Palestinian factions continue Cairo ceasefire talks as key issues remain unresolved
SANAA, July 04 (YPA) – Palestinian negotiations with mediators in Cairo have been ongoing weekly, with shuttle diplomacy aimed at reaching a consensus formula for moving to the second phase of the ceasefire.
This comes after varying responses from Palestinian factions and the “Peace Council,” which insists on a number of impossible conditions, attempting to buy time before the Israeli elections. The Gaza issue is a key campaign topic for gaining more votes and potentially launching a military operation that would result in further bloodshed in Gaza.
The “Peace Council’s” threats, according to assessments, position it as a true partner of the occupation in the event of any aggression against the Gaza Strip. It is seen as the occupation’s instrument for implementing all its plans, despite its feigned neutrality. This comes amidst previous and current warnings about the Peace Council’s true role.
Threats before the elections: Channel 12 reported on Saturday that Israel estimates the “Peace Council” may declare within two to three months that Hamas has violated the ceasefire agreement. This, according to the occupation’s assessment, could give it a pretext to resume military operations in areas under Hamas control within the Gaza Strip. According to the channel, the Israeli occupation’s security establishment believes that Hamas, despite its losses, still maintains influence in parts of the Gaza Strip and continues to rebuild its capabilities. The occupation’s rules out the possibility of the movement disarming voluntarily.
The report added that Israeli assessments indicate that if the disarmament arrangements are not implemented, the occupation may resort to military intervention again, which could bring the Gaza issue back to the forefront of the political scene before the elections.
The channel quoted an Israeli political official as saying that Nikolay Mladenov had intended, about two months ago, to declare Hamas in violation of the agreement, but he froze the move at the request of the mediators, to give them an additional opportunity to persuade the movement to adhere to the terms of the agreement.
The Factions’ Response
A well-informed source in one of the resistance factions participating in the talks confirmed that the factions submitted their written response on Wednesday to Mladenov’s latest plan, which the delegation received during the previous round of talks two weeks ago in Cairo. He confirmed that the response included approval of the plan, but with some observations that he requested be taken into consideration and incorporated into the plan to ensure its feasibility on the ground.
He noted that the observations addressed the issue of Gaza employees, especially after Israel recently announced its refusal to allow the return of any civilian or police employee previously affiliated with the Hamas government.
He indicated that the response emphasized the necessity of integrating the employees in the agreed-upon manner, encompassing all civilian employees and police personnel, and paying the accumulated financial dues owed to these employees for the period during which they did not receive their salaries or received incomplete payments.
He explained that when the response addressed the issue of “resistance weapons,” it included approval for “storage, collection, and inventory,” without introducing other terms related to infrastructure, workshops, or any other types of weapons.
This process is to be carried out according to the protocol of the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza, which stipulates the formation of a Palestinian body to oversee this matter, with no Israeli involvement in or interference with these weapons.
The response submitted to the mediators emphasized that the clause concerning the “resistance’s weapons” would be implemented concurrently with Israeli withdrawals from the Gaza Strip and with the guarantees of international stabilization forces.
The source anticipated that meetings with the mediators in Cairo would continue until an official Israeli response was received, amid expectations that the Israeli responses would be negative.
The Peace Council and Previous Warnings
Political analyst Mustafa Ibrahim had previously warned of the dangers of the Peace Council and its ambiguous role in the Gaza Strip. He stated that the proposed technocratic committee is not a transitional solution but rather an alternative to a political project.
He described it as an executive service body that receives its decisions from an international-regional executive council with unclear powers, not subject to Palestinian accountability, and operating according to the logic of “stability,” not liberation.
This ambiguity is not accidental but rather part of a model based on administration without policy and authority without sovereignty. Ibrahim stated that the “Peace Council” does not pave the way for the establishment of a Palestinian state, but rather opens the door to its dismantling through “administrative solutions.” Gaza would be an internationally administered unit, while the West Bank would proceed along a parallel path of fragmentation, with Israel retaining the right to intervene and obstruct at will, without bearing the cost of the occupation.
He continued: Talk of marginalizing or removing Israel from the scene does not signify the end of its hegemony, but rather a redistribution of its tools. Control is not exercised solely through military force, but also through councils, funding conditions, and security standards.
Ibrahim warned that the next phase requires a profound Palestinian awareness of the dangers of this path, a reaffirmation of political representation, and a prevention of reducing the issue to merely managing life under occupation. The “day after” may not be a transition to statehood, but rather a permanent entrenchment of a situation without war, without peace, and without sovereignty.
AA