To understand what is happening in the Middle East, perhaps it is helpful to remember the dead cat.
That was Secretary of State James A. Baker III’s favorite metaphor as he toured the region in 1991 trying to negotiate a complicated deal. For each recalcitrant player, Mr. Baker will threaten to “leave the cat dead” on their doorstep – in other words, to ensure that they are the ones responsible if things fall apart.
The question three decades later is whether today’s participants are at that stage in the US-brokered effort to negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. Much of what the world is witnessing at the moment is at least partly aimed at gaining an advantage at the bargaining table, outmaneuvering other players and deflecting responsibility if consensus cannot be reached, causing the brutal seven-month war to continue.
Hamas released hostage video, perhaps to remind the world of the importance of the negotiations and raise the temperature on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is under enormous public pressure to secure their release. Mr. Netanyahu has in recent days carried out air strikes and Send tanks into Rafah in a threatening move to make it clear he was serious about invading the southern Gaza city. President Biden blocked a shipment of American bombs to prove that he is also equal serious about limiting Israel’s arms supply if it attacks.
“Much of it was a show between Israel and Hamas,” said Aaron David Miller, a member of Mr. Baker’s team at the time, taking a page from Baker’s dead-cat diplomacy. ”. “Part of the motivation is not to reach an agreement and blame the other side if it fails. The only party really in a hurry is Biden.”
“And certainly, he worries about Palestinian deaths if Bibi makes it big in Rafah,” Mr. Miller added, using Mr. Netanyahu’s nickname. “But he also knew that would make any negotiations” at that time “all but impossible.”
Prospects of reaching an agreement seemed increasingly distant on Thursday as William J. Burns, the CIA director who served as Mr. Biden’s chief negotiator, left Cairo without reaching any agreement. Delegations from Israel and Hamas have also left, although mid-level officials from the United States and intermediaries Egypt and Qatar remain in Cairo to continue discussions in the hope of salvaging the process.
In theory, the main interlocutors are taking a break to see what Israel does with what they are calling a “limited” operation in Rafah. But reports from Cairo indicate that tempers remain intact as many sides accuse each other of bad faith and the optimism evident among US officials a week ago has gradually evaporated.
This is a historic challenge for any negotiation in a region known for its shady plots, as Mr. Baker, Henry A. Kissinger and other generations of American negotiators have painfully learned. lesson. Much of what happens during the day is about posture. Most of what really matters happens in the darkness within the darkness.
Finding hidden motives and real red lines can be difficult for even veterans of the region to avoid. All the players at the table have domestic political issues back home to keep in mind. None of them fully trusts the others. A new counter-offer can be a genuine attempt to break the deadlock or a clever way to put the opponent on the defensive.
The core question each side asks the other is who really wants a deal and at what price? Or is the whole thing just for show purposes to claim public highways?
“Much of what we’re seeing is partly aimed at trying to gain an advantage in the negotiations, but overall it’s pushing a deal,” said Michael Koplow, policy director at Israel Policy. go further than getting one side to reach a consensus.” Forum.
The essence of the proposal on the table was to call for a temporary ceasefire in exchange for the release of hostages. Israel will also release hundreds of Palestinians in its prisons, allowing people to return to the northern part of Gaza and facilitating the expansion of humanitarian aid.
The first phase of a deal is the one where all parties appear closest to reaching an agreement. In that opening phase, Israel will cease hostilities for 42 days and Hamas will return 33 women, elderly men and sick and wounded hostages it captured in the September 7 terrorist attack. 10, although some of them will be the remains of people who have died. . The second phase would extend the ceasefire for another 42 days and lead to the release of additional Palestinian hostages and prisoners.
The fiercest dispute centers on whether the final deal will lead to a permanent end to the war, which Hamas insists on and Israel has refused to guarantee. American negotiators have called for “sustained calm” negotiations after the ceasefire begins, without specifying exactly what that means.
However, Netanyahu’s actions in Rafah in recent days have complicated the dynamic. He has said that he will invade Rafah “with or without a deal,” an oath that Hamas predictably would kill the deal. He also ordered limited strikes in Rafah in response to Hamas rocket attacks that killed four Israeli soldiers.
Mr. Biden has long opposed an attack on Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians are sheltering, because he sees no plan for war that would not cause massive civilian casualties. After months of warning Netanyahu about Rafah’s campaign, Biden finally acted after US officials detected Israeli moves they considered a prelude to an invasion. Via temporarily stopped transporting 3,500 bombsMr. Biden signaled that he would not provide additional offensive weapons to be able to attack Rafah.
“Biden believes that stopping the Rafah operation will force Israel to negotiate more specifically, and Netanyahu believes that a new military operation will pressure Hamas to reject its demands,” Mr. Koplow said. . “However, with Netanyahu insisting that Operation Rafah will take place regardless of any temporary ceasefire, Israel agreed to remove any incentive for Hamas to negotiate.”
Furthermore, he added, “Biden’s pressure to stop any kind of activity in Rafah also eliminated any momentum for Hamas from then on” Yahya Sinwarthe military leader of Hamas is said to be holed up in tunnels in Gaza, “it can be reasonably assumed that he will soon get a de facto free ceasefire as long as he continues bestir.”
Mr. Koplow noted that Hamas has made demands to which it cannot plausibly expect Israel to agree, such as insisting that Palestinian prisoners released in the first phase be presented before all including the released Israeli hostages and emphasized that Israel has no veto over who is released. . “So they probably more than any other party here make a successful negotiation impossible,” he said.
But the dynamic has changed dramatically in recent weeks. Mr. Biden initially said he opposed an attack on Rafah unless and until he was shown a plan by Israel to minimize civilian casualties. After repeated consultations on Israel’s war plan, Mr. Biden effectively said that such a plan was unworkable and that he opposed any major operation in Rafah.
“The flashing yellow light has turned to solid red,” said John Hannah, a senior fellow at the American Jewish Institute for National Security who previously served as national security adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney. ”. “If that’s true, that’s a big change.”
As a result, Mr. Hannah said, the interests of the US and Israel, which were quite aligned at the beginning of the war after the Hamas terrorist attack, have diverged sharply, changing the negotiations.
While Netanyahu said Israel’s mission was to destroy Hamas, the White House now sees that as an unachievable goal and that Israel has caused lasting damage to ensure Hamas is no longer the threat it once was. This. Furthermore, Mr. Biden is eager to broker a broader deal that would transform the region by aligning the United States more closely with Saudi Arabia, which would extend diplomatic recognition to Saudi Arabia for the first time. Israel – something unthinkable as long as the war in Gaza continues. .
“The president wants this war to end now — even if it comes at the cost of allowing a much-regressed Hamas and its leadership to exist for the time being,” Mr. Hannah said. “He believes he has bigger fish to fry in terms of re-election and the regional agenda. In that sense, the concepts of Israel and the US on the ceasefire and the hostage agreement are no longer unified but also disagree.”
Mr. Netanyahu said on Thursday he was ready to continue the fight even without Mr. Biden. “If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone,” he said. But he has said that before even as he welcomed US weapons. Does he mean now or is that a public position he must take before negotiators return to the negotiating table? Is he really willing to alienate Israel’s closest and most important ally, or is he using Mr. Biden’s position as a way to explain to the public why he is backing down?
Of course, those are not the only questions. Is Mr. Biden, who has always insisted that his support for Israel is “ironclad,” really willing to further cut off offensive weapons in the face of harsh domestic criticism from Republicans and some pro-Israel Democrats accuse him of abandoning Israel?
As for Hamas, are its leaders willing to make concessions to avoid a devastating attack on Rafah? Or do they think such an activity could benefit the group by boycotting Israel from the rest of the world?
At this rate, someone will probably find the cat on the front steps soon. And many people may pay the price.
