[News] Ceasefire: National flexibility met with Israeli evasion

[Anti-Imperialist News]

Reports <https://english.palinfo.com/category/reports/>


  Ceasefire: National flexibility met with Israeli evasion

Thursday 21-August-2025

<https://english.palinfo.com/reports/2025/08/21/346030/#>
<https://english.palinfo.com/reports/2025/08/21/346030/#>
<https://english.palinfo.com/reports/2025/08/21/346030/#>
<https://english.palinfo.com/reports/2025/08/21/346030/#>
+ -

GAZA, (PIC)

The announcement by Hamas and the Palestinian factions of their approval 
of the ceasefire proposal presented by international mediators sparked a 
wave of political and media debate.

While this step represented a positive move that opened a window of hope 
toward ending the ongoing aggression on Gaza, instead of pressuring 
Israel to announce its approval and begin implementation, the Zionist 
propaganda machine and its chorus, backed by hostile parties, launched 
an organized campaign aimed at casting doubt on the resistance’s 
position and undermining its credibility before public opinion, at a 
time when Israel continues to stall in issuing an official stance.

Misleading narratives and their aims

Despite Hamas and the Palestinian factions showing the highest levels of 
flexibility and responsiveness in every round of negotiations, while it 
was Israel that obstructed and derailed them, efforts to distort the 
truth and accuse the resistance of obstruction have not stopped.

Israel and its allies sought to build a narrative depicting Hamas as an 
obstinate party forced in the end to back down, in an attempt to obscure 
the fact that Israel was the one that foiled every previous attempt by 
reneging on agreements and dismissing the mediators’ role, all under 
full US political and military cover.

US envoy Steve Witkoff abruptly withdrew from the latest round of 
negotiations in Doha on July 27, announcing the recall of his team to 
Washington after Israel had already taken a similar step, at a time when 
Hamas had shown clear flexibility and provided a response described by 
mediators as constructive and positive.

According to experts, what happened in that round reflects double 
standards in the negotiating conduct of both the US and Israel, raising 
questions about Washington’s true intentions, especially since Witkoff’s 
move came at a moment when the chances of reaching an agreement seemed 
more realistic than ever.

This was not the first such incident: last March, Israel unilaterally 
ended a ceasefire agreement after the completion of its first phase, 
refusing to implement the remainder, while closing crossings to 
intensify starvation and escalating its airstrikes on March 18, killing 
10,576 Palestinians and injuring 44,717 more since that date.

The Palestinian position: Calculated flexibility

 From the start, the resistance, led by Hamas, showed flexibility by 
engaging in extensive consultations that produced a unified position 
among Palestinian factions. This flexibility did not mean abandoning 
national principles but came as a response to urgent humanitarian 
necessities amid Israel’s intensifying genocide through killing, 
displacement, and starvation.

The resistance’s goal was clear: to stop Israel’s war of extermination 
and starvation, lift the blockade, allow the entry of food and medicine, 
and reach a balanced deal that ensures the release of prisoners.

The Israeli position: Evasion, escalation, and genocide

Israel, meanwhile, continued its policy of stalling, coupled with an 
intensification of mass killings, forced displacement, vast destruction, 
and starvation.

In a dangerous development, Hebrew media reported on August 8 that 
Israel plans to move forward with a new military operation to occupy 
Gaza City, designed by Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir and discussed with Army 
Minister Yisrael Katz.

These plans clearly expose the gap between Israel’s public rhetoric on 
negotiations and its actual conduct, which seeks further killing, 
destruction, and devastation.

Internal Israeli repercussions

After a series of meetings in Cairo with Egyptian and Qatari mediators, 
Hamas announced on August 18 that it and the Palestinian factions had 
agreed to the proposal presented by the two mediators.

According to experts, this Palestinian stance highlighted the depth of 
divisions in Israel’s political scene. Hebrew media described Hamas’s 
positive response as “putting the ball in Netanyahu’s court,” while some 
analysts argued that the resistance’s flexibility removed excuses from 
the Israeli government.

However, the far-right, led by Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, 
threatened to topple the government if it moved toward an agreement, 
while families of captives and soldiers intensified their pressure on 
Netanyahu, demanding an urgent decision before it was too late.

Netanyahu, as usual, continues to evade issuing an official position. 
His office released only a statement reaffirming Israel’s demand for the 
release of all captives in Gaza, without explicitly rejecting the 
mediators’ proposal, which Egypt said was drafted in consultation with 
Witkoff and was essentially his original de-escalation plan.

Instead of responding, Israel’s government approved a plan to occupy 
Gaza and displace its residents, amid silence from the international 
community, which sees the facts but turns a blind eye.

Flexibility stemming from national responsibility

Political analyst Iyad Al-Qara stressed that Hamas’s flexibility in 
responding to the Egyptian-Qatari proposal was especially clear this time.

He explained that the response came quickly and included: accepting a 
temporary ceasefire for 60 days, agreeing to a partial Israeli 
withdrawal from populated areas (750–1,000 meters), leaving full 
withdrawal details for later phases, and allowing in 600 aid trucks 
daily through crossings under international supervision, including food, 
medicine, and fuel.

It also accepted postponing major files, such as resistance weapons, 
Gaza’s governance, and the presence of international or Arab forces, 
until after the temporary truce. This flexibility, Al-Qara emphasized, 
reflects clear national responsibility and places the ball directly in 
Israel’s court.

Netanyahu’s doctrine

Al-Qara added that Netanyahu approaches negotiations according to his 
known doctrine of “partial deals”, seeking the release of some Israeli 
captives without paying the political and security price of ending the war.

Netanyahu’s ambition, he explained, is to quickly exhaust negotiations 
and maximize Israel’s gains without entering into a comprehensive 
settlement. But Netanyahu, according to Al-Qara, now faces a complex 
equation: either respond to Palestinian flexibility and move toward a 
broader settlement that ends the war, or persist in evasion, leading to 
a deeper political and military impasse, exposing Israel as the party 
obstructing any solution.

A multi-dimensional struggle

According to experts, what is happening is not merely a debate over 
negotiating terms but a multi-dimensional struggle. On the ground, 
Israel seeks to resolve it with brute force and genocide, facing a brave 
resistance and a resilient people. On another level, it is also a battle 
over narrative and truth.

They argue that Israel is using misleading media narratives to cover up 
its responsibility for derailing initiatives and absolve itself of 
genocide crimes in Gaza. Meanwhile, the resistance has succeeded in 
projecting a heroic image on the battlefield and demonstrating high 
responsibility and flexibility in politics, proving that it carries a 
just cause, while Israel is nothing more than a bloody, brutal occupier 
imposed on our land and region, and that Zionist ideology is a threat to 
the entire world.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://freedomarchives.org/pipermail/news_freedomarchives.org/attachments/20250821/600aa673/attachment-0001.htm>