The Jerusalem Post said that reports – indicating the possibility of reaching a new agreement with the Islamic Resistance Movement (agitation) to stop the fighting in Gaza Enabling the release of Israeli detainees raises concerns because the apparently weakened movement demands more from the new deal than it got in the first deal.
The Israeli newspaper explained – in a report written by Seth J. Franzma – that the deal includes stopping the fighting for several months in exchange for the release of most of the remaining detainees, noting that Hamas had misled Israel in the past, as the first deal was supposed to include elderly hostages, women and children, and it did not turn out to be the case. The word “women” means only older women and mothers.
The newspaper's report claimed that Hamas lied about the release of the Bibas family, claiming that they were being held by other groups or private civilians in Gaza, noting that these are merely allegations raised when talks about detainees begin so that Hamas can prolong the talks and pretend that it does not know their whereabouts.
The writer wondered: Why are talks being held with Qatar, which hosts Hamas, if Hamas is not holding all the hostages? Pointing out that what is presented to the Israeli public is that Hamas will make a deal, but the movement does not hold all the hostages, but it will find them, and if it does not find them, it will get a halt to the fighting to search for them or pretend to search for them, and when the agreement is violated, it is because it was known that Hamas was unable to find them. Or that Hamas was lying, as the newspaper put it.
She will get her claws back
Hamas misled Israel the first time – as the writer says – and after another two months of fighting, it is now back in the driver’s seat in an attempt to secure more than it did last November, although it is not logical for Hamas, which has become weaker, to seek Which would have resulted in a much longer deadline for the release of a smaller number of detainees.
Franzma: The danger of a prolonged ceasefire is that time is not on Israel's side.
He mentioned what the Israeli army says about killing a large number of Hamas army members, disabling 60% of it, and taking control of the tunnel areas, and that 80% of them have not been found. However, he admits that Hamas still has some command and control, as it controls Rafah and Humanitarian aid entering Gaza, and perhaps trying to infiltrate Gazans still in the north.
The writer believed that if Hamas obtains a ceasefire for a period of months, it will regain its claws, return to the tunnels, recruit more people and exploit the aid coming to Gaza in order to become rich and powerful again.
Israel was told – according to the author – that when the war ended, Hamas would not be in Gaza, and this was reduced to saying that the Hamas threat would not be there. So far, Hamas's leadership remains mostly intact, and its infrastructure is also intact, if somewhat damaged.
The writer concluded that Hamas expects an influx of money and humanitarian aid so that it can continue to control civilians in Gaza, believing that time is on its side, and its pursuit of a long ceasefire is evidence of that. Here lies the danger of a long ceasefire, because time is not on its side. Good for Israel.