Experts discuss Gaza cease-fire negotiations as Netanyahu rejects Hamas’ latest terms

Read the Full Transcript

• Geoff Bennett:

  Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu today rejected a counterproposal from Hamas that would have paused the war in exchange for releasing Israeli hostages over the next few months. But U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said there was still room for negotiation.

  Nick Schifrin examines the state of diplomacy and what it means for U.S. efforts in the region.

• Nick Schifrin:

  At a press conference in Jerusalem today, Netanyahu reiterated his longstanding goals for the war, absolute victory. And he said the Israel Defense Forces could achieve that goal in — quote — "a matter of months."

• Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli Prime Minister (through translator):

  The continuation of the military pressure is a necessary condition for the release of hostages. Surrendering to Hamas' delusional demands that we heard now not only won't lead to freeing the captives. It will just invite another massacre. It will invite a major disaster on the state of Israel that none of our citizens would want to accept.

• Nick Schifrin:

  The original proposal called for a six-week pause to release older women and children first and then a promise of two more releases, including soldiers and the bodies of hostages who died in captivity.

  Hamas' counterproposal goes further, demanding an Israeli withdrawal first from populated areas and then from Gaza completely. It also demands reconstruction, more than 500 humanitarian aid trucks per day, and the understanding that Hamas would remain in power.

  The U.S. has hoped a pause in the war could spark broader regional diplomatic progress. Today, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said talks over the hostages would continue.

  Antony Blinken, U.S. Secretary of State: While there are some clear nonstarters in Hamas' response, we do think it creates space for agreement to be reached.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Netanyahu made clear the war would continue. He said Israel had so far killed 20,000 Hamas fighters, and the Israeli military operation would extend into the southern city of Rafah, where more than half of Gaza's 2.3 million people are now sheltering.

  So, where do things stand?

  For that, we get two views. Marwan Muasher was Jordan's foreign minister and then deputy prime minister from 2002 to 2005. He's now vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. And Dennis Ross was a longtime Middle East peace negotiator for both Republican and Democratic administrations. He's now a distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

  Thank you very much, both of you. Welcome back to the "NewsHour."

  Dennis Ross, let me start with you. What is your reaction to what Prime Minister Netanyahu said in response to Hamas' counterproposal?

  Dennis Ross, Former U.S. Envoy to Middle East: I think he really had two audiences in mind.

  One audience was Yahya Sinwar, who is the head of the military wing in Gaza and actually is the person in control in Gaza. And the other audience was probably the right wing of his own coalition, where he's — he knows they're threatening to break the government if he looks like he's prepared to end the war or give in too much to Hamas.

  So I think, for Sinwar, what he wanted to signal was, look, you're asking to end the war and you stay in power? No way. Not accepting that. This was Netanyahu's way of beginning a readiness to signal that he's going to negotiate, but he's going to negotiate hard. And I would say the Hamas proposal, counterproposal, is itself a kind of first counterproposal designed to produce a negotiation.

  I don't think there was any Hamas expectation that the Israelis would accept something like this.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Muasher, is this a signal that Netanyahu is going to negotiate, even if it is negotiate hard?

• Marwan Muasher, Former Jordanian Foreign Minister:

  Well, look, if Netanyahu says that the war will not end until he kills the Hamas leaders, then, from the point of view of Hamas, why should they agree to release hostages and then agree to a truce of whatever, two months, three months, and then after that they get bombed again?

  So, if this is the real position of Mr. Netanyahu, then I'm afraid that this is a nonstarter. Secretary Blinken talked about the Palestinian position being a nonstarter. I see the Israeli one being a nonstarter if this is the real position.

  I think the priority today has to be an end, a permanent end to the war. After 27,000 people killed, one cannot keep talking about truces that are not permanent.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Dennis Ross, is this Netanyahu's actual position, or is this a public stance? And does this doom any effort to end the war in Gaza, even if temporarily?

• Dennis Ross:

  Look, I do think it's a negotiating posture, but I also think that we really have two — at this point, two irreconcilable positions.

  The Hamas position, as Marwan just suggested, is, they want an end to the war and they want to remain in power. And the Israeli position is, at the end of the day, Hamas is not going to be in power.

  I do think what the actual position should be, at least on the Israeli side, should be the demilitarization of Gaza and the certainty that it can't be remilitarized. I also think you can say you can tie reconstruction to demilitarization, something the Israelis are in the process of doing. No one is going to be able to eliminate Hamas, partly because it's an idea, partly because it's a group, partly because in some ways it's embedded, at least sociologically, psychologically, in Gaza.

  But Hamas not being in power, Hamas being demilitarized, Gaza being demilitarized, those are objectives, I think, that could be achieved. And I think, if the focus turns to that, then the gaps between the two sides, which seem so irreconcilable, might be reachable.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Muasher, is there a version of Gaza in the future that has Hamas not in power?

• Marwan Muasher:

  I don't think Gaza is the endgame, Nick. The endgame has to be the end of the occupation.

  If we talk about the package where the endgame is the end of the occupation and the establishment of a Palestinian state, a lot of these questions that are difficult to answer today become easier to answer. Are we serious about finally ending the occupation and establishing a two-state solution, as the United States says it is?

  In the end, Hamas has to become a political force. We have seen this with the IRA in Ireland. We have seen this in many countries across the world. We have seen organizations that were called terrorists, but that became political forces in the end.

  Look, today, the Palestinian polls are clear. Sixty percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza want Hamas to stay in Gaza and rule over Gaza after the war. These are numbers that cannot be ignored. The question is, how do we give these people a political horizon, so that they do not believe in armed resistance, but they do believe that finally a process can lead to the end of the occupation?

• Nick Schifrin:

  Dennis Ross, let's use that occasion to zoom out. So what the U.S. theory of the case right now is that a temporary pause could lead to larger discussions about exactly what Marwan Muasher just said, Gaza reconstruction, the future governance of Gaza, and then normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia, leading to a two-state solution.

  Is that the correct approach that the Biden administration is taking?

• Dennis Ross:

  I think it is a logical one, and I think it could be the right one.

  Obviously, it's not just that the devils are in the details. The Israeli public was traumatized by October 7. They fear, when you talk about a Palestinian state, that Hamas will come to dominate that state, and Hamas, by definition, doesn't accept the two-state outcome.

  And this is not just a recent phenomenon. This was the case throughout the 1990s. Every time we were making progress, we got a Hamas bomb. There is an ideology in Hamas that rejects Israel's existence. The question is, do you have a Palestinian national movement that, in the end, will be dominated by those and who will demonstrate they're dominated and control the movement that is prepared to live with Israel as a nation-state of the Jewish people?

  If that becomes very clear, then you can get a Palestinian state. You're not going to have peace until you have an end of occupation. But there's got to be responsibility and accountability on both sides. On the Israeli side, they're going to have to demonstrate they're prepared to live with an independent Palestinian state.

  But the Palestinians are also going to have to demonstrate that they reject those who reject the idea of two states.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Muasher, is there Palestinian leadership that the U.S. and the region is working on today that could foresee that future that Dennis Ross just imagined happening?

• Marwan Muasher:

  Of course. Of course.

  One of them is in prison, Marwan Barghouti, who is ready for a compromise.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Barghouti, whom Israel tried and convicted of terrorism charges 20 years ago, but maintains his political viability and is one of the most popular Palestinian leaders today.

• Marwan Muasher:

  Absolutely.

  I mean, we talk — Dennis talks about ideologies. What about the ideology of members of the Israeli Cabinet today that are openly calling for the expulsion of Palestinians? Ideologies exist on both sides. We need to change the mind-sets of both Israelis and Palestinians, who today do not believe there is a partner on the other side.

  And the only way we can change the mind-set is if we offer a serious process, not an open-ended process, but a serious process that ends the occupation. If we do that, I believe we can change the mind-set of both Palestinians and the Israelis. But, today, we cannot have the extremist ideologies once again on both sides dictate the outcome of this conflict.

• Nick Schifrin:

  If I could ask quickly, both of you, to turn to an incident this afternoon in Baghdad.

  The U.S. military has announced that it took a drone strike that killed one of the leaders of Kataib Hezbollah, one of the pro-Iranian militias, in Iraq responsible for the deaths of three U.S. service members, U.S. military saying that it killed the commander — quote — "responsible for directly planning and participating" in that attack.

  Dennis Ross first, could this kind of attack end attacks by pro-Iranian militias on U.S. service members in Iraq and Syria?

• Dennis Ross:

  It's clear that the administration has made a decision that one of the things it has to do is that a threshold was crossed when three Americans were killed.

  And then, when that happens, the American response is going to be disproportionate to what we saw before. The U.S. is clearly trying to change the calculus by showing those who are doing this are playing with fire. Is this going to be sufficient to do it? I'm not sure.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Muasher, does this kind of strike — quote — "change the calculus"?

• Marwan Muasher:

  I still think that both the United States and Iran are not interested in widening the conflict.

  I think that what we have seen so far, both from Iran and from the United States, are tactical engagements. But I do not think that they are going to amount to a widening of the conflict. And I certainly hope they don't.

• Nick Schifrin:

  Marwan Muasher, Dennis Ross, thank you very much to you both.

• Dennis Ross:

  Thank you.