Ankara’s pivotal role in cease-fire talks revealed

In her column for Hurriyet, Hande Firat delves into the intricate details of the U.S.-backed three-stage cease-fire plan for Gaza and Turkiye’s pivotal role in the negotiations.

She sheds light on Türkiye’s crucial involvement in the negotiations. As the U.S. sought Türkiye’s assistance to persuade Hamas, Ankara posed a pivotal question: “Who guarantees Israel’s commitments to cease attacks?” She explains Turkiye’s back-and-forth communication with Hamas, particularly regarding ambiguities within the U.S.-proposed cease-fire plan.

Details of US-backed plan and Hamas’ reservations

Firat detailed that the proposal, which included the exchange of hostages and prisoners and the reconstruction of Gaza, was made public.

• If both parties agree, the first phase involves a 42-day period during which Hamas will release civilian hostages, dead or alive, and Israel will release Palestinian prisoners. A cease-fire will be in effect during this period.
• In the second phase, Hamas will release captured soldiers, and Israel will again release prisoners. This phase will also be free of conflict.

Hamas’ questions

Firat outlined several questions and concerns raised by Hamas in its communication with Turkiye due to vague language:

• There is no guarantee anywhere that Israel will not resume the war after retrieving all the hostages.
• The exchange issue is unclear for Hamas. It is unknown how many and what types of prisoners Israel will release in exchange for the hostages held by Hamas. Israel, which continuously detains civilians, might play a game by releasing those recently detained instead of those imprisoned for years.
• Another important question for Hamas is what will happen to political prisoners, such as Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti.

Türkiye’s proactive diplomatic efforts

Firat provided detailed insights into Ankara’s diplomatic engagement with the U.S. and Hamas during the cease-fire negotiations.

As the U.S. sought Türkiye’s assistance in persuading Hamas to accept the proposal, Ankara, in turn, raised a crucial question:

Who will guarantee that Israel will not resume its attacks and massacres?

Hande Firat citing Ankara sources.

The U.S. simply responded by saying, “We promise.”

However, Türkiye expressed reservations, citing past instances where Israel had breached verbal agreements. Consequently, Türkiye emphasized the necessity for a written guarantee to ensure compliance.

During discussions with Hamas, Ankara advocated for a nuanced approach, advising against outright rejection of the proposal.

Instead, Türkiye proposed amendments to address the ambiguities and deficiencies within the text, aiming to facilitate a more equitable and sustainable cease-fire agreement.

Will cease-fire be achieved?

Firat conveyed that Hamas’ primary expectation is a permanent ceasefire and the implementation of a two-state solution. With successive resignations from the Israeli government, the course of the process remains uncertain.

However, if the issues are resolved in the negotiations and a ceasefire is achieved, according to the U.S. proposal, Israel must withdraw from Gaza.

Who will govern Gaza?

According to Firat, the proposal indicates that Israel will withdraw but will not leave Gaza under Hamas’ control.

In discussions, the U.S. expressed a desire to hand over control of Gaza to Mahmoud Abbas, although it is known among the actors that this is not feasible.

Hamas’s technical government proposal

Firat reported that in closed-door negotiations, Hamas made significant proposals, summarized as follows:

• A government of technocrats excluding members of both Hamas and Fatah should be formed in Gaza.
• Hamas, willing to join the Palestine Liberation Organization, proposed holding elections in a year and a half.
• With the establishment of the Palestinian state, Hamas suggested that the Qassam Brigades lay down their arms and join the official army of the state.

Türkiye open to maintaining cease-fire in Gaza

Firat, also expressed doubts about the overall viability of the proposals. She questioned whether the Israeli government, amid its internal turmoil, would even see value in the U.S. peace efforts and if the U.S. itself is truly committed to achieving a cease-fire.

Despite these uncertainties, Firat indicated Türkiye’s willingness to participate in an international force to maintain a potential cease-fire and rebuild Gaza. This underscores Türkiye’s significant role in the negotiations, even as key questions remain unanswered.