(MENAFN) In conflicts marked by inevitable escalation, the search for a resolution often becomes just as unavoidable. Such is the case with the ongoing negotiations, where the final aim is to broker a deal, even if it is framed in diplomatic language that suggests otherwise. The current situation, involving discussions in Doha and communications in Cairo, highlights the complexity of reaching a settlement.

United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken has confirmed that Israel has agreed to the primary terms of the proposed deal. However, Hamas has consistently rejected these terms, demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal and an unconditional ceasefire from the outset. These demands, which significantly alter the negotiation framework, have complicated the process, particularly in Cairo, where Hamas's position seems to be driven by a desire to secure its political future in Gaza and potentially provoke a broader regional conflict.

Each party involved in the negotiations has its own set of interests, which sometimes conflict with those of others. Israel has shown flexibility in its approach, primarily to secure the release of hostages and to avoid discord with the United States, even though it is clear that a fully satisfactory agreement has not been achievable. Hamas, weakened and divided, has left room for negotiation but remains focused on preserving its influence in Gaza. Qatar aims to enhance its role and reputation in the Middle East while positioning itself as a key United States ally. The Biden administration, for its part, seeks a deal to satisfy both Muslim and Jewish voters, striving to achieve a complex balancing act and to secure a positive legacy for President Biden.

These varied interests and the intricate web of diplomatic maneuvering underscore the challenges of achieving a comprehensive and lasting resolution to the conflict.

MENAFN28082024000045015687ID1108610331