Israel takes control of Rafah crossing as ceasefire talks face uncertainty: Live updates

But Israeli officials disputed that characterization, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu saying on Tuesday that the war cabinet unanimously believed the proposal approved by Hamas was “very far from basic Israeli demands.”

The amended text of the proposal was circulated in Israeli media on Tuesday, and a senior Hamas official confirmed its validity. A person familiar with the negotiations also described the differences in the positions of the two sides. Here are the most important ones:

“Sustainable calm”

The most important sticking point is the key phrase that appears in the proposals agreed upon by Israel and Hamas: the path to “sustainable calm.”

In the proposal approved by Israel, which Egypt conveyed to the Hamas leadership on April 26, the two sides would work to achieve “sustainable calm” in Gaza after an initial six-week cessation of fighting. This proposal leaves these two words open to interpretation.

But in the proposal approved by Hamas, this term was clearly defined as a permanent cessation of hostilities and a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Gaza Strip.

Israel consistently opposes any agreement that explicitly calls for a permanent ceasefire or an end to the war, and has said that it will not agree to either until it feels that its military attack has achieved its goals. Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said Hamas’ timetable would obligate Israel to end the war while Hamas is still holding hostages, leaving Israel without any leverage.

Israel may have been willing to discuss ending the war later in the process, but it would not commit to doing so from the beginning, according to experts.

“If you sign the deal, you commit to all of that,” Yaari said.

Release of hostages

The first stage of a three-stage agreement is a six-week cessation of fighting, during which Israel will exchange hundreds of Palestinian prisoners and detainees in Israeli prisons in exchange for 33 of the most vulnerable hostages being held in Gaza. These are all women, including female soldiers, as well as old, sick and wounded men. Israel had reduced its initial request for about 40 hostages of this category because it came to believe that only 33 hostages were still alive, out of a total of 132 hostages still being held in Gaza.

But Hamas told negotiators on Monday that not all of the 33 people to be released in the first phase were still alive, and that the remains of those who died would be among those released — a revelation that surprised the Israelis.

In addition, Hamas proposed a framework that would extend the release of hostages by releasing three on the third day after the start of the truce, and then three more every seven days after that. A previous proposal was to release three hostages every three days.

Analysts say that prolonging the release period will mean that negotiations on the second phase of the deal – reaching a “sustainable calm” – will take place while Hamas has more bargaining chips. The Israelis also fear that adhering to this status would increase the possibility that more of the sickest hostages would die before being released.

Israeli veto on prisoners

The proposal approved by Israel in April allowed it to veto the release of some Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences — those expected to be exchanged for Israeli soldiers held hostage — from a list of 200 names. The proposal approved by Hamas removed any Israeli right of refusal.

The Israeli government had largely envisioned the start of its ground operation in Rafah as a means of pressuring the movement to soften its negotiating position. Hamas described the Israeli operation as a “dangerous escalation” aimed at “disrupting mediation efforts for a ceasefire and the release of prisoners.”

However, as the two sides sent delegations to Cairo on Tuesday for ceasefire talks, White House spokesman John F. Kirby said: “There should be no reason why they cannot overcome those remaining gaps.”

Julian E. Barnes, Adam Rasgon, Gabe Sobelman And Mira Novick Contributed to reports.