“This is a deal that has essentially been on the table for about a month, and according to the Guardian, negotiations were already happening before Israel launched its ground attacks on Gaza. Israel had defined its twin objectives as eliminating Hamas and bringing the hostages back, but experts noted that the former had been the priority until political dynamics led to an increased willingness among Israeli leadership to accept a truce to bring some hostages home. “Public pressure led Netanyahu to agree to a deal that he refused until now,” journalist Yossi Verter wrote in Haaretz’s Hebrew edition.”
So let me get this right - Terrorist invade your country, slaughter and rape thousands of innocent civilians, and kidnap hundreds more as hostages, and then say “let’s make a deal. We’ll give you these hostages back if you give us a bunch of our people back that you are holding. And then we’ll call it even!”. In your opinion the proper response would just be “OK, sure!”
According to your link, Qatar claimed that if Israel unilaterally stopped the fighting then maybe they’d be able to get Hamas to agree swap hostages for prisoners.
In other words, Israel would have to stop fighting and take Hamas at their words that after the fighting stopped then they’d come to the table to negotiate a trade.
What Israel told them is, there is no ceasefire without a hostage deal.
So there was a deal on the table - Israel stops fighting and Hamas will negotiate - and Israel rejected that deal (as they should have, because that’s a really shitty deal).
Then once the IDF smashed Hamas’s HQs at Al Shifa and Jabalia and a couple other places for a while, Hamas got spooked enough that they agreed to a much better deal: ceasefire and prisoners in exchange for hostages.
The article you linked equivocates between Deal 1 (Ceasefire in exchange for further negotiations) and Deal 2 (Ceasefire in exchange for a specifically agreed upon hostage for prisoner swap). That’s incredibly dishonest of the authors of the article.
“Give Hamas a ceasefire and then we can maybe get them to negotiate” is not the same thing as “We agree to a 4 day ceasefire in exchnage for the following hostages being released on day 1, 2, 3, and 4; the ceasefire can be extended by 1 day per 10 additional hostages; each hostage will also earn 10 prisoners”. Comparing the two is either laughably simple minded, or exceedingly scarily purposefully dishonest.
THE deal - 4 days of ceasefire and Y prisoners for X hostages and an additional day of ceasefire and 3 prisoners per 10 hostages released - was not on the table.
A DIFFERENT deal - ceasefire for vague promises that Hamas will think about negotiating at some unspecified point in the future - was.
So if you meant that A (incredibly shitty) DEAL was on the table, I agree; if you meant that THE DEAL was on the table, that’s incredibly wrong, and you should be wary of consuming such dishonest sources of information.
I said that a negotiating position had been placed by intermediaries representing Hamas (deal on table) and that Israel did not engage with the opportunity. Obviously had the two engaged the details of exchange would have been different.
We can see exactly what you said before you walked back half your claims right here:
Your article does not support either claim.
Hamas offered nothing; Qatar said that if Israel agreed to a ceasefire then Qatar is optimistic that they could make things happen. That’s not an offer from Hamas; that’s an assurance from Qatar that if Israel gives Hamas what they want, then Qatar could maybe convince Hamas to make an offer at that time.
“The” deal was not on the table. A vague offer that if Israel stops fighting then Qatar would maybe be able to convince Hamas to negotiate was.
It was an assurance that Qatar could influence Hamas to negotiate, not a real offer; and it was contingent on Israel ending its attack on Hamas.
Instead of relying on vague assurances about what a hostile dictatorship might or might not be able to influence a terrorist group to do, Israel made its own offer - Hamas could come and negotiate a ceasefire and hostage exchange at any time they wished, but until they did so the war would continue.
Hamas did not choose to engage until Israel had started smashing its HQs in person.
We seem to agree that the channel for negotiation was open before Israel took action against Gaza and that Israel did later engage in the presence of outside pressure. That is well documented. Speculation on the potential result is just that, speculation.
Please demonstrate that no channel for negotiation was offered (on the table) and that Israel did not later yield to external pressure resulting in negotiations and an exchange. I believe that is what happened.
According to your own link, Qatar said that they couldn’t make any more progress without a ceasefire. So the channel for negotiation was closed at that time even if we take Qatar at their word.
Israel initially said that they would not agree to a ceasefire without a hostage deal. And indedd, Israel did not agree to a ceasefire until Hamas was prepared to exchange hostages. Israel’s position never changed; Hamas’ did (once they took enough of a beating they negotiated a hostage exchange without waiting for a ceasefire in order to start the negotiation).
Many people believe many things, but this belief does not match reality.
In this case, Israel said they wouldn’t agree to a ceasefire unless it came as part of a hostage deal, and they didn’t; Hamas said they wouldn’t negotiate until Israel agreed to a ceasefire, but after taking enough damage they did negotiate a hostage exhange during ongoing hostilities. How on Earth does that tell you that Israel gave im to external pressure?