Watan-After Hamas announced a positive response to the proposed ceasefire deal—albeit with requests for changes to several points objected to by Israel—a fully authorized Israeli negotiation delegation will depart for Doha at noon today, Sunday. At the same time, Prime Minister Netanyahu is set to leave for Washington on Monday to meet with U.S. President Donald Trump, the true decision-maker who could determine the war’s fate.
The deal proposed by Qatar, based on the “Second Witkoff Proposal,” includes a 60-day truce, the release of 10 captives and 18 bodies in exchange for hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in phases, the disclosure of the status of all captives (alive or dead), increased humanitarian aid, and a permanent ceasefire with U.S. guarantees that negotiations will continue and war will not resume if an agreement isn’t reached within the two-month window.
Core Disputes
The major sticking point remains Israel’s refusal to explicitly end the war, while Hamas insists on clearer guarantees to prevent a repeat of Israel’s breach of the January deal, when it refused in March to enter the political phase of negotiations. Another key disagreement involves withdrawal boundaries: Israel seeks to maintain control over the Morag and Philadelphi corridors, while Hamas demands full withdrawal from these areas.
Though Hamas has not officially announced its requested amendments, Israeli and foreign sources speculate the group is demanding that aid be distributed via the UN instead of a U.S. company, and is also seeking assurances from Trump for continued negotiations, Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, and a binding commitment not to resume war even after the truce ends, unless a final deal is reached.
Israeli Criticism and Internal Turmoil
Israel is experiencing cautious optimism but also widespread public bitterness, driven by two key questions: Why agree to a deal only now, and why a partial one?
Haaretz’s military analyst Amos Harel echoed this sentiment, stating the deal could have been reached in March—before the failed “Operation Gideon’s Chariots”—and blaming internal political motives for prolonging the war. He emphasized that Israel’s refusal of a full deal was not military but to preserve the government.
In its editorial, Haaretz wrote:“The decision not to stop the war is political, not military. IDF chief Herzi Halevi has subtly hinted at his desire to end it, warning that the captives are in danger and Hamas is now ‘a dead organization.’ Still, the government refuses to act, and Trump, unfortunately, has not clearly demanded an end to the war. Under these circumstances, a partial deal is better than nothing.”
“Hamas Won” — Israeli Analysts Say
Political columnist Haim Levinson wrote:“Netanyahu spent months marketing ‘Gideon’s Chariots’ as a game-changing victory. Now he’s searching for a way to sell the opposite. He is a victim of his own spin.”
Avi Ashkenazi, military analyst at Maariv, declared:“After the victory in Iran, this is how the army lost the war in Gaza. Operation Gideon’s Chariots was a complete failure—34 Israeli soldiers were killed, and now Israel is about to sign a deal that grants Hamas a strategic win and a U.S. guarantee for its survival.”
He called for escalating the war by assassinating Hamas leaders globally:“Israel must immediately assassinate all Hamas leaders past, present, and future—whether in Doha, Cairo, Tehran, Damascus, or Istanbul. That is the mission now facing Mossad chief David Barnea. Only this way can Israel claim victory in Gaza. Anything less means we lost.”
In stark contrast, senior Yedioth Ahronoth columnist Shimon Shiffer wrote:
After all the talk of total victory, Hamas still sets high demands and Netanyahu pays the full price in installments. Hamas was not defeated—we were. The war must end now, the hostages retrieved, and the nation must begin healing. Then this government must leave.”
Ben-Dror Yemini agreed:“Stopping the war now is the real path to victory. Hamas thrives on endless guerrilla warfare, inflicting casualties and isolating Israel diplomatically with global accusations of genocide.”
A Rare Voice: “We Are All Guilty”
In a bold and rare opinion, Haaretz journalist Iris Leal accused the entire Israeli public of moral betrayal in her piece titled “We All Participated in the Betrayal.” She argued that Israelis as a whole share responsibility for the endless, costly war allowed to continue for political reasons.
“Unless we admit we’ve lost our moral compass, that we all—not just Netanyahu—enabled this, and sacrificed our soldiers and hostages to wipe out tens of thousands of Palestinians, including women and children, then we will have no future.”
The Key Lies in the White House
While public pressure and families of captives push Netanyahu toward a deal that ends the war and retrieves all hostages, several Israeli ministers call the proposal a surrender, signaling strong opposition.
Still, Netanyahu has ignored internal pressure for over 20 months, and it appears the decisive word will come from Washington during his private dinner with Trump—who is unpredictable, image-driven, and still chasing a Nobel Peace Prize.
Although Trump hasn’t taken a firm stance on ending the war, it’s possible he will tell Netanyahu that a larger deal is at stake—one that serves U.S., Israeli, and personal political interests: expanding the Abraham Accords after a ceasefire.
After the Iran war, Netanyahu may find it easier to push through a ceasefire, especially since Trump helped attack Iran last month and may now want something in return. Even in Israel, there are growing concerns about another Trump surprise, with him telling Netanyahu: “Enough is enough.”
Focused on political survival and legacy, Netanyahu might follow the path laid out by Washington—soon announcing early elections, campaigning on slogans like “Victory over Iran” and “Normalization with Saudi Arabia”, hoping the public forgets the humiliation of October 7, 2023, and remembers July 13, 2025, instead.
Yet clear disputes remain, threatening the deal. Although the proposed text is essentially the “Second Witkoff Proposal,” a partial agreement, Trump’s stated desire to end the war brings it closer to reality than ever before. The core contradiction remains: How do you solve the war through a partial deal?
-
-
-
-
-
-
