Hamas refusing ceasefire??????

[mids2019]

So President Biden is under the impression that a ceasefire could be in place by the weekend ....

Queue celebration (presumably) by all those that march on the streets calling for a ceasefire.

Then we find our Hamas have problems with it!!!!! The same Hamas that are supposed to be acting in their people's intsrests

We now know who really does not want to engage in ceasefire talks and release hostages. We now know who the ire of all those marchers in London should be directed against.

I feel Hamas want this war to continue as is as they are thriving on the sympathy the war is bringing to Palestinians. The more global 'support' is demonstrated the more they feel they have a chance of being part of a post war peace

If Hamas released all the hostages that would be a start towards a ceasefire. 40 days would possibly allow talks to continue looking to something permanent but Hamas are rejecting this as not enough (admittedly there are some Israeli doubts).

The point is that when discussing ceasfire Hamas are looking for the best deal and not as many would anticipate doing anything to prevent a 'genocide'. Typically as in Ukraine peace talks are a challenge when both parties think it is in their interest to continue combat. In this case there must be some perceived benefit for Hamas to keep fighting as they seem to be not yet ready to accept ceasefire conditions of some sort.

OP why won’t you accept that Israel has said there will be no permanent ceasefire until they decide they have “destroyed Hamas” and a ground invasion of Rafah is part of that plan. Israel don’t want to stop yet.

Negotiations so far
Below is a rough summary of what has been suggested and what the sticking points are.

Israel wants all the hostages released and Hamas to stop fighting in return for a ceasefire which will be temporary only as they want to proceed with the Rafah ground invasion.

Hamas wants Palestinian prisoners released in exchange for hostages, aid to flow freely, civilians to be allowed to return to Northern Gaza. They don’t want to release IDF hostages at the moment, especially male ones, and won’t commit to stop fighting if Israel doesn’t.

Israel doesn’t want anyone under the age of 50 to return to northern Gaza. And are adamant that the Rafah invasion will proceed.

If Hamas released all the hostages that would be a start towards a ceasefire. 40 days would possibly allow talks to continue looking to something permanent but Hamas are rejecting this as not enough (admittedly there are some Israeli doubts).

No, it would not be a start towards a ceasefire and both Hamas and Israel know it. Israel has been brutally honest that this would be a forty day humanitarian pause to get the hostages out so they can then go into Rafah not worrying about killing more hostages as they go. Israel could have lied and pretended, oh yes, we could build from this to a ceasefire, but they have been honest and forthright on their intentions. It is best to take Israel seriously and at their word.

As much as I want a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution, I think the negotiations are at an impasse and it will take 3rd party intervention to impose a ceasefire.

Hamas have never wanted peace and have always refused a two state solution. Hence the slogan ‘from the river to the sea’. Hamas’ objective is the complete destruction of Israel and the Jews. They are Islamic terrorists linked to other groups so if they achieve their aim they will move on to other countries and other targets.

Islamist. Not Islamic.

I don't think this is particularly complicated, actually: if you try to look at the situation without any ideological blinkers on, this boils down to "bog standard negotiation theory", specifically, strategic interests and BATNAs (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement)!

The Israeli current BATNA seems to boil down to something along the lines of "we just keep on going as is". Yes, it risks losing them some hostages - but that is an accusation they have already been facing and that some of their politicians have already been defending openly with the argument that there are bigger, more important strategic goals at play. Israel insists that it would not accept any permanent cessation of hostilities.

Hamas' BATNA would appear to be centred around not wanting to weaken their position permanently for temporary concessions. In other words, they will absolutely not want to agree to anything that does, in fact, allow for Israel to continue the onslaught after a "break" and trade away leverage on their part without assurances that this will not be allowed to happen.

Neither position is irrational given each party's strategic goals and interests and preferred outcomes, actually! Note that I did not say "moral", "desirable", or anything of the sort. I said "not irrational"! Both parties may even have possible gains from continuing the status quo.

And, yes, 3rd party pressure can work to shift the balance, of course!

Take the much more harmless example of a price negotiation in a business deal: if my BATNA had been "worst case scenario: I walk away from this one - and sell to XY instead for 5% less" but then XY withdrew their offer, I may now be a lot more amenable to giving my negotiating partner an additional discount. Conversely, if I received an offer for 10% more, my stance may harden. While the stakes are incomparably higher here, the theory is not fundamentally different!

I genuinely don't think it's helpful to look at this in a simplistic, opinion driven "oh, but, if X just did Y" sort of way. Because that will just never happen. Shifting incentives and the securing of strategic interests secures deals - not wishful thinking!

... and, no, I have never tried to negotiate a political deal. I most certainly have multi-million contracts, and have walked away many times on the grounds that "no deal" was actually the better option at some point.

Aid is required to be let in and safe routes given to convoys and to civilians needing to access it by law. Aid should not be contingent on Hamas surrendering, releasing hostages, or anything. Israel’s hindering of aid is a war crime.

“Neither position is irrational given each party's strategic goals and interests and preferred outcomes, actually! Note that I did not say "moral", "desirable", or anything of the sort. I said "not irrational"! Both parties may even have possible gains from continuing the status quo. And, yes, 3rd party pressure can work to shift the balance, of course!”

Great summing up Heidi.

HAMAS don't seem willing to return female hostages, I wonder why?

According to the news it's the IDF male hostages they're reluctant to return. They've been offering the women back for a long time now but no deal has been struck.

Thank you @HeidiInTheBigCity and @Scirocco for teaching me things.

I can’t see why Israel would allow Hamas to continue in power or indeed existence after the attacks they planned, practised and executed and their own state mission.

Israel’s position as I understand is not to tolerate anything which undermines Israel’s security. That in itself is less clear- the position is subject to interpretation. The current hardline position would not be the same as earlier regimes may have held.

They released all the civilian female hostages back in November.
It’s IDF female hostages they have yet to release and to do that, they want a permanent ceasefire. That is the usual procedure in a war. You don’t release captured enemy soldiers until there is a ceasefire, otherwise you are releasing a soldier who can then immediately start fighting you again. Israel isn’t releasing anyone they captured that they suspect as part of Hamas either.

There are a lot of war crimes going on in this conflict, but holding captured enemy soldiers isn’t one.

@HeidiInTheBigCity Do you think there is any sort of constructive ambiguity thing going on? In the sense that one side’s humanitarian pause is a temporary ceasefire for the other and we’re starting to see dialogue of sorts? It seems like a game of poker with lives instead of chips.

No, they didn't. There are still civilian female hostages in captivity. There are also civilian male hostages in captivity, as well as two children.

@lostonmars got any credible sources that say there is sufficient aid allowed in but Hamas is just taking it?

@lostonmars I take it the US and all the other aid groups are also Hamas supporters for continuously publicly saying that there needs to be more aid allowed in?
Or is it only mumsnetters who are accused of that?
And how does that one incident prove that a)sufficient aid is allowed in and b) that it's just Hamas that is taking it all
On the contrary the US have said there is no credible evidence to prove that

Who are the live civilian female and child hostages yet to be released? I am not counting the ones reported to have been killed.

@Parkingt111 asked for credible sources.

@lostonmars perhaps you need an update from what was said in October

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-envoy-says-israel-has-not-shown-evidence-that-hamas-is-diverting-un-aid-in-gaza