With American efforts to mediate a solution going nowhere, Moscow appears the next best option for negotiations with Gaza
Following the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, diplomatic efforts led by the United States, Egypt, and Qatar focused on finding solutions to end the conflict and secure the release of hostages. However, negotiations have stalled for months due to numerous obstacles.
The assassination of Ismail Haniyeh, the political leader of Hamas, on July 31, 2024, in Iran, marked a significant turning point in the Gaza ceasefire talks. Haniyeh had played a key role in these negotiations, and his death has severely complicated the peace process, increasing the risk of further regional escalation.
First, Haniyeh’s death provoked a strong negative reaction from Iran, which had been his closest ally. Iran accused Israel of a “disgraceful assassination” and threatened “harsh revenge.” According to the Iranian leadership, if the conflict in Gaza does not cease, Tehran will strike Israel. These threats have significantly heightened tensions in the region, forcing the Israeli government to prepare for the possibility of a full-scale war with Iran and its allies, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.
This assassination also added further complexity to the ceasefire negotiations. Iran, which has played a major role in supporting Hamas, claimed that Israel was undermining all peace efforts by killing Palestinian resistance leaders, thus making it impossible to reach any agreement. Countries like Qatar and Turkey have also expressed concerns that this could lead to a full-scale regional war and derail any diplomatic attempts at resolution.
Meanwhile, the US, which is actively participating in these talks, developed a new plan aimed at breaking the prolonged deadlock. According to officials, most of the agreement’s terms have been settled, but two key issues remain. First, there is Israel’s demand to maintain its forces in the Philadelphi corridor – a strategic area on the Egyptian border designed to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza. Second, the exact lists of hostages and prisoners to be exchanged remains a sensitive issue for both sides.
President Joe Biden’s administration insists on reaching an agreement as soon as possible, especially in light of the upcoming US presidential elections. However, Washington is not willing to participate in the negotiations indefinitely. According to sources in Turkey’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US has indicated it will exit the talks if no progress is made within two weeks. This statement has increased pressure on all parties involved, as the failure of the negotiations could further destabilize the Middle East.
Israel cannot afford to make concessions
Despite mounting international pressure, Israel remains firm in its refusal to agree to a ceasefire in its conflict with Hamas, driven by several key factors related to both internal political dynamics and external security concerns. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has found himself in a precarious position, balancing the demands of the international community, pressure from the US, and his own political interests within Israel.
One of the primary reasons Israel cannot agree to a ceasefire is security. Netanyahu and his government view Hamas as an existential threat to Israel. Any concessions, such as a ceasefire without the complete destruction of Hamas’ military infrastructure, could be perceived as a sign of weakness, potentially leading to further violence. The Israeli military insists on continuing operations to prevent the resurgence of Hamas and maintain control over key areas like the Rafah crossing and the Philadelphi Corridor on the Egyptian border, which are critical to preventing arms smuggling into Gaza.
Domestic political pressures also play a significant role. Netanyahu faces strong opposition from right-wing political forces that are staunchly against any concessions to the Palestinians and demand a hardline approach. In July 2024, the Israeli Knesset passed a resolution rejecting the creation of a Palestinian state, even as part of a negotiated settlement. This resolution reflects the mood of a significant portion of Israeli society and its political elite, underscoring Israel’s commitment to maintaining control over key territories and its distrust of the two-state solution. Any steps toward a ceasefire that could be seen as concessions to Hamas may lead to the political downfall of Netanyahu and his government.
Netanyahu is also personally at risk. If he agrees to a ceasefire and fails to deliver on his promises to eliminate Hamas, his political opponents could call for his resignation. Given his involvement in ongoing corruption investigations, such a scenario could be catastrophic for his career. Some analysts suggest that if the military campaign against Hamas fails, Netanyahu could be accused not only of political weakness but also of ineffective leadership, potentially leading to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
International pressure, particularly from the US, has so far failed to significantly alter Netanyahu’s course. President Joe Biden and his administration have repeatedly called for “humanitarian pauses” to provide aid to Gaza’s civilian population, but this has been met with strong resistance from Israel. Biden has publicly expressed frustration with the slow progress of negotiations and criticized Netanyahu for his lack of flexibility. However, US influence on Israel is limited by several factors. First, Israel is a key strategic ally of the US in the Middle East, and excessive pressure could strain relations between the two countries. Second, the strong pro-Israel lobby in the US exerts significant influence over Congress and the White House, limiting the Biden administration’s freedom of action.
Thus, Israel’s current position is shaped by both national security concerns and internal political realities. Netanyahu cannot afford to concede, as doing so would likely lead to his political demise and possibly legal consequences. External pressure from the US and the international community has so far not been sufficient to change Israel’s stance in this conflict.
Can Moscow help?
Amid stalled negotiations mediated by the US, Israel has apparently turned to Russia for assistance in securing the release of hostages held by Hamas. According to a statement issued by the Israeli Prime Minister’s office, Netanyahu’s military secretary returned from Moscow on Sunday, September 1, after discussing a possible deal with Hamas. The statement did not clarify whether any agreements were reached.
Israel’s appeal to Russia for help in releasing hostages from Gaza may seem unexpected, but is a logical move in the context of the prolonged and intense conflict with Hamas. With the diplomatic efforts of the US, Qatar, and Egypt yielding no tangible results, Israel opted to seek assistance from Moscow, as it has long-standing connections with Palestinian factions, including Hamas. This appeal underscores Russia’s strategic importance in the Middle East, where it acts not only as a partner to various players but also as a mediator capable of influencing parties that are less accessible to Western diplomats.
Netanyahu is being forced to explore alternative channels to achieve his goals, as key international mediators have been ineffective in resolving the hostage crisis. Hamas, despite numerous offers and negotiations, refuses to agree to a deal for the release of the captives and has continued its brutal actions. Recently, the bodies of six hostages who had been killed by Hamas were found in underground tunnels near Rafah, including a Russian citizen, Alexander Lobanov. This likely pushed Netanyahu to engage more actively with Russia, given its vested interest in protecting its citizens.
Netanyahu understands that resolving the hostage situation is the number one priority, especially amid growing domestic pressure. Mass strikes have erupted in Israel, led by the country’s largest labor federation, the Histadrut, demanding the immediate release of all hostages. Histadrut leader Arnon Bar-David declared that this issue is more critical than any other political or social matter. Strikes and societal discontent are making Netanyahu’s situation increasingly unstable: if he fails to succeed in negotiations, it could undermine his position as the country’s leader.
For Netanyahu, turning to Russia is not just a diplomatic move but also a step aimed at preserving his political influence. Domestic political pressure is mounting, and each day the hostages remain captive increases the risk of his removal. Failure to resolve this issue could lead to his resignation and even prosecution over ongoing corruption cases that continue to cast a shadow over Israeli politics. Thus, seeking Russia’s help is an attempt to find a way out of a critical situation that could prove fatal for Netanyahu’s political career.
For Russia, this request represents an opportunity to strengthen its position in the Middle East, solidify diplomatic ties with Israel, and assert its role as a key international player capable of resolving complex regional conflicts. Moscow’s established connections with Hamas make it a significant partner in possible negotiations for the release of the hostages. Additionally, Russia can use its influence on Hamas and other Palestinian factions to push for a compromise that had previously been elusive.
In the end, cooperation between Israel and Russia on the hostage issue could significantly impact the future course of the Gaza conflict. If Moscow manages to make progress in negotiations with Hamas, it would not only boost its influence in the Middle East but also mark a critical step for Israel toward resolving one of the most painful issues in the current conflict.
While the US continues its efforts in ceasefire talks with Gaza, the conditions remain complicated, and deep disagreements persist between the sides. With Washington now preoccupied with the upcoming November presidential elections and lacking effective leverage over either Israel or Hamas, the outcome of these negotiations remains uncertain. However, whatever results are achieved could significantly influence the further development of the conflict and the stability of the region.
