Shafaq News / According to the Israeli news site "Walla", Israel has rejected three key points of Hamas' plan regarding a ceasefire deal and prisoner exchange. This rejection was communicated to mediators from Qatar, Egypt, and the United States as Israel's response to the proposed deal.

Israel had previously voiced its rejection of Hamas' plan, which consists of three phases over 135 days, culminating in a prisoner exchange involving thousands of Palestinian prisoners in exchange for all Israeli hostages, alongside the cessation of hostilities in Gaza.

As per "Walla", Israel informed the mediators of its rejection of most of Hamas' demands and requested negotiations based on the "Paris Plan."

Israel outlined the specific points it objected to:

1. The withdrawal of forces dividing Gaza into two parts.

2. Commitment to a permanent ceasefire.

3. The number of prisoners Hamas demands to be released in the exchange process.

Additionally, a senior Israeli official clarified that Israel explicitly stated to the mediators that it would not agree to the withdrawal of Israeli military forces from the southern Gaza Strip corridor, which divides the region into two parts, in the early stages of the deal.

However, Israel expressed readiness to consider withdrawing forces from urban centers in Gaza.

Israel also expressed opposition to Hamas' demand to add the phrase "permanently" to the clause regarding indirect negotiations about returning to peace in the initial stage of the deal.

The reason for this is Israel's refusal to commit to ending the war after completing the implementation of the hostage release deal, according to the official.

Israel informed the mediators that it is unwilling to discuss what Hamas terms as "lifting the blockade" on Gaza within the framework of negotiations on the prisoner exchange deal.

Additionally, Israel considered the extensive list of demands included in Hamas' response, such as commitments related to Al-Aqsa Mosque or the situation of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli prisons, as "unacceptable and irrelevant" to the issue at hand.