meed-logo

line1 line2 line3
SIGN IN / REGISTER

Pressure builds for truce in Gaza conflict

9 February 2024

Pressure is mounting on Israel to accede to a ceasefire and hostage-prisoner exchange agreement after a visit to the region by US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken and amid ongoing negotiations between the warring parties under Egyptian and Qatari mediation.

Blinken’s visit focused on nudging Israel towards some sort of ceasefire agreement that would see the release of the hostages, but the US overture was again rebuffed by the Netanyahu government, which continues to bristle at the prospect of a truce.

As if in reaction to the pressure, the Israeli side has ratcheted up its own rhetoric again in the past week. It has asserted that its goal remains the complete dismantling of Hamas, and announced that it would launch a military operation in Rafah, the Egypt-Gaza border crossing area and a designated safe zone.

Nevertheless, there is dwindling political space, both internationally and domestically, for the Israeli government to manoeuvre away from a truce. Even Israel’s allies are tiring of the conflict and anger is building in Israel over the failure to secure the return of the hostages.

For more neutral parties around the world, the indictment of Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for plausibly committing crimes amounting to genocide has doubled up the existing risk of complicity with war crimes with the risk of complicity with genocide.

The case has changed the calculus for governments and companies with ties to Israel. It has already led to counteractions, including the suspension of export licences by the government of the Belgian province of Wallonia – in addition to an existing arms suspension by Spain.

In Japan, major arms manufacturer Itochu announced that its aviation arm would end its collaboration with Israel’s largest weapons company, Elbit Systems, citing the ICJ ruling, Japan’s respect for the court, and its obligation to avoid complicity.

Mismatched expectations

Back at the negotiating table, Hamas has itself increased the pressure on Israel by establishing its own amenability to a ceasefire and hostage release – suggesting a three-phased release of Israeli hostages on one side and Palestinian prisoners and administration detainees on the other side.

Each phase would last 45 days, for a total term of 135 days, with the first phase focusing on the release of detained Israeli women, children, elderly and the sick in exchange for 1,500 Palestinian detainees.

The second phase would then see male detainees released, followed by the bodies of those killed in the fighting or during the siege and bombardment of the Gaza Strip in the third phase.

Hamas also stated the requirement that at least 500 trucks of aid and fuel be allowed into the Gaza Strip daily, that residents have freedom of movement, and that border crossings be opened.

The Hamas deal outline also contained requirements unlikely to appeal to the Israeli government. These include the requirement that 60,000 temporary homes and 300,000 tents be let into the strip and that Israel commit to rebuilding the destroyed infrastructure within three years.

The demand not just for the delivery of humanitarian aid – as already obliged to be provided under international law and as reiterated by the ICJ – but for actual material assistance appears almost fantastical given the fanatical tilt of much of Netanyahu’s far-right cabinet.

Pressure from all sides

The Israeli government’s immediate response to Hamas’ outline was one of dismissal and pushback. While this was expected, there remains considerable momentum behind the scenes for some sort of a deal under the multilateral negotiations in Egypt.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s chosen response was to state off camera that Israel would not end the war but push on to “total victory” over Hamas. Yet behind the bluster of this reaction, the news was floated that Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency was studying the terms.

Meanwhile, those close to the deal remain optimistic about a positive outcome in another one to two weeks. Such a timescale would also benefit Israel by allowing it to present the deal as proof of progress under the ICJ provisional measures that it is required to report on at the end of the month.

The other deadline is the start of Ramadan on 9 March, when Muslims around the globe are bound by faith to pay particular attention to those less fortunate around them. The optics for Israel, and in turn for the US, will be disastrous if the unfettered killing continues in this period.

In his pre-departure remarks, Blinken reiterated the US position that Palestinian civilian casualties in Gaza were too high and affirmed that there was “space” for a potential truce agreement in a clear contradiction of Netanyahu’s messaging.

This repudiation of the Israeli position has become part of a discernible pattern of commentary from the US establishment in recent days that gives the appearance that Washington is increasingly interested in distancing itself from the Israeli government.

After four months of unconditional support for Israel, and amid flagging US presidential polling numbers in connection with the ongoing violence, a recalibration is under way – with Joe Biden late on 8 February declaring Israel’s actions “over the top”.

Former US secretary of state and Democrat insider Hillary Clinton was also interviewed in a move that appears highly choreographed to blame Netanyahu for failing the hostages while labelling him “not trustworthy” and calling for him to leave office.

The upshot of all this is that despite the resistance to a deal from the Israeli government, external and internal pressure is now reaching the point where resisting a ceasefire is incurring an exorbitant political cost – one that even Netanyahu may find himself unable to pay.

https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/11504887/main.gif
John Bambridge

Register for MEED's guest program now to access this article.

Click here to register
Exclusive from Meed
Related Articles
  • Hormuz crisis revives 1970s-style energy shock

    5 May 2026

    Commentary
    Colin Foreman
    Editor

    Read the May issue of MEED Business Review

    The conflict with Iran is threatening to recalibrate the global energy system. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has caused an energy security crisis reminiscent of the shocks of the 1970s – both in scale and in its potential long-term implications.

    The 1973-74 energy crisis, triggered by an Opec oil embargo, sent prices soaring and altered the trajectory of the global economy. It spurred the creation of the International Energy Agency, the development of strategic petroleum reserves and a wave of energy-efficiency policies. It also cemented energy-for-security arrangements between the West and the Gulf – relationships now being tested again by the latest conflict.

    Today’s disruption – 11 million barrels of oil a day and around 20% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) shipping capacity – creates a deficit that far exceeds the roughly 5 million barrels a day removed from the market in 1973. 

    While the shocks of the 1970s ushered in a decade of stagflation and a lasting shift towards diversified supply, the current crisis could accelerate demand destruction and a pivot towards energy sovereignty.

    The story is a developing one. From Vietnam’s cancellation of LNG projects in favour of renewables to the surge in electric vehicle adoption across Europe, the perceived unreliability of traditional supply routes is forcing an unprecedented reorientation of capital. 

    The Middle East – long the indispensable heartbeat of global industry – now risks sustained challenges to its market share as producers in the US, Russia, Africa and South America develop new projects unencumbered by reliance on the Strait of Hormuz.

    The structural changes taking root in 2026, like those in 1974, will outlive the conflict itself. Even a swift cessation of hostilities may not allow markets to return to their pre-conflict norms. 

    READ THE MAY 2026 MEED BUSINESS REVIEW – click here to view PDF

    Global energy sector forced to recalibrate; Conflict hits debt issuance and listings activity; UAE’s non-oil sector faces unclear recovery period amid disruption.

    Distributed to senior decision-makers in the region and around the world, the May 2026 edition of MEED Business Review includes:
    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here

     

    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/16685390/main.gif
    Colin Foreman
  • Brookfield to double down on Gulf investment

    5 May 2026

    Brookfield CEO Bruce Flatt has said the asset and alternative investment management company intends to increase its investments in the Gulf, despite the ongoing conflict in the region.

    When asked whether the war is changing the way he thinks about the Gulf region during an interview with CNBC at the Milken Institute Global Conference on 4 May, he said: “No, short answer no – in fact, [we’re] doubling down, we are doing more.

    “When you find great businesses, countries, great people, and the market offers you an opportunity to invest when others are not, it is always the best opportunity in the world, so we are doing more. We have been there for 25 years; we are continuing to do all of the investments we have there, and we are going to do more.”

    Flatt suggested the current period of geopolitical stress could accelerate long-term economic strengthening across the Gulf, arguing that governments and businesses will respond by investing in self-sufficiency and strategic infrastructure. “They will eventually build better countries because of this,” he said.

    Flatt added: “They’re going to build resiliency in all their systems. They’re going to build their own artificial intelligence (AI). They’re going to build their own pipelines to the coast. They’re going to do things they didn’t do before. They have to do it. They probably should have, but they’re going to now, and they’re going to be more resilient.”

    UAE meetings

    Flatt has also travelled to the region since the conflict began on 28 February, meeting senior UAE officials to discuss investment opportunities and deepen cooperation. In Abu Dhabi on 9 April, he met Sheikh Khaled Bin Mohamed Bin Zayed Al-Nahyan, Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and Chairman of the Abu Dhabi Executive Council. The meeting explored ways to strengthen cooperation in investment and asset management between UAE-based institutions and Brookfield, in line with global economic trends and evolving market demands.

    Two days later in Dubai, Flatt met Sheikh Maktoum Bin Mohammed Bin Rashid Al-Maktoum, First Deputy Ruler of Dubai, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of Finance and Chairman of the Dubai International Financial Centre (DIFC). During the meeting, both sides explored opportunities to expand cooperation, highlighting the UAE and Dubai’s value proposition for global investors, including an integrated financial system, a flexible and advanced regulatory environment and world-class digital infrastructure. Discussions also covered Dubai’s role as a bridge between East and West, and the emirate’s emphasis on long-term partnerships and a transparent, business-friendly environment.

    Qatar partnership

    Brookfield’s regional activities are not limited to the UAE. In late 2025, the firm and Qai – Qatar’s AI company and a subsidiary of Qatar Investment Authority – announced a strategic partnership to establish a $20bn joint venture focused on AI infrastructure in Qatar and select international markets. The venture is expected to support Qatar’s ambition to become a hub for AI services and infrastructure in the Middle East. It is slated to be backed through Brookfield’s Artificial Intelligence Infrastructure Fund, part of a broader AI infrastructure programme targeting up to $100bn in global investment.

    Brookfield Infrastructure maintains a vast and diversified global portfolio characterised by high-barrier-to-entry assets across five core sectors. The data infrastructure segment has become a primary growth engine, currently comprising 150 data centres with significant operating capacity and about 308,000 operational telecom sites. In the utility and energy midstream space, the firm manages over 1,900 miles of electric transmission lines and a network of 2,100 miles of gas pipelines. The transport sector is another cornerstone of the portfolio, anchored by 22,500 miles of rail operations.

    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/16686052/main.gif
    Colin Foreman
  • Insurers will only cover a fraction of war damage to oil and gas facilities

    5 May 2026

     

    Insurers are expected to cover only a fraction of the damage to oil and gas facilities in the Middle East caused by the regional war, according to industry sources.

    Standard industrial property and business interruption policies typically exclude damage and disruption caused by acts of war. Companies therefore need specialist war-risk insurance or political violence and terrorism (PVT) insurance to be eligible for payouts.

    While most state-owned national oil companies (NOCs) are likely to have arranged this type of cover for major facilities, it is less common among smaller private or publicly traded companies.

    As a result, many assets – such as smaller fertiliser plants and chemical facilities – are expected to be uninsured for war-related damage.

    “War insurance was never a widely purchased product in the region,” said one source. “It’s one of these things that people never really believe is going to happen.

    “In a lot of companies, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for this kind of product was seen as something they couldn’t really justify.”

    Even companies that purchased war-risk or PVT insurance before the US and Israel attacked Iran on 28 February are unlikely to be covered for the full extent of war damage.

    War-risk insurance for large assets such as oil refineries or LNG terminals typically carries limits of $200m to $500m.

    In many cases, repairs to the region’s large and complex oil and gas facilities are likely to cost billions of dollars.

    One source said: “If you had, for example, an oil refinery that’s worth $8bn, you couldn’t really buy a war insurance policy to cover the price of a complete rebuild.

    “There just isn’t enough insurance capacity in the market to buy that level of cover.

    “Very often NOCs were buying cover at the highest level they could find, but this was limited by what markets were prepared to insure.”

    Payout timing

    Full insurance settlements for war damage are expected to take significant time – potentially 18 months to two years for some policyholders.

    Payments typically begin with an initial payout of around 20%-30% of the total claim. This is followed by a second payment mid-project – usually once engineering is complete – and then a final payment.

    In most cases, projects to rebuild and repair damaged oil and gas facilities are not expected to be delayed while owners wait for insurance proceeds.

    One source said: “A lot of the owners of these damaged facilities don’t see the current situation as the right time to start rebuilding, but that isn’t because they are waiting for insurance money.

    “The risk of new attacks and more damage is still high, and they are going to want to wait for signs of more stability before they start rebuilding.”

    Experts believe that once the security environment improves, facility owners will begin tendering repair and reconstruction contracts even if insurers have not settled claims.

    “A lot of the companies that operate oil, gas and chemical facilities in the region have access to funds that will allow them to rebuild without being reliant on insurers,” said one source.

    “Even if they have a policy that they expect to pay out, it is likely that they will go ahead with the project before receiving full payment if they think it is the right time to rebuild.”

    Once the security environment improves, the cost of rebuilding fully destroyed units is expected to be higher than when they were originally constructed, due to multiple rebuild projects progressing in parallel across the region.

    This is likely to drive a spike in demand for skilled labour and materials, pushing up costs.

    Market impact

    Insurers providing this type of cover in the region have generally experienced several years of low payout levels, so they are expected to meet claims with limited financial strain.

    However, the volume of claims stemming from the US and Israel’s war with Iran is expected to harden the war-risk and PVT insurance market, increasing premiums for owners of oil and gas facilities for some time.

    Ultimately, the limited scope of coverage means the financial burden of the war will fall more heavily on asset owners than on insurers.

    Even where cover is in place, policy limits mean insurers will only partially offset the cost of rebuilding large facilities, leaving companies and governments to bridge funding gaps.

    The experience is likely to prompt a reassessment of risk across the region’s energy sector, with lenders and investors placing greater emphasis on potential political violence-related damage when evaluating projects.

    READ THE MAY 2026 MEED BUSINESS REVIEW – click here to view PDF

    Global energy sector forced to recalibrate; Conflict hits debt issuance and listings activity; UAE’s non-oil sector faces unclear recovery period amid disruption.

    Distributed to senior decision-makers in the region and around the world, the May 2026 edition of MEED Business Review includes:
    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here
    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/16683871/main.jpg
    Wil Crisp
  • Oman seeks adviser for hydrogen-based IPP

    5 May 2026

    Oman’s Nama Power & Water Procurement Company (PWP) has issued a tender for technoeconomic consultancy services for power generation using green hydrogen.

    The offtaker said it intends to appoint a consultant to undertake an initial assessment for the development of a new independent power project (IPP).

    The plant is expected to be capable of operating on up to 100% hydrogen with an indicative generation capacity in the range of 800MW to 1,000MW.

    The bid submission deadline is 21 June.

    To date, hydrogen deployment has focused mainly on production and export projects, while power generation activity remains largely limited to pilot schemes rather than utility-scale, fully hydrogen-fired plants.

    According to a typical IPP development timeline spanning feasibility, procurement, financing and construction, the potential plant would be unlikely to enter operation before the early 2030s.

    Nama PWP also recently issued a separate consultancy tender seeking services to support ESG policy development.

    The deadline for firms to submit offers is 10 May.

    READ THE MAY 2026 MEED BUSINESS REVIEW – click here to view PDF

    Global energy sector forced to recalibrate; Conflict hits debt issuance and listings activity; UAE’s non-oil sector faces unclear recovery period amid disruption.

    Distributed to senior decision-makers in the region and around the world, the May 2026 edition of MEED Business Review includes:
    To see previous issues of MEED Business Review, please click here
    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/16683857/main.jpg
    Mark Dowdall
  • NCP seeks firms for healthcare PPP project

    5 May 2026

    Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Defence and the National Centre for Privatisation & PPP (NCP) have issued an expression of interest and request for qualification (RFQ) notice for the Chronic Kidney Disease Care and National Dialysis Services project.

    The notice was issued on 4 May, with a submission deadline of 15 June.

    The project will be delivered as a public-private partnership (PPP) under a design, repurpose, finance and maintain (DRFM) model, with a six-year contract term.

    NCP said the initiative supports Saudi Vision 2030 by increasing private sector participation in the healthcare sector.

    The project is structured into four packages, each covering a minimum number of patients across multiple regions to ensure wide geographic reach and improved access.

    Selected operators will be required to provide the necessary facilities, equipment and information technology systems, as well as supply qualified personnel. They will also manage clinical services – including in-centre haemodialysis, home haemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, vascular access and outpatient services – alongside non-clinical operations.

    In January, Saudi Arabia launched a National Privatisation Strategy, which aims to mobilise $64bn in private sector capital by 2030.

    The strategy builds on the privatisation programme first introduced in 2018. It will focus on unlocking state-owned assets for private investment and privatising selected government services.

    In a statement, NCP said the new strategy comprises 147 opportunities drawn from a broader pipeline of more than 500 projects across 18 sectors.

    https://image.digitalinsightresearch.in/uploads/NewsArticle/16683825/main.gif
    Yasir Iqbal