Under the first phase of the proposal, Israel would halt the war for 42 days and release hundreds of Palestinians held in its prisons while Hamas would release 33 hostages, specifically women, older men, and the sick and wounded.

The number 33 was an increase from 18 proposed by Hamas but lower than the 40 originally demanded by Israel, in large part because Israeli officials came to understand that there were not more than 33 hostages who met the criteria, according to people informed about the discussions who insisted on anonymity to describe sensitive talks. Indeed, Hamas revealed to the Israelis on Tuesday (AEST) that the 33 would include the remains of hostages who have died as well as those still living.

In addition, Israel would pull its forces out of populated areas of Gaza and permit residents to return to the northern part of the enclave once conditions were met; to that end, the ceasefire would enable a large increase in the flow of humanitarian aid. In trying to call Hamas’ bluff, the people informed on the talks said, the Israelis virtually cut and pasted some of the language from a Hamas proposal in March and put it into theirs.

During the six-week ceasefire, the two sides would then work out plans for a second phase, which would involve another 42-day halt to hostilities and the release of more hostages. In this phase, the hostages to be released would include Israeli soldiers, a category of captives that Hamas has always been more resistant to giving up. To get over that hurdle, the Israelis agreed to release a larger ratio of Palestinian prisoners for each hostage returned home.

The Israeli concessions left US, Egyptian and Qatari intermediaries optimistic that an agreement could be reached. But a week went by without a clear response from Hamas, in part perhaps because of the challenges of communicating with Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas military leader believed to be hiding in the tunnels of Gaza.

When negotiators arrived in Cairo last week, the Israelis did not send a delegation, which was interpreted by some critics of Netanyahu as a snub. But Israeli and US officials denied that, saying that no Israeli delegation was needed at that stage because Israel had made its proposal and was waiting for a Hamas response.

Hamas’ response over the weekend frustrated the intermediaries because it rejected some of the very language that it had previously proposed and that had been adopted by the Israelis, according to the people briefed on the talks. The US side declared the new Hamas position unacceptable, and suggested that if Hamas did not really want a deal, perhaps the negotiations were done. But Hamas indicated that it was not trying to torpedo the talks and would come back with a new version.

That was the counteroffer that Hamas forwarded on Tuesday. The Israelis and Americans did not find it acceptable, but believed that it left room for further negotiations. Talks are expected to resume in Cairo at a technical level, probably on Wednesday, to go through the details. This time, Israel has agreed to send a delegation to go over the Hamas counteroffer.

Khaled Elgindy, a senior fellow at the Middle East Institute and former adviser to Palestinian leaders during past peace negotiations, said he remained sceptical that Netanyahu actually wanted a ceasefire deal because of his own domestic politics.

Loading

“I don’t believe moves on or in Rafah, including evacuation orders, are just a negotiating tactic,” he said. “Netanyahu needs the Rafah operation to remain in power and to appease the fanatics in his coalition.” He added, “Bottom line, Netanyahu has little to gain from a ceasefire deal and a lot to lose.”

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

Get a note directly from our foreign correspondents on what’s making headlines around the world. Sign up for the weekly What in the World newsletter here.