Two years into one of the bloodiest conflicts of our time, negotiators representing Israel and Hamas sat down for a second day of indirect peace talks in the Egyptian resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.
Both sides are scrutinising a 20-point peace plan proposed by US president Donald Trump, as they take part in talks that senior officials briefed on the discussions told The Independent are “the closest we’ve ever been” to the end of the war.
The deal – originally 21 points long – was first presented to leaders from Arab and Muslim-majority countries in New York last month. It was changed at the 11th hour, which initially caused confusion and concern in some quarters that the process might collapse before it had started.
In the days before the plan was announced at a joint press conference held by Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister attended a lengthy meeting with US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner in Washington DC, where he reportedly had the opportunity to “weigh in” and make changes.
Last-minute changes to Trump’s plan
The Independent understands that the biggest alteration made was the removal of a point demanding that Israel agree not to bomb or attack Doha again. It was decided that the peace deal should focus on Gaza, and Trump insisted that Netanyahu participate in a trilateral call with Doha in which he would apologise to the Qatari leadership.
Changes were also made to ensure that the disarmament of Hamas was a key condition, and that the deal directly linked the staged withdrawal of Israeli forces to the demilitarisation of the strip, it is understood.
But despite these unexpected amendments, talks began in the resort city at 6pm Egyptian time on Monday evening, kicking off with four hours of meetings with a break for dinner. The talks continued on Tuesday morning.
It was a tentative start, but described as “positive” by those who were briefed on the goings-on, with “both sides negotiating in good faith”.
Interestingly, the highest level delegates from each side, along with representatives of mediating countries including Egypt, Qatar and Turkey, were not present.
Some of those slated to attend, including Witkoff, Kushner and Ron Dermer, Israel’s head of negotiations and minister of strategic affairs, were apparently in Egypt but not yet in the negotiating rooms. That was because, at least on the Israeli side, there is caution, with one official voicing concern about whether Hamas was “serious” or not.
Instead, the technical teams got to grips with the nuts and bolts of the plan.
Timeline of delivery
Trump has been overtly positive about the talks, suggesting that “tremendous progress” has been made and that a deal is imminent. On the ground there has been “optimism”, but checked by the reality that delivering a deal this complicated will take more than just a few days.
Right now, “the specifics in terms of where and when” is being battled out, one official briefed on the talks told The Independent.
“Both Hamas and Israel agree on the fundamentals of the 20-point plan. The current round of talks is focused on tackling the specific details, which has been a lengthy process in the past,” the official warned.
Trump’s plan is being treated like a guidebook of ideas rather than the finished product. And so, like the last ceasefire deal in January, the new deal will include least three phases – but with one critical difference.
January’s agreement only laid out the solid details of phase one, with an understanding that the specifics of the next phases would be negotiated as soon as the first stage was in progress. But that ceasefire never got beyond the first phase, collapsing in March. At the time, Israel and Hamas blamed each other, and Middle East diplomats told The Independent that Israel simply “never showed up” to discuss how to move it forward.
To avoid this happening again, negotiators want to hammer out all the timelines and action plans ahead of time.
“The difference from previous rounds is that the objective is to have something comprehensive that includes pre-agreed phases prior to its implementation, rather than prolonged negotiations for phase two during phase one, like we had in the January deal,” said one official with knowledge of the talks.
“This deal is designed to give reassurances to both sides that it is comprehensive. And once we enter phase one and both sides commit to what’s required from them, we move on to phase two.”
Phase one: Hostage-prisoner release and partial Israeli withdrawal
The Independent understands that the talks opened with discussions on what is being referred to as the “trigger” for the deal: an immediate ceasefire, then Hamas militants releasing the remaining 48 hostages, dead and alive, which in turn, according to the latest draft, will result in the release of nearly 2,000 Palestinians serving life terms along with people detained since October 2023. During that period, the remains of more than 700 deceased Palestinians from Gaza, currently being held by Israel, could also be returned.
This will happen in tandem with another key part of phase one: an initial withdrawal of Israeli troops to what the US secretary of state Marco Rubio has referred to publicly as the “yellow line”.
Israeli media has described the “yellow line”, at some points, as being a good 6km inside Gaza, which would mean that Israel’s troops would still occupy cities such as Rafah along the border with Egypt, and in the north – areas such as Beit Lahia.
But officials briefed on the talks said that the map has yet to be finalised, as have the timeline and the practical aspects of that withdrawal – a topic that was on the negotiating table today.
Egyptian officials told the Al-Akhbar newspaper that one of the main concerns among Israeli officials is the question of who would administer Gaza during the initial days of their troops moving out of areas of the strip: Israel has refused to allow Hamas to have any on-the-ground responsibility, even temporarily.
Phase two: ‘The handover of governance’
Phase Two would see “the full handover of governance”, so the start of an interim body of Palestinian technocrats tasked with managing the day-to-day running of the territory, overseen by what Trump has called “a board of peace”, headed up by the US president himself and former British prime minister Tony Blair.
Palestinian officials have voiced concerns about the make-up of this transitional body, and who else would sit on the board of peace.
Phase two would also see the initial deployment of the “international stabilisation force”, as outlined in Trump’s plan – a group that would comprise foreign and likely Arab personnel who would train up a vetted Palestinian police force.
The focus of discussions on phase two will be the composition of the “technocratic” government. Officials from the Middle East region made it clear that “there is agreement across the board that the Palestinians should be governed by Palestinians themselves”. They also believe that this should pave the way for a handover to a “reformed” Palestinian Authority (PA), the internationally recognised body that is anchored in the occupied West Bank.
Phase three: Palestinian statehood?
But perhaps the bitterest sticking point is the pathway to a Palestinian state, which Palestinians want to be part of the final phase. It is supported by key Arab and Muslim-majority nations, including mediators Egypt and Qatar. The UK and other European countries have recently recognised Palestine.
But statehood is only referred to vaguely in Trump’s plan – not as an aim or a promise, but as something that “may” be explored if the PA reforms.
Netanyahu, during the press conference to announce the plan, made it abundantly clear that Israel does not support a Palestinian state. He also spoke of Israel retaining “security responsibility” over the territory. That was at odds with Hamas’s own statement, in which the militant group nominally accepted parts of the deal and declared it a pathway to Palestinian self-determination.
As the talks grind on, there is a long way to go, but “there is certainly hope”, the official said.
“Given the discussions that are taking place and the detailed and lengthy proposal,” they added, “I think now there’s a good sense within the building that this is the closest we’ve ever been, and both parties are now negotiating in good faith.”
