In a recent government meeting, discussions highlighted the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the complexities surrounding ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas. Reports indicate that a framework for a ceasefire and hostage deal has been tentatively agreed upon, following talks in Cairo and Doha. However, the situation remains precarious, with Israeli military actions intensifying even as negotiations progress.

A senior U.S. official revealed that while the parties are negotiating the details of the agreement, a final deal may not be imminent. The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem condemned the evacuation orders for Gaza City, labeling them as \"absolute madness,\" given the lack of safe alternatives for civilians.

Daniel Levy, president of the U.S. Middle East Project and former Israeli peace negotiator, provided insights into the proposed three-phase deal. The initial phase would involve a significant withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, the release of hostages, and increased humanitarian access. Subsequent phases would focus on further prisoner releases and rehabilitation efforts. However, Levy emphasized the uncertainty surrounding the commitment to a permanent ceasefire, particularly in light of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's insistence on continuing military operations until all objectives are met.

The internal political landscape in Israel is also shifting, with growing opposition to Netanyahu's hardline stance, particularly from families of hostages and the military, which prefers a ceasefire to facilitate the safe return of captives. Despite this, Netanyahu's coalition remains firm, and the Prime Minister's upcoming address to Congress has sparked calls from prominent Israelis to disinvite him, arguing that his presence would embolden supporters of continued military action.

As the humanitarian situation in Gaza deteriorates, with reports of thousands of casualties and widespread displacement, the international community watches closely. The U.S. administration's approach has faced criticism for its perceived inadequacy in addressing the crisis, raising questions about the long-term implications for U.S. foreign policy and its standing in the region.