Qatar Pushes Ceasefire Forward Even as Hamas Withholds Israel’s Last Hostages

By: Fern Sidman – Jewish Voice News

Qatar has signaled that it believes President Donald Trump’s postwar framework for Gaza must continue moving ahead despite the unresolved cases of two bodies still held in the Strip—an assertion that has ignited emotional backlash from bereaved Israeli families and intensified the debate surrounding the fragile, multi-stage ceasefire process. The comments, reported on Sunday by World Israel News, have brought into sharp relief the tension between political momentum and humanitarian imperatives, reopening painful wounds for families whose loved ones have not come home.

Majed al-Ansari, the spokesman for Qatar’s Foreign Ministry and one of Doha’s most visible voices in regional mediation efforts, made the remarks in a recent podcast in which he said that the missing-body cases, while tragic, should not be allowed to stall the broader agreement advancing under Trump’s “day after” blueprint for Gaza. According to the information provided in the World Israel News report, al-Ansari framed the issue as humanitarian but not strategic, emphasizing that Palestinian factions were “searching for the remains” to “preempt any Israeli pretexts” for slowing implementation of the plan.

“We don’t believe Israel should be allowed to obstruct the implementation of the agreement over these two bodies,” al-Ansari said, in comments that instantly provoked outrage among Israeli families and advocacy groups. His remarks touched one of the most emotionally charged dimensions of the entire post-October 7 tragedy: the unresolved fate of Israelis whose bodies remain in Hamas captivity, and the rights of their families to see them returned for burial.

For the Hostages and Missing Families Forum—whose activism has shaped much of the Israeli public conversation since Hamas’ October 7 massacre—the Qatari statement crossed a line that they believe should never be blurred. As the World Israel News report noted, the Forum released a firm response insisting that all stages of Trump’s plan must be anchored in a clear and binding commitment to bring home every hostage and the remains of captives still held in Gaza.

“We remind the mediators, primarily Qatar’s Foreign Ministry, that the return of the hostages is the core of this agreement,” the Forum said, stressing that Hamas has repeatedly failed to uphold previous obligations, including those involving the transfer of remains. In their view, any attempt to separate humanitarian cases from political milestones risks enabling yet another cycle of broken promises and eroding the only leverage Israel has to demand accountability.

The bitter dispute was further inflamed by a deeply personal plea delivered Saturday night in Tel Aviv by Itzik Gvili, father of St.-Sgt.-Maj. Ran Gvili, who was killed in action on October 7 while defending Kibbutz Alumim. His son’s body was taken into Gaza by terrorists and has never been returned. Standing before a large crowd of supporters, Gvili—whose grief has become emblematic of a broader national anguish—said Israel must not proceed to phase two of the Trump framework until his son, and the Thai national also held by Hamas, are brought home.

“Now the goal is to bring our Ran home,” he said. “There is no next stage and no ‘day after’ in Gaza before Ran is home.” As the World Israel News report recounted, Gvili added that Hamas claims to be searching for the remains but that “there is no progress.” That lack of movement, paired with Qatar’s assertion that the issue should not delay implementation of the next stage, has stirred profound unease among many Israelis who fear that families of the fallen may be left behind as political actors push forward.

The dispute emerges at a particularly sensitive moment in the unfolding ceasefire architecture crafted by Trump and mediated through Qatar, Egypt, and U.S. envoys. As World Israel News reported, the first phase of the 20-point plan focuses on returning hostages, locating bodies, and establishing a verifiable framework for humanitarian access. Those early steps were designed not only to build trust but to create measurable benchmarks before Israel would agree to broader shifts in the balance of control inside the Strip.

However, the second phase—now the subject of fierce debate—would initiate significant structural changes. Under Trump’s plan, Hamas would be required to hand over its weapons and submit to the construction of a new security framework supervised by an international stabilization force. Israel’s military presence would be reduced in stages, with a controlled withdrawal linked to progress in security certification, weapons turnover, and compliance verification.

It is precisely this linkage that families like the Gvilis fear may erode if mediators treat unresolved humanitarian cases as secondary. In their view, the return of remains is not an ancillary issue but a foundational moral requirement of any agreement. For many Israelis, the dignity of the dead and the obligation to secure their burial is not only a religious imperative but a test of whether Hamas is acting in good faith or merely gaming the process for political gain.

Qatar’s insistence that the cases of the two bodies should not stall the broader plan has thus sharpened the divide between international mediators—who seek momentum—and Israeli families, who fear being left behind. As the World Israel News report observed, this is not the first time disagreements over sequencing have surfaced. Earlier phases of the deal were delayed repeatedly due to Hamas’ refusal to provide lists, verify the status of captives, or deliver remains despite earlier commitments.

Analysts say Qatar’s position reflects both diplomatic calculus and political pressure. Doha has invested considerable capital in positioning itself as the indispensable intermediary in nearly all stages of the ceasefire and hostage negotiations. For Qatari mediators, keeping the framework moving—even if some humanitarian issues remain unresolved—is viewed as essential to preventing collapse of the fragile architecture. Al-Ansari, according to the World Israel News report, emphasized that Qatari officials were working to preempt “Israeli pretexts” that could derail the process, reflecting a view in Doha that Israel may use humanitarian gaps to slow or reshape Trump’s plan.

In Israel, however, these remarks have landed as a deeply troubling signal that mediators may prioritize political timelines over humanitarian resolution. Critics of Qatar argue that the country, which maintains ties with Hamas leaders, should exert direct pressure on the organization rather than shift responsibility toward Israel. They note that Hamas is fully capable of locating and returning bodies but often withholds them as bargaining tools.

The broader political context only magnifies these tensions. Trump’s plan, though welcomed by parts of the Israeli government, remains controversial in other quarters, especially regarding the proposed international stabilization force and the staged Israeli withdrawal. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other members of the governing coalition have already warned that premature movement into phase two could endanger security and weaken Israel’s leverage.

The question now facing Israeli officials is whether progress on the postwar architecture can—or should—advance without resolution of the two remaining body-return cases. For many Israelis, that question is not merely strategic but ethical. As the World Israel News report noted, the moral weight carried by families of the missing has shaped Israeli public discourse since October 7 in ways few other issues have.

What remains clear is that the disagreement has exposed a fault line at the intersection of international diplomacy, domestic expectations, and the raw human grief carried by families of the fallen. Qatar’s stance reflects the urgency of moving forward; the Israeli families’ response reflects the urgency of holding firm until every last promise is fulfilled.

As President Trump’s postwar plan inches into its next phase, these competing pressures may define whether the fragile architecture holds—or fractures under the weight of unresolved loss.