Ofer Dekel and Yuval Diskin brought back a mixed message from Cairo Monday night: Progress had been made on the names of prisoners to be released in exchange for kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit (in other words, Israel is prepared to free more prisoners than before), but significant disagreement remains over what to do with the released prisoners. The gaps are greater than the common ground. Israel insists that many of the worst murderers on the list must be expelled from the West Bank, while it seems Hamas agrees to the expulsion of only a few - according to Palestinian sources Hamas is willing to consider the deportation of only five.

Monday's round of Egyptian-mediated talks did not blow up, but neither did it lead to accord. After a meeting between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and his two emissaries, the Prime Minister's Bureau released a pessimistic statment. Olmert accused Hamas of hardening its positions and backtracking on understandings reached over the past year. Israel, the statement said, had made "generous offers," but encountered "extreme demands" by Hamas.

Although it was not expressly stated, it seems that Tuesday's special cabinet meeting will not discuss a deal at all, because there is no deal. There are Hamas demands, which Israel is not prepared to accept. In light of the above, the question arises whether Olmert's bureau did not raise, with the help of the media, exaggerated, and baseless, expectations.

Olmert will now have to decide whether to send Dekel and Diskin back for another round of talks before the government changeover. He still apparently has a little time, since the new coalition is still being formed.

A senior Hamas figure said Monday, "It is inconceivable for the organization to agree to the expulsion of prisoners from their homes." And yet, there is a historical precedent. Hamas has even mentioned the expulsion to Lebanon of 415 of its members in 1992. About a year later, Israel let 395 of them return, barring only 20. Hamas did not agree openly to Israel's dictates, but asked the 20 remaining prisoners to tell the Red Cross they had decided to remain abroad "willingly." That is one way to solve the present impasse.

Another possibility, from Hamas' perspective, would be to limit the expulsion to a few years. Hamas fears a permanent arrangement. This is not just a matter of principle. The organization underwent no small trauma from the expulsion of the men who were holed up in the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem in 2002.

Reports on the Arab side of the presence in Cairo of the head of Hamas' military wing, Ahmed Jabari, might reveal the seriousness with which the organization is taking the present round of talks. But even in Hamas there are apparently opposing interests. For Jabari it is important to release as many senior prisoners as possible, The political leadership in Gaza wants the siege on the Strip lifted. Khaled Meshal, head of the Hamas political bureau in Damascus, might be more interested in the release of prisoners from the West Bank, so as to challenge the rule of the Palestinian Authority there. Hamas' leaders understand well the implications of the rise of a narrow right-wing government in Israel. They say they do not fear Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is clear to them that he will have difficulty presenting them with a more generous offer than Olmert's. Further delays in closing the deal will also raise the level of bitterness among the families. But Monday night, at least, it seemed Hamas was having difficulty showing flexibility on the question of the number of prisoners to be expelled.

On the Israeli side, Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi announced he was cutting short a visit to the United States to take part in the planned cabinet meeting Tuesday. The prime minister, in any case, has already laid the groundwork for a failure of the talks. That seems to be the direction of Tuesday's cabinet meeting.

But as early as Monday, the article in Monday's Yedioth Ahronoth looks like Olmert's defense brief on the Shalit issue - citing protocols of security briefings with few participants. It is interesting that this time Olmert did not have a chance to accuse Defense Minister Ehud Barak of leaks damaging the security of the state.

The fate of Gilad Shalit has become a central topic of conversation in many Israeli homes over the past few days. The question, "what will happen to the boy?" is heard everywhere. The media is also enlisted almost fully in calling for the release of the soldier, marginalizing opponents to a swap. Support for a deal is legitimate, but even those who support it should ask themselves if those calling for release at any cost will be around to share the blame when some of those freed commit new attacks.