world news
The secret negotiations that led to the Gaza hostages deal
Shortly after Hamas militants took hostages during their deadly assault on southern Israel on October 7, the government of Qatar contacted the White House with a request: Form a small team of advisers to help work to get the captives freed.
That work, begun in the days after the hostages were taken, finally bore fruit with the announcement of a prisoner swap deal mediated by Qatar and Egypt and agreed by Israel, Hamas and the United States.
The secretive effort included tense personal diplomatic engagement by US President Joe Biden, who held a number of urgent conversations with the emir of Qatar and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the weeks leading up to the deal.
It also involved hours of painstaking negotiations including Secretary of State Antony Blinken, CIA Director Bill Burns, national security adviser Jake Sullivan and his deputy Jon Finer, and US Middle East envoy Brett McGurk, among others.Two officials involved in the effort provided extensive details of the work that led to an agreement in which 50 hostages are to be freed in exchange for 150 Palestinian prisoners during a four-day pause in fighting.
Qatar’s helped broker initial release
Shortly after October 7, Qatar – a long-established mediator in a volatile region – approached the White House with sensitive information regarding the hostages and the potential for their release, the officials said. The Qataris asked that a small team, which they called a “cell,” be established to work the issue privately with the Israelis.
Sullivan directed McGurk and another National Security Council official, Josh Geltzer, to establish the team. This was done without telling other relevant US agencies because Qatar and Israel demanded extreme secrecy with only a few people to be in the know, the officials said.
McGurk, a seasoned diplomat with deep experience in the Middle East, held daily morning calls with the prime minister of Qatar, Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al Thani. He reported back to Sullivan and Biden was briefed daily on the process.
Biden got an upfront look at what the victims of the Hamas attack endured when he held an emotional, lengthy meeting on October 13 with the families of Americans who were either being held hostage or were unaccounted for.
Days later, Biden traveled to Tel Aviv for October 18 talks with Netanyahu. The official said securing the release of hostages was a central focus of his discussions with Netanyahu and his war cabinet, as well as humanitarian assistance.
Five days later, on October 23, the White House team’s work helped yield the release of two American hostages, Natalie and Judith Raanan.
From outside Sullivan’s West Wing office McGurk, Sullivan and Finer tracked in real time the captives’ difficult, multi-hour journey out of Gaza.
The return of the two Americans proved it was possible to gain freedom for hostages and gave confidence to Biden that Qatar could deliver through the small team that had been established, the officials said.
Now, an intensified process started to get more hostages out. When this happened, Burns began speaking regularly with Mossad director David Barnea.
Biden saw an opportunity to gain the release of a large number of hostages and that a deal for prisoners was the only realistic path to securing a pause in the fighting, the officials said.
Deal nearly reached prior to ground invasion
On October 24, with Israel poised to launch a ground offensive in Gaza, the US side got word that Hamas had agreed to the parameters of a deal to release women and children, which would mean a pause and a delay in the ground invasion.
US officials debated with the Israelis whether or not the ground offensive should be delayed.
The Israelis argued that terms were not firm enough to delay, since there was no proof of life for the hostages. Hamas claimed they could not determine who was being held until a pause in fighting began.
Americans and Israelis viewed the Hamas position as disingenuous. The official said Israel’s invasion plan was adapted to support a pause if a deal came together.
Biden then engaged over the next three weeks in detailed talks as proposals about a potential hostage release were traded back and forth. Demands were made that Hamas produce the lists of hostages it was holding, their identifying information, and guarantees of release.
The process was long and cumbersome – communication was difficult and messages had to be passed from Doha or Cairo into Gaza and back, the officials said.
Biden held a previously undisclosed phone call with the Qatari prime minister when the phasing of releases began to take shape, the official said.
Under the agreement that was taking shape, women and children hostages would be freed in a first phase, together with a commensurate release of Palestinian prisoners from the Israelis.
The Israelis insisted Hamas ensure all women and children come out in this phase. The US side agreed, and demanded through Qatar proof of life or identifying information for women and children held by Hamas.
Hamas said it could guarantee 50 in the first phase, but refused to produce a list of identifying criteria. On November 9, Burns met in Doha with the Qatari leader and the Mossad’s Barnea to go through the texts of the emerging arrangement.
The key obstacle at that point was that Hamas had not clearly identified who it was holding.
Three days later, Biden called the emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, and demanded to know the names or clear identifying information for the 50 hostages including ages, gender and nationalities. Without the information, the official said, there was no basis to move forward.
Shortly after Biden’s call, Hamas produced details for the 50 hostages it said would be released in the first phase of any deal.
Biden in a November 14 call urged Netanyahu to take the deal – Netanyahu agreed.
McGurk saw Netanyahu that same day in Israel. Walking out of a meeting, Netanyahu grabbed McGurk’s arm and said “we need this deal” and urged Biden call the emir of Qatar on the final terms, one of the officials said.
“Time was up”
Talks stalled as communications went dark in Gaza.
When they resumed, Biden was in San Francisco attending an Asia-Pacific summit. He called the emir of Qatar and told him this was the last chance, and the emir pledged to apply pressure to close the deal, the officials said.
“The president insisted the deal had to close, now. Time was up,” one official said.
On November 18, McGurk met in Doha with the Qatari prime minister. Burns was dialed in after he spoke with Mossad. The meeting identified the last remaining gaps toward a deal.
The agreement was now structured for women and children to be freed in the first phase, but with an expectation for future releases and the aim to bring all hostages home to their families.
In Cairo the next morning, McGurk met with Egypt intelligence chief Abbas Kamil. Word came from Hamas leaders in Gaza that they had accepted nearly all the agreements worked out the day before in Doha.
Only one issue remained, tied to the number of hostages to be released in the first phase and the ultimate structure of the deal to incentivize releases beyond the 50 known women and children, the officials said.
A flurry of additional contacts ensued, and the deal finally came together.
Hamas claimed on Friday that it was ready to engage in negotiations that have dragged on for two weeks in Doha as a ceasefire holds in Gaza. Hamas is playing for time, and it is receiving a ceasefire for Ramadan.,
There is no urgency in Jerusalem to do a deal with Hamas. The US is focused on Ukraine at the moment and the chances of a ceasefire deal with Moscow. As such, Hamas sought to grab the spotlight on March 14 with a claim it was ready to release Edan Alexander, a hostage held in Gaza who holds US and Israeli citizenship.
Hamas said it had “received a proposal from mediators yesterday to resume negotiations, and responded responsibly and positively.” This apparently refers to various proposals floated since March 1. On March 1, the first phase of the ceasefire and hostage deal ended. Thirty-three hostages had been released in 42 days. Israel refused to move to phase two of the deal, which would have seen the rest of the hostages released and an end to the war and the IDF withdrawal from the Philadelphi corridor.
In general, Israel has been unable to get a deal with Hamas and has waited for the US to make the move. US President Donald Trump had been keen to see the hostages released, but he can’t wave a magic wand.Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, was able to get the mid-January ceasefire deal to materialize. Reports indicate that he has sought to bridge the gaps between Israel refusing to move to phase two and Hamas refusing to extend phase one. Reports say that the proposals in Doha relate to a deal to free several living hostages and some deceased hostages for up to 60 days or more of ceasefire. This would represent far fewer hostages than were released in previous deals.
Clearly, the Hamas goal is to get Israel to agree to less of its people being returned.
Hamas thinks that the US hostages held in Gaza are more important
Hamas thinks that the US hostages held in Gaza are more important because they can use a release of these hostages to potentially gain something. Hamas said on March 14 that it would release Edan Alexander, whom it called a “Zionist soldier,” and the remains of four other “dual citizenship” hostages. These are presumed to be deceased American hostages held in Gaza.
Reports have named them as Omer Neutra, Itay Chen, Judith Weinstein, and her husband, Gadi Haggai. Neutra’s parents spoke at the Republican convention in 2024. He was later declared to have been killed on October 7. “We reaffirm our full readiness to engage in negotiations and reach a comprehensive agreement on the issues of the second phase, and call for obligating the occupation to fully implement its commitments,” Hamas said.
Israel’s Prime Minister’s Office put out a statement on Friday in response to the apparent Hamas offer. “While Israel accepted the Witkoff framework, Hamas persists in its refusal and continues to wage psychological warfare against hostage families. The Prime Minister will convene the ministerial team tomorrow evening for a detailed briefing from the negotiating team, and to decide on steps to free the hostages and achieve all our war objectives.”
Meanwhile, other issues relating to the hostages appear to be in motion. Reports that Adam Boehler had withdrawn his nomination to be the US administration’s hostage envoy. However, it appears he will stay focused on US citizens detained or held abroad.
Boehler had been in the spotlight in early March when reports emerged that the US was having direct talks with Hamas. Israel’s government was put in a bind with this report. Jerusalem is afraid of angering Trump or even pushing back on Trump’s moves. As such, it was clear Israel’s government didn’t like the idea of an envoy talking directly to Hamas, but they figured they would let this go on and hope that Boehler would misstep.
That’s what happened when Boehler went on Israeli media for interviews. It didn’t go well, and he was reported to be sidelined. It wasn’t clear if this was because of Israeli pressure or perhaps because he was perceived to have horned in on Witkoff’s work or muddied the waters of the talks.
The question is whether Hamas said it would release Alexander and other Americans in order to try to keep the Boehler track of talks ongoing or if Hamas is trying to get a separate deal with the US. It appears Hamas was putting out claims that it was not communicating in public. This has left mediators nonplussed in the US and Israel. Witkoff characterized the Hamas demands as “unrealistic,” reports said.
So far, there is a lack of clarity on what Hamas is up to. What does seem clear is that Hamas has received a Ramadan ceasefire and not had to turn over any hostages for weeks. Hamas is recuperating and recovering and recruiting. In Israel, demonstrators who support the hostages and their families turned out on March 15 to demand that the hostages be returned.
Even as Hamas recruits, it continues to threaten Israel. The IDF said on March 15 that “two terrorists were identified operating a drone that posed a threat to IDF troops in the area of Beit Lahia. The IDF struck the terrorists.” Sources in Gaza claimed up to nine people were killed, which would make this the most deadly day of the ceasefire in weeks. Hamas believes it can keep the ceasefire and not have to turn over any hostages.
It is unclear if there is a quiet understanding behind the scenes on all sides that Ramadan will be quiet and Hamas will not have to do anything in return for receiving its free ceasefire. Last year, during Ramadan, there was also less intensity to the fighting in Gaza, but the IDF was still operating against Hamas. At the moment, Hamas controls most of Gaza and thinks it has won the war. It assumes Israel’s current leadership doesn’t want to remove Hamas and that Israel prefers to claim that it will defeat Hamas but not actually go back into Gaza.
Hamas also assumes it can hold onto the hostages for years into the future, releasing a few here and there to receive months of ceasefire each time and then dragging out negotiations between the ceasefires as it is doing now.
Hamas believes that inertia now favors Hamas. It likely assumes that only when elections happen in Israel or there is some incentive for Jerusalem to return to fighting, that there might be another war, and otherwise, Hamas can do as it wants. Hamas has already murdered more than 1,000 people, more Jews in one day than at any time since the Shoah, and it continues to run Gaza after 17 months. It thinks Israel is incapable of defeating it or that interests in Israel prefer to keep Hamas in power and not replace it. Hamas will have to wait and see if this is the case. Until then, it will continue to float various hostage release concepts, as it did throughout 2024, to try to create short news cycles and controversy that favor Hamas as it stalls the negotiations.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is set to hold consultations on Saturday evening following the Israeli delegation’s return from Gaza hostage deal talks in the Qatari capital of Doha.
Israel accused Hamas of deviating from the American proposal for a ceasefire extension after the terror organization announced on Friday that it had agreed to release American-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander from Gaza captivity.
Hamas also said it would return the remains of four deceased hostages with American citizenship: Omer Neutra, Itay Chen, Gadi Haggai, and Judy Weinstein Haggai. Israeli officials previously confirmed the deaths of all four hostages named by Hamas.
US special envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff dismissed Hamas’s offer on Friday, warning the Palestinian terror organization that it could no longer play for time with a ceasefire and hostage deal.Gaza hostage deal talks have ‘failed,’ Hamas official tells BBC Arabic
Earlier on Saturday, Hamas officials told BBC Arabic that discussions on the continuation of a Gaza hostage and ceasefire deal have failed.
Additionally, Dr. Tarek Fahmy, a professor of political science, told the BBC that despite a lack of movement in talks, he does not believe fighting will continue in the same capacity it did before the recent ceasefire.
Fahmy stressed he believed “there will be no resumption of the war, despite reports that Israel is preparing to launch qualitative strikes” after the ceasefire expires.
Talks continued throughout the weekend as a Hamas delegation led by Khalil al-Khayya visited Cairo for updates on the negotiations in Qatar.
Amichai Stein contributed to this report.
Despite the growing criticism, Israel is standing firm in its attempt to banish the United Nations Relief and Works Agency from operating in its territory.
Since its ban came into effect on January 30, Israeli authorities have severed coordination ties with the agency, shut down schools in east Jerusalem, and effectively forced international staff to leave.
The government’s decision was largely driven by its expanding allegations that UNRWA employees hold links to terrorist organizations.
The fallout has been swift. Countries such as the United States, Canada, New Zealand, and the European Union have suspended or withdrawn funding, citing concerns over neutrality.Beyond the political maneuvering and aid cuts, the issue has added fresh scrutiny to a decades-old debate that remains unresolved: Who qualifies as a Palestinian refugee? And should this status be inherited indefinitely – even by millionaires?
A refugee definition unlike any other
UNRWA was created shortly after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war to assist 750,000 Palestinians displaced by the conflict. Today, its registry lists over six million refugees.
Critics argue that no other refugee group in the world operates with this mandate.
“Unlike every other refugee crisis in history, Palestinian refugees don’t decrease in number – they increase. UNRWA doesn’t resettle, it perpetuates,” says Dina Rovner, legal adviser for UN Watch. “The result? A crisis that has lasted decades longer than any other.”
Among those classified as Palestinian refugees is Jordanian-American real estate mogul Mohamed Hadid and his five millionaire children, including supermodels Bella and Gigi Hadid. Twenty-nine-year-old Zahwa Arafat, the billionaire daughter of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, also retains this status.
Under UNRWA’s unique framework, all descendants of Palestinian refugees “who lost both their home and means of livelihood in Mandate Palestine between 1946-1948 are eligible for refugee status,” regardless of wealth or nationality – a stark contrast to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), which removes individuals from its registries once they are resettled or naturalized.
UNRWA, though, asserts that Palestinian refugee status is determined by the UN General Assembly, not the agency itself.
“Palestinian refugees were recognized under Resolution 194 before UNRWA existed, where human rights were not subjected to economic status,” says Jonathan Fowler, UNRWA’s senior communications manager. “In mass displacements, refugee status applies collectively and passes through generations, as seen with Afghan, Sudanese, and Sahrawi refugees”
“Yet, the difference is striking. After WWII, millions were displaced, primarily in Europe, but around 1.5 million were resettled by temporary UN agencies before UNHCR took over in 1952. In contrast, 77 years later, UNRWA remains a permanent institution, even as many, like the 2.4 million in Jordan who hold citizenship, continue receiving its assistance.”
This raises a pivotal question: Does UNRWA’s approach maintain statelessness rather than resolving it?
The debate over disparities
The controversy extends beyond definitions. Critics hold that UNRWA’s budget and staff allocation raise questions about its efficiency compared to other refugee agencies.
When first established, UNRWA’s annual budget was 110 times greater than UNHCRs. Today, it employs 30,000 staff for nearly six million refugees – a 1:200 ratio. In contrast, UNHCR, which serves around 32 million refugees globally, operates with 20,000 staff, translating to one staff member per 1,600 refugees.
“There is a clear inconsistency in how the world treats the Palestinians compared to other refugees,” says Rovner. “If they were under the UNHCR, the majority would not be considered eligible.”
Fowler counters the criticism, explaining that UNRWA’s economic and service model is fundamentally different and of significant value. “It was designed as a sustained relief and works program until a viable solution is achieved, much like the 1930s US Tennessee Valley Authority.” Moreover, he adds, “the value for money is extraordinary – hiring locals not only brings local benefits but also costs 40%-50% less than employing internationals.”
UNRWA under fire
As the debate over refugee classification rages on, Israel’s reports of UNRWA’s connections to terrorism have also dominated recent discussions. Citing its intelligence findings, Israeli authorities maintain that 10% of the agency’s senior educators in Gaza have ties to Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
“UNRWA’s response is always the same – to deflect, deny, and cover up. They never take responsibility. They claim to be a ‘humanitarian backbone’ in Gaza but promote Hamas propaganda, like it did with the Gaza famine narrative, which has been totally debunked,” charges Rovner.
However, there are also claims that UNRWA is being targeted politically, as Fowler indicates: “There’s a barrage of misinformation about who we are and who we’re not. We share all our staff lists with regional authorities, including Israel, and have never received pushback about specific employees before.”
Despite Israel’s push to dismantle UNRWA, many European nations have since reinstated funding after reviewing oversight measures and accounting for its critical humanitarian role. Fowler points to the recently commissioned and independent Colonna Report, which found UNRWA to have more robust neutrality standards than any other UN agency. Still, critics like Rovner, remain unconvinced, contending that the problem is systemic.
What happens if UNRWA does disappear?
With increasing calls within Israel and the United States to abolish UNRWA, the question arises: If UNRWA disappears, what happens next?
Fowler says that the organization has no intention of existing indefinitely, but it continues so far as the situation remains unresolved.
“Abolishing UNRWA ignores reality,” observes Fowler. “We are often thanked by Israeli authorities, albeit at the moment not so openly, for the work we do, because without us, the responsibility will fall on them.”
The topic of reform has come up quite a lot where UNRWA and the UN at large are concerned. Some believe that redefining Palestinian refugees under UNHCR rules could force a shift in the political deadlock. Others, though, insist not only is it too little, too late for reforms, but that they are insufficient in addressing the deeper issues.
“As long as UNRWA exists, there will always be a Palestinian right-of-return narrative that keeps the conflict alive. Palestinians have to step up to the plate and take responsibility for their own future. Without Palestinian self-determination, chances of a prosperous future are slim,” says Rovner.
Questions without answers
With funding cuts, Israeli bans, and growing global pressure, UNRWA finds itself at a crossroads. Today, it is continuing to operate, even on a limited scale – holding that as long as millions remain classified as refugees, it has a job to do.
Still, fundamental questions continue to go unanswered: Who should be classified a Palestinian refugee? Should refugee status be hereditary forever – even for those who live in luxury? Who should be responsible for the Palestinians? And what is Israel’s role?
With neither Israel disappearing nor the Palestinian refugee issue nearing resolution, UNRWA persists as a central fault line in one of the world’s most protracted conflicts. Whether the agency serves as a crucial humanitarian lifeline or a political roadblock to lasting peace depends entirely on whom you ask.
-
TOP SCEINCE8 months agoSearching old stem cells that stay young forever
-
Solar Energy3 years agoDLR testing the use of molten salt in a solar power plant in Portugal
-
world news6 months ago
Sirens trigger across central Israel following rocket barrage targeting Tel Aviv Iron Dome battery
-
world news6 months ago
Hezbollah’s gold mine catches fire: Nasrallah’s bunker under hospital held half billion dollars
-
Camera1 year agoDJI Air 3 vs. Mini 4 Pro: which compact drone is best?
-
Indian Defense4 years ago
Israeli Radar Company Signs MoU To Cooperate With India’s Alpha Design Technologies
-
Camera1 year agoSony a9 III: what you need to know
-
world news1 year ago
Gulf, France aid Gaza, Russia evacuates citizens
