191

Israel ‘accepts six-week ceasefire deal’ as Hamas response awaited, US officials say (www.theguardian.com)

submitted 10 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

116 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 58 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Well now I'm confused, because there's a post from today about how Israel is not sending a delegation to Egypt for ceasefire/hostage talks according to CNN. Here's the direct link to the article, which states:

"Israel is not sending a delegation to Cairo for talks on a deal for a ceasefire and release of hostages from Gaza, an Israeli official told CNN Sunday."
"Another diplomatic source played down the prospects of an imminent deal, saying progress was slow and it was unlikely there would be a breakthrough within the next 48 hours."

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 42 points 10 months ago

The article immediately clarified Israel hasn't agreed to anything.

Biden keeps saying a ceasefire is about to happen, despite no signs it will

So his administration keeps releasing these unsourced reasons that it total is happening, despite no signs it is.

[-] BarbecueCowboy@kbin.social 2 points 10 months ago

The official said the reason was that Hamas had not responded to two Israeli demands: a list of hostages specifying which are alive and which are dead; and confirmation of the ratio of Palestinian prisoners to be released from Israeli prisons in exchange for hostages.

This is in theory what we're waiting on. That sounds reasonable at first glance, but we do have to remember that we are only hearing from one side.

[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 40 points 10 months ago

He said Israel had “basically” accepted the deal, but did not specify whether it still had reservations or what those were.

So its still just lip service?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 14 points 10 months ago

Well sort of. I think what means is that they got all the nods, but no signature on the paper.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 8 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Biden and Hamas leaders said the aid convoy deaths could complicate negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release deal. But Egyptian security sources said the incident had pushed both sides to intensify their efforts, in order to preserve progress made so far, Reuters reported.

Seems like the IDF firing into the crowds of starving refugees, causing crowd crush and killing over a 100 people and wounding 800+ was a really bad look, so Israel is onboard instead of threatening a Rafah ground assault.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 34 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Hamas has repeatedly rejected any kind of temporary ceasefire. I can't see why this would be any different.

Was Hamas even involved in the drafting of this deal or did the US and Israel just throw this together to paint Hamas as unreasonable when they reject it again? None of the articles I've read have made any effort to clarify who drew this up beyond vaguely gesturing at Israel, US, and Egypt.

[-] Wrench@lemmy.world 28 points 10 months ago

I don't know why you're being downvoted. I don't know what the terms of this one are, but past cease fires have basically required Hamas to surrender. Giving up their only leverage, hostages, and allowing IDF to strictly control everyone and everything going in and out of Gaza, free to shut off power and water as they feel, and block aid.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 24 points 10 months ago

Not to mention Israel doesn't exactly have a stellar record when it comes to respecting ceasefires.

load more comments (2 replies)

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

As best as I can find this is basically a deal that gives Israel it's biggest ask in exchange for maybe not bombing during Ramadan. So yeah something they cooked up to make Hamas look unreasonable.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 8 points 10 months ago

Israel has repeatedly rejected any kind of permanent ceasefire

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 4 points 10 months ago

Yeah, which is why this shit is still going on. Hamas would be extremely naive to think a temporary ceasefire is anything more than a promise to start bombing again later after they've refreshed their troops and stockpiled more weapons.

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

Thank you for your list! I saw this recently and forgot to save it. Glad you're on it.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Hamas has repeatedly rejected any kind of temporary ceasefire.

Palestinian officials have advocated for a permanent ceasefire, with the expectation that any concessions they extract from the Israelis will be forfeit as soon as a temporary ceasefire closes.

Was Hamas even involved in the drafting of this deal

Right now, the primary advocates on behalf of the Palestinians are Qatari and Egyptian officials with sympathies toward their Arab neighbors. Any actual members of Hamas have been playing cat-and-mouse with Israeli assassins, which has in turn made the Israeli demands for a proper accounting of hostages very difficult.

After all, if you clearly state how many hostages survived the carpet-bombing of Northern Gaza, the Israelis can use that figure to coordinate their strikes in and around the southern end.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 2 points 10 months ago

Egypt is essentially preparing a concentration camp in Sinai to house refugees from a seemingly inevitable Rafah campaign. I have some doubts about how well they're advocating for Palestine's interests.

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 21 points 10 months ago

Subtitle:

White House officials claim provisional agreement is on the table as scale of starvation crisis revealed

So it's a US official anonymously saying that an offer is on the table...

Like every other post OP has made on the subject, the headline isn't factual and immediately clarified in the article.

If Israel was going to agree to it, they'd sign it

But they won't, so they don't.

load more comments (5 replies)

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 15 points 10 months ago

For those repeatedly reporting this:

"Talks took place in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Saturday and were expected to move to Cairo on Sunday as the scale of looming starvation pushed the US to start air-dropping food into the enclave."

The Israeli agreement apparently happened in Doha, but won't be official until they sign the agreement in Cairo... where they may not actually show up.

It's passed Sunday into Monday, so we'll see where it goes, but I'm frankly not optimistic.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 6 points 10 months ago

Its curious to see how the media narrative has turned in the wake of some of these primary votes. Biden's gone from "Israel can do no wrong" to "We're doing everything we can (short of denying them more weapons and diplomatic cover at the UN) to stop these atrocities".

I have to wonder what happens as we close in on the general election and Trump goes all in on being pro-Palestinian genocide. Do the Democrats rediscover their love of human rights and rules based international order? Or do they all double back and try to out-compete the Republicans on the "We Love Israel" front?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 10 months ago

Generally, it's pro-Israel all the way down because of donations. That's really all they care about.

load more comments (8 replies)

load more comments (1 replies)

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 8 points 10 months ago

Oh yay, a possible 6 weeks of just a little genocide instead of full on genocide!

load more comments (26 replies)

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 3 points 10 months ago

that's all aaron bushnell right there. most noble american act of the 20th century

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments

this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024

191 points (88.4% liked)

World News

39416 readers

2643 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.