Now that my personal obligation is over I’ve had a bit of time to digest the latest developments with respect to Gaza. If you’ve read this evening’s newsletter you know that Hamas submitted its formal response to Donald Trump’s ceasefire framework and it was not the unqualified acceptance or rejection that would have corresponded to the “take it or leave it” approach he’s shown this week. As many other folks have noted it was a “yes, but” response. Hamas agreed to release its living prisoners and the remains of the deceased, provided that “the necessary field conditions for implementing the exchange” are met (this means a ceasefire at a minimum). It didn’t outright reject the rest of the framework—the details on governance, disarmament, basically anything beyond the prisoner release—so much as it tabled them pending further negotiations as well as deliberations “within a unified Palestinian national framework,” in which the group says it intends to participate.
In fairness, “yes, but” was the same response Trump got from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who apparently forced several changes to the framework before he accepted it on Monday. But as is par for the course when it comes to the US and Israel-Palestine, Netanyahu’s “buts” were simply accepted without consideration while Hamas’s “buts” are a matter of significant controversy.
Given that Hamas’s answer wasn’t an outright “yes” I figured the chances that Trump would treat it as a “no” were pretty high. I’m always happy to be proven wrong in my pessimism and in this case, at least so far, it seems I have been:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Foreign Exchanges to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.