An Israeli negotiating team has reportedly extended its stay in the Qatari capital Doha, a day after the US envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff was in town to try and find a path forward between Israel and Hamas.
The deal reportedly on the cards is an extension of the ceasefire for up to 60 days in exchange for between five and 10 living Israeli captives held in Gaza.
While Hamas has previously rejected a similar deal, they may be more amenable after direct meetings between US hostage envoy Adam Boehler and top Hamas officials in recent weeks. Boehler had said that the meetings went well and suggested a deal was on the cards for a potential long-term ceasefire, prompting a backlash from Israel and pro-Israeli US politicians.
There are even reports that Boehler has been taken off the Israel-Gaza file, but those reports may be premature.
Let’s take a closer look.
What is the deal currently being negotiated?
A deal between Israel and Hamas had already been reached, which included three phases and was eventually to lead to a permanent ceasefire. The first phase involved a limited swap of Israeli captives and Palestinian prisoners, as well as a temporary ceasefire and Israel allowing an increased amount of humanitarian aid into Gaza. The details of the second phase were still to be negotiated, but the previous US administration of President Joe Biden made it clear that the first phase would continue until the second phase could be agreed upon.
Israel has ignored that, and while it has not restarted an all-out war on Gaza, it has threatened to do so, and blocked the entry of all humanitarian aid, as well as electricity.
At the start of March Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu introduced a new proposal, which he said had come from Witkoff – although the US envoy never publicly took ownership of it. Netanyahu’s office said the deal would see the ceasefire extended for six weeks and half of the captives in Gaza – dead and alive – released on the first day of the extension.
While that was initially rejected by Hamas, the current deal being negotiated in Doha appears to be similar, although critics still say that Netanyahu has no desire to end the war permanently, as he fears his government will collapse if he does so.
What about Boehler’s negotiations?
While Boehler’s remit only extended to the five Israeli-American captives, four of whom are believed dead, it seems that the direct talks held the possibility of not just securing a lasting ceasefire, but potentially the release of all captives held by Hamas.
Speaking to both Israeli and US media last Sunday, Boehler indicated that he had used the opportunity to engage with Hamas directly, gaining a commitment to maintaining a ceasefire of between five and 10 years, laying down its arms and relinquishing control of the Gaza Strip.
Boehler made clear that he had not coordinated with Israel before holding talks with Hamas, and added in an interview that the US was “not an agent of Israel” and had its own “specific interests at play”.
How has Israel reacted to news of the direct talks?
Not well.
Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich told Israel’s Army Radio that unspecified Israeli officials had “made it clear to him [Boehler] that he cannot speak on our behalf, and if he wishes to negotiate on behalf of the United States, then good luck to him”.
Ron Dermer, Israel’s strategic affairs minister and a close confidante of Netanyahu, was reported to have repeatedly “lashed out” at Boehler the night before news of the talks became public.
The former head of the Israeli security service, the Shin Bet and current agriculture minister, Avi Dichter, also criticised the US initiative, telling Israeli radio the direct US-Hamas talks undermined Israeli negotiations. “It’s very dangerous when you undertake moves without knowing and without coordinating with the Israeli side,” Dichter said.
The Israeli campaign against Boehler continued in the press, with a Times of Israel editorial picking apart Boehler’s comments, branding the envoy “complacent, confused and dangerously naive”.
Has Trump abandoned Boehler?
When news of the US-Hamas talks emerged at the start of the month, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said that Trump backed them because they were “the right thing for the American people”.
But following Boehler’s comments to the press last Sunday, Israeli news reports emerged saying that the hostage envoy did not represent the White House’s position, and that Witkoff would continue to take the lead on negotiations.
Then, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, whose most important portfolios in Ukraine and the Middle East appear to have been taken by Witkoff, said on Monday that the talks were a “one-off situation” that had failed.
Reports on Thursday alternated between claims that said that Boehler would not be dealing with Israel and Gaza any more, and others that said he would continue to support Witkoff.
A report from Jewish Insider included quotes from several anonymous Republican senators berating Boehler, with one suggesting he had “lost all trust”.
Does that matter?
Until Trump himself speaks, it is hard to gauge what his true position on the matter is. It may be the case that he simply hasn’t decided yet.
But either way, the fact that the senators quoted did not want their names published may show that they are still hedging their bets and avoid being seen as second-guessing Trump.
The talks with Hamas, even if the US does not repeat them, are a sign that the Trump administration is taking the lead on Gaza, and is dragging Israel and Netanyahu along with them.
Israel is entirely reliant upon the US for both military and diplomatic support. Moreover, in light of Trump’s unexpected shrugging off of traditional US alliances, such as those with Canada and Europe, many within Israel are worried that Trump’s support for their war on Gaza may prove equally fickle.
Responding to news of the direct talks, the Israeli daily Haaretz speculated that the existence of US negotiations with Hamas was evidence of both Trump’s “frustration” with Netanyahu, as well as revealing of the US administration’s own objectives, principally: “freeing the hostages, ending the war, regional peace [and] Saudi capital”, which it was willing to “achieve … by any means”.
