Shortly after the meeting in Rome between U.S. presidential adviser Stephen Wietkoff—known for his closeness to Netanyahu—and Israeli Minister of Strategic Affairs Ron Dermer, Wietkoff issued sharp and surprising statements that appeared to blame the Palestinian resistance for the deadlock in negotiations. This was immediately followed by the withdrawal of both American and Israeli negotiators from Doha.

The scene was completed by U.S. President Biden’s public threats against Hamas, accusing the movement of not wanting to reach an agreement. These developments can be interpreted through one of two scenarios:

First Scenario (the more likely one):
Everything that happened is part of a negotiation maneuver—within a broader policy of brinkmanship—coordinated jointly between the U.S. and Israel to pressure the Palestinian resistance into making further concessions. These concessions would focus especially on the withdrawal maps from the Gaza Strip and guarantees regarding the war’s end after a proposed temporary 60-day ceasefire.

What supports this scenario is the broader context of the negotiations: real progress on several issues, and the significant flexibility shown by the resistance in its pursuit of a formula that would end the war and halt the ongoing genocide and starvation in Gaza. Meanwhile, the Israeli army has failed to exert further pressure on civilians in Gaza, except by regaining full control over the Netzarim corridor and separating Gaza City from the central region.

Second Scenario:
This relates to Netanyahu’s possible intention to sabotage the negotiations altogether, preventing any agreement from being reached. His goal may be to prolong the genocidal war until the resistance surrenders completely or to seize the historic opportunity to implement a plan of forced displacement and resume settlement in Gaza—part of the biblical dream of seizing all remaining Palestinian land and expelling its people.

In conclusion,
To truly understand these deceptive negotiation tactics employed by Israel and the U.S., one must consider the overlapping interests and contradictions surrounding Netanyahu himself. He is the sole decision-maker regarding whether the war continues or ends. Therefore, it is critical to examine his personal interest in remaining in power, avoiding accountability for the corruption cases he faces, securing victory in upcoming elections, and maintaining control over state institutions.

Additionally, one must account for public anger over the failure to “free” Israeli captives so far, the evident fatigue and weakening of the Israeli military, external pressures such as the American desire to end the war, the growing damage to Israel’s image globally due to the ongoing genocide, and the shared American-Israeli priority of resuming normalization efforts—particularly the ongoing push to bring Saudi Arabia into the normalization fold.