Paris is at the center of international attention as a pivotal round of negotiations concerning the Hamas prisoner deal is slated for Saturday. The urgency stems from the looming start of Ramadan, with negotiators racing against time to reach an agreement.
In a surprising turn of events, Israel has decided to participate in the talks, overturning Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s initial decision to boycott the negotiations. Several factors prompted this reversal, including growing concerns about a potential third ‘Intifada’ outbreak in the West Bank, especially amid resurging militant activities.
Another crucial factor influencing Israel’s participation is the military’s pressing need for a truce and rest. The strains on military units, both physically and mentally, have become increasingly apparent. Furthermore, reports confirming the failure of rescue efforts for prisoners in Gaza through military operations have raised alarm over the safety of lives.
Simultaneously, American pressure has played a significant role in shaping the diplomatic landscape. Washington acknowledges that progress toward a broader regional agreement would be challenging without a prisoner exchange deal. The possibility of any invasion into Rafah eliminating chances of a future deal’s success adds urgency to the negotiations.
In Paris, discussions will revolve around the number of prisoners exchanged by both parties and the determination of a ceasefire period. Israeli sources reveal that recent talks in Cairo broached the idea of a truce lasting several weeks, during which the deployment of Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip would be recalibrated.
While Hamas has shown flexibility in Cairo, Israeli officials highlight substantial differences between the movement and Israel, particularly concerning the allocation of humanitarian aid and the cessation of the Rafah operation.
Meanwhile, the northern front remains a concern, with apprehensions about the repercussions of the deal’s failure on the Lebanese border. Washington, however, categorically rejects the possibility of escalating confrontations into a full-scale war, emphasizing the hindrance it would pose to any major regional agreement.
