Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a Hamas counterproposal for a cease-fire, stating that Israel was close to achieving victory in Gaza. He emphasized the need for total victory and expressed concerns about the survival of Hamas in Gaza, warning of potential future massacres.
His remarks came after a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State Antony J. Blinken to discuss peace proposals, casting doubt on the potential progress indicated by the Hamas offer. Netanyahu’s comments left the situation somewhat ambiguous, avoiding specific details.
Hamas had submitted a cease-fire proposal through Qatari and Egyptian mediators, outlining conditions for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and the release of hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian prisoners held in Israeli jails.
Netanyahu dismissed the Hamas proposal, stating that surrendering to their demands would not ensure the release of hostages or restore Israel’s security. When asked about formally rejecting the framework, he indicated that based on the information received, rejection was the only option.
Analysts suggested that Hamas’s proposed deal would end Israel’s campaign in Gaza without toppling the group’s rule, a scenario Netanyahu vehemently opposes. He expressed concerns about leaving Hamas in power, fearing another assault similar to the previous attack that resulted in numerous casualties.
In response, a Hamas leader called for U.S. intervention to halt the war and announced plans for a delegation to pursue talks on the offer in Cairo. He emphasized the urgency of ending the war, highlighting the humanitarian catastrophe and tragedy caused by the occupation in Gaza.
Netanyahu revealed that Israel’s military was preparing to deploy in Rafah and the central Gaza Strip, targeting Hamas’s remaining strongholds. The U.N. secretary general expressed alarm over the military’s focus on Rafah, where displaced Palestinians are seeking safety.
The situation remains tense as both sides stand firm on their positions, with the potential for further escalation.
2024-02-08 06:38:30
Article from www.nytimes.com