An official familiar with Israeli thinking said Israeli officials were examining the proposal, but the plan approved by Hamas was not the framework Israel proposed.
So Hamas accepted a proposal that was not proposed by Israel, effectively making this meaningless. Hamas will also accept proposals for Israel to stop existing, doesn’t mean that will happen either.
Israel only accepts “deals” they make, and they usually include saying Gaza needs to be abide by the ceasefire and stay out of the way while Israel keeps attacking.
So yes, this is meaningless, but you’re blaming the wrong side.
Hamas has a long track record of breaking ceasfires. Their demands usually include releasing terrorists that were caught trying to murder civilians within Israel in exchanges that are 1000+:1 with hostages/bodies they hold. For those who aren’t just tuning in just for this latest conflict, this isn’t exactly news worth even mentioning until an actual deal is struck.
Yeah, but headlines like this are just plain misleading. Hamas agreed to conditions that weren’t the ones put forth by Israel. That means it’s effectively meaningless, since we don’t know how much the terms were altered.
This third-party brokered cease fire has been the cease fire that israel and the US have accused hamas of holding up because they want to paint hamas as the belligerents, now that hamas has agreed israel has undermine the legitimacy of the deal otherwise they look like the belligerents.
If it turns out to have all been meaningless theatre (this is a developing story), it was israel and the US who set the stage and invited the audience.
Getting everything you want is a demand, not a negotiation, and implies bad faith.
I’ve not seen any reporting which details what the supposed differences are, how far apart they really are, or any substantive detail at all.
I doubt that both egypt and qatar would jeopardize their role as mediators by selling a vastly differing counter-proposal as an agreement, and the fact that bibi’s office is talking about sending it to their team rather than strongly rejecting it makes this seem to me more like israeli positioning than reality, but we’ll have to hold firm judgement until actual details come out.
It’s almost as if they negotiations are on going and this article is just a media outlet trying to get clicks and a narrative going without any concrete info to report on.
So Hamas accepted a proposal that was not proposed by Israel, effectively making this meaningless. Hamas will also accept proposals for Israel to stop existing, doesn’t mean that will happen either.
They’re accepting one from third parties…
Israel only accepts “deals” they make, and they usually include saying Gaza needs to be abide by the ceasefire and stay out of the way while Israel keeps attacking.
So yes, this is meaningless, but you’re blaming the wrong side.
Hamas has a long track record of breaking ceasfires. Their demands usually include releasing terrorists that were caught trying to murder civilians within Israel in exchanges that are 1000+:1 with hostages/bodies they hold. For those who aren’t just tuning in just for this latest conflict, this isn’t exactly news worth even mentioning until an actual deal is struck.
That’s all they do, blame everyone except Isreal
That’s how most ceasefires and treaties happen in the world. Third parties are usually the ones that broker these things.
Yeah, but headlines like this are just plain misleading. Hamas agreed to conditions that weren’t the ones put forth by Israel. That means it’s effectively meaningless, since we don’t know how much the terms were altered.
@njm1314@lemmy.world
This third-party brokered cease fire has been the cease fire that israel and the US have accused hamas of holding up because they want to paint hamas as the belligerents, now that hamas has agreed israel has undermine the legitimacy of the deal otherwise they look like the belligerents.
If it turns out to have all been meaningless theatre (this is a developing story), it was israel and the US who set the stage and invited the audience.
Hamas agreed to conditions that were not what Israel put forth. That means they refused to accept those conditions.
Getting everything you want is a demand, not a negotiation, and implies bad faith.
I’ve not seen any reporting which details what the supposed differences are, how far apart they really are, or any substantive detail at all.
I doubt that both egypt and qatar would jeopardize their role as mediators by selling a vastly differing counter-proposal as an agreement, and the fact that bibi’s office is talking about sending it to their team rather than strongly rejecting it makes this seem to me more like israeli positioning than reality, but we’ll have to hold firm judgement until actual details come out.
It’s almost as if they negotiations are on going and this article is just a media outlet trying to get clicks and a narrative going without any concrete info to report on.