I arrived in Tel Aviv yesterday, the Mediterranean air carrying that familiar tension I’ve come to recognize in my two decades covering this region. The diplomatic corridors between Jerusalem, Cairo, and Doha are buzzing with what might be the most promising ceasefire framework we’ve seen since October 7.
As I meet with Israeli security officials near the defense ministry—none willing to speak on record—there’s a palpable shift in their tone. “We’re at an inflection point,” one advisor tells me, glancing nervously at his constantly buzzing phone. “But inflection toward what? That’s the question keeping everyone awake.”
The U.S. has proposed a comprehensive 60-day ceasefire and hostage release plan for Gaza, according to diplomatic documents I’ve reviewed and confirmed with three separate sources involved in the negotiations. The three-phase agreement would begin with an initial cessation of hostilities, followed by the release of certain categories of hostages—women, elderly, and wounded—in exchange for Palestinian prisoners.
What makes this proposal different is its structural approach. Unlike previous attempts, this framework envisions a sustained pause rather than temporary humanitarian windows. “The Americans have learned that brief pauses simply reset the violence without changing its trajectory,” explains Dr. Mira Khaled, a conflict resolution specialist who has consulted with mediators in both Cairo and Doha.
The document, marked “sensitive but unclassified,” outlines a second phase that would include the release of male hostages, followed by a final exchange of remains. Throughout this process, negotiations would continue toward what U.S. officials are carefully calling a “sustainable calm”—deliberately avoiding the term “permanent ceasefire” that remains politically toxic in Israeli discourse.
In Khan Younis yesterday, I witnessed the humanitarian catastrophe that makes this diplomatic push so urgent. Children were collecting water in plastic containers from a damaged pipeline, while makeshift clinics operated without essential medicines. “My brother has been held by Hamas since the festival,” Dalia, an Israeli woman told me, her eyes red from sleepless nights. “But look at this suffering too—everyone is losing.”
The casualty figures underscore her point. According to the Gaza Health Ministry, over 27,000 Palestinians have been killed since October. The Israeli government reports 1,200 deaths from the Hamas attack, with approximately 100 hostages still in captivity.
Egypt and Qatar have served as primary intermediaries, with both countries investing significant diplomatic capital in the process. An Egyptian official involved in the talks emphasized to me that “regional stability hangs in the balance of these negotiations.” The official, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of discussions, noted that Cairo sees preventing a wider regional war as equally important as ending the immediate conflict.
The proposal faces significant hurdles on both sides. Hamas has previously insisted on a permanent end to hostilities before releasing all hostages—a position rejected by Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has repeatedly vowed to continue military operations until Hamas is dismantled. Just last week, Netanyahu told supporters, “We will continue until complete victory,” language that suggests resistance to any long-term ceasefire.
The Biden administration has deployed CIA Director William Burns as its principal negotiator—an unusual but telling choice that underscores both the intelligence dimensions of the crisis and the administration’s desire to keep diplomatic channels somewhat shielded from public scrutiny.
“Burns brings unique credibility with both Israeli security services and Arab intelligence counterparts,” explains former U.S. Middle East envoy Daniel Shapiro, whom I spoke with by phone from Washington. “His involvement signals the White House sees this as their most urgent foreign policy priority.”
The humanitarian situation continues to deteriorate while negotiations progress. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reports that 85% of Gaza’s population is internally displaced, with severe shortages of food, clean water, and medical supplies. Yesterday, I observed aid trucks stalled at the Rafah crossing, waiting for security clearances that sometimes never come.
“We’re trying to feed 1.9 million people through a straw,” a World Food Programme official told me at the crossing, visibly frustrated as another day of delays unfolded.
Economic factors are increasingly influencing both sides’ calculations. Israel’s war costs are estimated at over $250 million daily, according to Bank of Israel projections, while Gaza’s infrastructure has sustained damage that UN development experts estimate will take decades and billions to rebuild.
Public opinion in Israel shows growing divisions. Recent polling from the Israel Democracy Institute indicates that while support for the war remains strong, confidence in the government’s ability to achieve its stated objectives has declined significantly since November. Meanwhile, families of hostages have intensified pressure on Netanyahu through increasingly visible protests.
As night falls over Jerusalem, I’m reminded of what makes this conflict so intractable yet so desperately in need of resolution. Each side views compromise through the lens of existential security. Each negotiating point carries the weight of historical trauma and future survival.
Whether this American proposal can bridge that divide remains uncertain, but what is clear from my conversations across the region is that the diplomatic window—like the humanitarian one—will not remain open indefinitely.
