U.S. plan for Gaza: Islamic Jihad backs Hamas response

Diplomatic Push

U.S. envoys met Israeli and Palestinian intermediaries in Cairo to sell a phased stabilization plan for Gaza, Reuters reported. The three-day negotiations, held at Egypt's intelligence headquarters in Cairo, represent the most intensive diplomatic engagement since the latest Gaza conflict began. Special Envoy David Satterfield led the U.S. delegation, coordinating with Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel and Qatari mediators who maintain direct communication channels with Hamas leadership.

The proposal includes humanitarian corridors, monitored cease-fire windows, and conditions for reconstruction funds. The 47-page plan, obtained by Reuters, outlines a four-phase approach beginning with a 48-hour humanitarian pause to allow aid distribution, followed by a 14-day cessation of hostilities, prisoner exchanges, and eventual reconstruction. Each phase includes specific verification mechanisms and consequences for violations, designed to build confidence incrementally rather than requiring upfront comprehensive agreements.

Secretary of State Antony Blinken briefed President Biden on the negotiations from Cairo, emphasizing the narrow diplomatic window before regional dynamics shift unfavorably. The administration views this plan as potentially the last viable opportunity to prevent escalation into broader regional conflict involving Hezbollah in Lebanon and Iranian-backed militias in Syria and Iraq.

International humanitarian organizations including the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) and the International Committee of the Red Cross participated in technical discussions about logistics for aid delivery. The plan designates specific crossing points, transportation routes, and distribution centers to ensure humanitarian assistance reaches Gaza's 2.3 million residents, many facing acute food insecurity and limited access to medical care.

European allies including France, Germany, and the United Kingdom provided diplomatic support, with EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell coordinating with American counterparts to present unified Western backing for the framework. This coordinated approach aims to demonstrate broad international consensus, increasing pressure on both Israeli and Palestinian factions to accept compromise.

Islamic Jihad's Position

Islamic Jihad issued a statement backing Hamas's initial response so long as prisoners are released and cross-border raids stop, according to Reuters. The statement, released through the group's media office in Beirut, represents a significant alignment between the two major Palestinian militant factions operating in Gaza. Islamic Jihad, which maintains close ties to Iran, commands an estimated 8,000-12,000 fighters and controls significant territory in northern Gaza.

The group said it expects guarantees that relief convoys will reach northern Gaza, highlighting internal pressure on Hamas leadership. Islamic Jihad's conditional support reveals tensions within the Palestinian resistance movement, where various factions balance competing priorities of military objectives, civilian welfare, and organizational positioning. The group's emphasis on northern Gaza reflects its stronghold areas where humanitarian conditions have deteriorated most severely.

Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ziyad al-Nakhalah, speaking from Tehran, emphasized that any agreement must include "iron-clad guarantees" of Israeli withdrawal from buffer zones and restoration of Palestinian administrative control. The group rejects permanent Israeli military presence in Gaza or Egyptian-administered security zones that might undermine Palestinian sovereignty.

"We support our brothers in Hamas, but we insist that any deal must serve Palestinian national interests, not just temporary tactical advantages," al-Nakhalah stated in the video message. His comments signal Islamic Jihad's willingness to complicate negotiations if its core demands—particularly regarding prisoner releases and cross-border security arrangements—are not adequately addressed.

Intelligence analysts note that Islamic Jihad's public alignment with Hamas masks underlying competition for influence within Gaza's power structure. Both organizations compete for Iranian financial support, weapons supplies, and popular legitimacy among Palestinians. This rivalry creates risks that either group might undermine agreements to demonstrate its relevance and commitment to resistance ideology.

The prisoner release demand specifically references an estimated 450 Palestinians detained by Israel during recent operations, including senior Islamic Jihad commanders. The group insists these detainees must be freed as part of any first-phase agreement, a demand that Israeli security officials have privately indicated poses significant political challenges for Prime Minister Netanyahu's coalition government.

Pressure on Hamas

Hamas negotiators signaled openness to parts of the plan while rejecting steps they say would limit their security presence. Senior Hamas political bureau member Khalil al-Hayya, participating in Cairo talks remotely from Doha, indicated willingness to accept temporary cease-fire arrangements but resisted language that would constrain Hamas's ability to maintain armed forces or govern Gaza after hostilities cease.

Regional diplomats told Reuters that Hamas wants third-party monitors from Egypt and Qatar, not U.S. troops. The organization views American military presence as fundamentally incompatible with Palestinian sovereignty and fears U.S. forces would function as Israeli proxies. Hamas officials point to failed Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation agreements from the Oslo Accords era as evidence that Western-backed monitoring arrangements inevitably favor Israeli security concerns over Palestinian rights.

Hamas's counterproposal suggests Egyptian and Qatari observers supported by UN peacekeepers from neutral countries without direct stakes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The organization specifically nominated Malaysian, Indonesian, and South African personnel as acceptable monitors, reflecting its preference for countries with Muslim-majority populations or histories supporting Palestinian statehood.

Internal divisions within Hamas complicate negotiations. The political leadership based in Qatar, including bureau chief Ismail Haniyeh, generally advocates pragmatic engagement with diplomatic processes. Meanwhile, military commanders in Gaza, led by Mohammed Deif, prioritize armed resistance and view negotiations skeptically. This split creates coordination challenges where political leaders negotiate terms that military factions may ultimately reject or ignore.

"Hamas leadership faces tremendous pressure from Gaza residents demanding relief from humanitarian crisis while simultaneously maintaining credibility with resistance-minded constituencies," explained Dr. Nathan Brown, Middle East expert at George Washington University. "This dual pressure creates negotiating positions that appear contradictory—seeking cease-fire benefits while rejecting conditions that might undermine long-term resistance capabilities."

Egyptian mediators have warned Hamas that rejecting the current proposal could result in losing Egyptian and Qatari diplomatic support, potentially isolating the organization regionally. Egypt particularly emphasized that its ability to facilitate future negotiations depends on Hamas demonstrating good-faith flexibility now. This pressure aims to convince Hamas leadership that tactical compromise serves strategic interests better than intransigence.

Regional Roles

Egypt and Jordan have pledged to coordinate on border security, even as they urge Israel to lift checkpoints that block civilians. Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II held emergency consultations in Cairo, agreeing to deploy additional border security forces along their respective frontiers with Gaza and the West Bank. Both leaders emphasized their nations' commitment to preventing conflict spillover while facilitating humanitarian access.

Israel insists militants must disarm before any broader handover, creating the crux of the current impasse. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, briefing the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, stated that Israel "will not repeat the mistakes of past agreements where security commitments went unenforced." He referenced the 2005 Gaza disengagement and subsequent Hamas takeover as examples of failed security transitions that strengthened rather than weakened militant capabilities.

Egypt's proposed security framework involves establishing a buffer zone along the Gaza-Egypt border, with Egyptian forces preventing weapons smuggling through tunnels while facilitating legitimate commercial and humanitarian traffic. Cairo has invested over $1 billion in border infrastructure including underground barriers, surveillance technology, and customs facilities designed to balance security concerns with economic needs.

Qatar's role extends beyond mediation to financial leverage. The Gulf state has provided approximately $1.3 billion in humanitarian assistance to Gaza since 2012, creating dependencies that grant Doha influence over Hamas decision-making. Qatari officials have privately indicated willingness to significantly increase reconstruction funding if Hamas accepts cease-fire terms, potentially offering financial incentives exceeding $5 billion over five years.

Saudi Arabia's position remains deliberately ambiguous, with Riyadh avoiding direct involvement while supporting Egyptian-led initiatives diplomatically. Saudi officials view Gaza crisis resolution as prerequisite for normalizing relations with Israel, a strategic priority that tensions with Palestinian suffering have temporarily suspended. The kingdom's eventual participation in reconstruction funding would signal broader Arab buy-in for any agreement.

Turkey and Iran represent competing regional influences complicating mediation efforts. Turkey's President Erdogan has offered Istanbul as an alternative negotiation venue, positioning Turkey as Hamas's advocate within diplomatic processes. Iran provides military and financial support to both Hamas and Islamic Jihad, creating incentives for continued confrontation that complicate cease-fire efforts. Managing these competing regional interests requires delicate diplomacy that balances multiple power centers simultaneously.

Next Moves

U.S. officials hope to lock in a 48-hour pause to move aid convoys next week. The initial humanitarian window would begin Tuesday morning, with pre-positioned trucks carrying medical supplies, food, water, and fuel entering through Rafah and Kerem Shalom crossings. UNRWA has prepared 300 trucks for immediate deployment, representing approximately 20% of Gaza's daily pre-conflict aid requirements.

Failure to reach a preliminary agreement could trigger new Israeli airstrikes, officials warned, underscoring the plan's fragile momentum. Israeli military officials have communicated that current operational pause reflects diplomatic considerations rather than strategic reassessment. If negotiations collapse, Israel Defense Forces stand ready to resume operations targeting Hamas infrastructure, weapons storage facilities, and command-and-control nodes throughout Gaza.

The diplomatic timeline faces pressures from multiple directions. U.S. domestic politics, with congressional scrutiny of administration Middle East policy, create pressures for demonstrable progress. Israeli public opinion, still processing October attacks and demanding Hamas's military defeat, limits Netanyahu's negotiating flexibility. Palestinian public sentiment, exhausted by conflict but skeptical of Israeli intentions, constrains Hamas's ability to accept perceived concessions.

International humanitarian law considerations loom over negotiations. Human rights organizations have documented potential violations by both sides—Israeli targeting decisions affecting civilian infrastructure and Hamas's use of civilian areas for military purposes. These documented violations create legal exposure that could influence negotiating positions as parties seek to avoid future accountability mechanisms.

The proposed verification mechanisms include satellite monitoring, on-ground inspections by international observers, and real-time communication channels between Israeli, Palestinian, and international coordinators. These mechanisms aim to detect violations quickly and trigger automatic responses—potentially including resumed hostilities or international sanctions—creating deterrence against agreement breaches.

Looking beyond immediate cease-fire, reconstruction planning requires addressing Gaza's fundamental governance challenges. The Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank, has limited legitimacy in Gaza after Hamas's 2007 takeover. Creating transitional governance structures acceptable to Israel, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, and international donors represents perhaps the most complex challenge in any comprehensive settlement.