-Sabah notes that Trump did not mention even a single word about the humanitarian tragedy being experienced by the Palestinians, nor did he address the crimes they are being subjected to. Instead, his speech focused on portraying the Palestinian resistance, including Hamas, as "terrorists," while accusing Iran, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah in Yemen of supporting terrorism.

Al-Sabah points out that there is no real international or Arab pressure, even diplomatic or soft, on Trump to compel the occupation to halt its crimes.

Al-Sabah considers perceptions of disagreements or a rift between Trump and Netanyahu to be "illusions" that do not reflect reality, emphasizing that the two leaders' shared positions remain valid, with Netanyahu speaking of Trump's vision and Trump repeating his prisoner release rhetoric without any reference to the rights of the Palestinian people.

Al-Sabah asserts that any expectations of a just solution through Trump are "fantasy and have no connection to reality," warning that the occupation is currently postponing a comprehensive escalation to achieve tactical gains in negotiations, but it will not abandon its strategic goals.