If we were to summarise the roles in the film “The Truce”, which began screening in Doha in mid-August, we could say that the main roles are shared by three parties. The first has a lot but does not want to achieve justice. The second relies on the first and is strengthened by it, and has not found anything that would force him to achieve justice. As for the third, he stands alone and is still seeking options to seize justice.

To be precise, the film is long and multi-episode, in which the forms and roles of the excitement follow one another since the establishment of Israel in 1948. At that time, truces were held successively with the Arab countries neighboring Palestine during the nine months following the cessation of hostilities. It is a coincidence of fate that the file of the last truce negotiations was discussed in the tenth month of the Gaza war, as if God wanted the first truce to be held following the birth of the Hebrew state, while the last truce was called for in the midst of the Al-Aqsa Flood campaign, which revived the Palestinian cause and was considered an existential threat to Israel.

In the Doha meeting, which was held amidst the ongoing campaign of extermination, it became clear that the gap between the two sides was wider and deeper than the media mobilization that described it as the “last chance meeting” portrayed. This is due to two factors: the first is the announcement by Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu of his “no’s” in which he rejected the basic demands of Hamas: (a permanent cessation of fighting – a complete withdrawal from Gaza – the unconditional return of Gazans to the Strip). The second is that the Americans presented a new paper that Hamas said was in line with the Israeli position.

This was an important shift indicating that the game had become out in the open, as the dialogue was now taking place between the Israelis and the Americans only, and the Palestinians were not a party to it. It was noted that Israeli arrogance appeared more evident after Netanyahu returned from Washington and met there with US President Joe Biden, and his meeting with presidential candidate Donald Trump. This provided him with a dose of boldness or impudence that made him declare his calamities.

The witness that the escalation and arrogance expressed by Netanyahu after his return from the United States in late July, is not unlikely to be the result of the euphoria and promises the man received after his meeting with Trump in the event of his victory. It seems that this encouragement had repercussions in his close circles. This is supported by the fact that Israel's representative to the United Nations, Gilad Erdan, a leader of the Likud Party, launched a harsh attack on the international organization, calling for the closure of its headquarters in New York and wiping it off the face of the earth, according to what was reported by the Israeli newspaper “Maariv”.

What has crystallized so far can be summarized in the following headings: When Netanyahu announced his no’s and wanted to limit the understandings to minor and less important issues, talk is rejected about continuing the ceasefire, the withdrawal of the occupation forces, or the freedom of movement of Gazans in the Strip, for example, so that the dialogue remains open about the numbers and names of prisoners, living and dead, the redeployment of Israeli forces, the provision of some relief materials, and other headings that can be discussed for months or years.

As for the American side, the official sponsor of Israel, its first concern is the presidential elections and garnering votes for its Democratic candidate, Kamala Harris. Its second concern is supporting Israel and continuing to defend it politically and militarily while seeking to avoid involving the United States in any regional war that might suddenly erupt.

The last important title seems normal and innocent in appearance, but I fear that it hides something else within its folds, which is moving the negotiations to Cairo under the pretext of completing the discussion of the American paper in its halls. This raises several questions; because if Hamas has rejected the (amended) American paper and considered it identical to the Israeli position, then what are the negotiations being held in the Egyptian capital?

If Netanyahu has defined his no’s while Israel has accepted that paper, will the Cairo discussions be between these two parties only and will Hamas be absent? Will the goal in this case be to focus the Cairo meetings on resolving two knots that are of particular importance to Israel and the United States at the present time: the Philadelphi Corridor file, in which Egypt objects to the Israeli presence, and Netanyahu insists on that presence, despite his opposition to… The Camp David Accords, the goal of which was to appease Egypt for no other reason than to join the pressure on Hamas with its weight.

If we go further in the analysis, we cannot ignore the doubts that lie behind the message of moving to the Egyptian capital and whether it is intended to exploit the position and role of Cairo, the host of the Arab League, in passing the American project, which may mean that there is an Arab position supporting the project in addition to the pressures directed at Hamas, which the Americans officially announced as the party obstructing the deal. In this case, Hamas is presented as an isolated party that sings out of tune.

These questions seem legitimate and worrying, especially since Netanyahu spoke in his speech before the US Congress on July 24 about the formation of a political camp at the present time that includes the United States, Israel and “Arab friends,” considering that camp to represent the struggle between barbarism and civilization.

If we follow the American political pressures exerted to market its project in the international arena, we will notice that they amount to besieging Hamas so that it stands alone in the arena of political confrontation, just as it was alone in waging the military confrontation. This is happening at a time when the Americans and the pro-regime and normalization media platforms are deluding us into believing that “constructive” dialogues are continuing and the gaps between the two parties are narrowing, while what is happening on the ground is completely the opposite. The campaign of extermination and displacement continues, as do the steps to reoccupy Gaza, and the settlers’ brutality and continued looting of Palestinian lands in the West Bank.

While the Gaza Strip is being re-planned, and preparations are being made to annex its north to Israel to meet the fate of the Golan Heights occupied since 1967, there is an audible whisper reminding us of Israel’s greed for the gas buried deep in the Gaza Sea. The bottom line is that efforts to erase Palestine and uproot its people are haunting the dreams of Israelis, and Netanyahu demonstrated this before the Security Council in September 2023 when he presented the Council with a picture of the map of the Middle East from which Palestine was completely erased.

These are just a few of the many things that the extremists’ agenda and dreams that they want to achieve are filled with, some of which truly worry us, but they do not scare us. Because the will that was shown on October 7 is capable of turning their plots back on them, with God’s help. This will, which confronts the Israeli army and resists firmly in the understandings of the deal as much as it stands firm on the battlefield, is renewed in its steadfastness in its principled positions not only because they represent the generation of children who were stoned by the 1987 Intifada, but also because they have learned well the lesson of Oslo and its traps, the effects of which the Palestinians have been suffering since 1993.

These and those are not only Hamas, but generations of the Palestinian people, the owners of the land, who were born from the womb of genocide and displacement. Just to remind you, the Oslo Accords granted recognition of Israel’s right to exist on the land of Palestine, and gave the Palestinians an imaginary authority over the land, the symbol of which was security coordination, and promised them self-rule that would pave the way for the establishment of a state after 5 years while keeping it under the auspices of Israel. But all of that was blown away and nothing remained of it, which ended with the map that Netanyahu presented to the Security Council a year ago, displaying what he imagined was the erasure of Palestine from existence.

The failure of the deal, which we do not wish for, means the continuation of the fighting until a date known only to God. In this case, those Palestinians will have no legitimate alternative through which to defend their postponed dream of independence, especially after the heavy price paid since the Al-Aqsa flood, which opens the doors wide to various forms of violence, the signs of which have begun in the face of settler crimes in the West Bank, and its preludes have appeared in the model of the martyrdom operations that Tel Aviv has recently witnessed. The circle of targeting may expand to include elements loyal to Israel, its supporters, and its interests abroad.

It is not forgotten in this regard that the current Hamas leadership, represented by Yahya Sinwar, the head of its political bureau who succeeded the martyr Ismail Haniyeh, spent 22 years in Israeli prisons studying and planning not only to restore the Palestinian dream, but also to die as martyrs for it. This is not the position of an individual who was prepared by fate for this role, but rather he is a symbol of a generation that has the same dream and still keeps in its safes the keys to the homes from which their ancestors were displaced 76 years ago.