104

Hamas Rejects Cease-Fire Proposal, Dashing Biden’s Hopes of Near Term Deal (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 9 months ago by CaractacusPotts@lemmy.ca to c/world@lemmy.world

20 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 24 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] KickMeElmo@sopuli.xyz 53 points 9 months ago

Considering Netenyahu basically said "lol, we're going to keep taking over more of Gaza even if there's a ceasefire" I can't imagine what would make the other side wary...

[-] NoneOfUrBusiness@kbin.social 47 points 9 months ago

I mean yes they've been very clear about that. If Biden wants Hamas to give up all their leverage he needs to bring to the table something that doesn't mean Israel can just continue to genocide Gazans in two months.

[-] athos77@kbin.social 34 points 9 months ago

Especially since, without a permanent ceasefire, this is just an exchange of hostages. And Israel can very easily just continue to grab Palestinians off the street, proclaim them to be 'Hamas' and hold them indefinitely, giving them an infinite supply of hostages to hold over Hamas.

[-] SinningStromgald@lemmy.world 39 points 9 months ago

The ceasefire was total bullshit from the beginning. If the US really wanted a ceasefire there have been resolutions for it that they could have not veto'd in the UN.

[-] jimmydoreisalefty@lemmy.world 35 points 9 months ago

Another Hamas official, Ahmad Abdelhadi, said that the group was sticking to its demand that Israel agree to a long-term cease-fire and that leaks about the talks were designed to pressure Hamas to soften its position.

“We are not interested in engaging with what’s been floated, because it does not fulfill our demands,” Mr. Abdelhadi said Tuesday in a televised interview with al-Mayadeen, a Lebanese broadcaster.

[-] Deceptichum@sh.itjust.works 17 points 9 months ago

Biden next week: We’re close to reaching a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia by Thursday. Ukraine will give up all its claims to its lands held by Russia and Russia pinky promises not to attack for 3 weeks.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

This perfectly describes how insanely stupid israel's deal is. But people don't want to hear that.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hamas rejects nothing.

They have laid a deal on the table which would lead to a permanent ceasefire

Israel is the party rejecting the deal. Israel wants to ethnically cleanse and annex Gaza

[+] theotherverion@lemmynsfw.com -11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

[removed by mod]

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 31 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Because the deal was ridiculous.

Israel is offering a temporary pause in exchange for all of the hostages while Netanyahu is saying that the invasion and resulting massacre in Rafah is still going to happen no matter what.

I don't in any way condone the many atrocities of Hamas, but they'd be absolute idiots to give up their only leverage for basically nothing.

That the NYT is framing the refusal of an absolutely preposterous deal as a sign of Hamas wanting to continue the violence (which they absolutely do) while the Israeli government is making good faith attempts at peace (which it absolutely is NOT) is hardly surprising, though, given their general anti-palestinian bias.

[+] jaemo@sh.itjust.works -24 points 9 months ago

What's gross is acceptance of the idea that Hamas has 'leverage" because they took hostages. I take issue with the idea that taking hostages gives you leverage on anything, in any permanent sense. If Israel's actions confirm anything (other than that they are just as capable of visiting the same atrocities on others as any humans are) it's that. Show me what their actions have "levered" and I will show you a ruined land with a fast increasing body count. Way to apply yourselves champs.

It makes you a target. Period. One deserving of retribution. You don't ever, ever get to walk away from that, so you don't get to claim you have leverage. If anything, you've got baggage. Moreover, that baggage is going to, increasingly, claim collaterals. QE motherfucking D.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

What's gross is acceptance of the idea that Hamas has 'leverage" because they took hostages

You don't have to like reality to understand it. The taking of innocent civilians as hostage is one of the many atrocities of Hamas that I unequivocally condemn. That doesn't change the reality that those poor people ARE leverage in the negotiations, just like innocently imprisoned and tortured Palestinians are for the Israeli government.

I take issue with the idea that taking hostages gives you leverage on anything, in any permanent sense.

Again, acknowledging isn't endorsing.

If Israel's actions confirm anything (other than that they are just as capable of visiting the same atrocities on others as any humans are) it's that

It's what, exactly? That hostages aren't used as leverage in ceasefire talks? Because Israel has leveraged innocently imprisoned Palestinians in every single ceasefire negotiation since the first one.

Show me what their actions have "levered" and I will show you a ruined land with a fast increasing body count. Way to apply yourselves champs.

Again completely missing the point in your quest to paint me and others as superfans of kidnapping as a political tactic.

It makes you a target. Period.

Being a Palestinian in Gaza (and to a lesser but still atrocious degree the West Bank) makes you a target. Period. No atrocities committed by Hamas necessary. Those are pretenses for what the fascist Netanyahu government already wanted to do, not the actual reasons.

One deserving of retribution

Now who's being fucking gross? To say, knowing full well what Israeli government "retribution" looks like, that anyone could possibly deserve it is callously vengeful to the point of abhorrent bloodthirst.

You don't ever, ever get to walk away from that

Don't worry, at the very least double as many innocent Palestinian civilians as Hamas terrorists won't.

you don't get to claim you have leverage

Again with this complete ignorance of how ceasefire negotiations work, especially in THIS particular 75 year long conflict.

QE motherfucking D.

You have demonstrated nothing except your own ignorance and cocksure belief in the infallibility of your poor understanding.

[-] Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There is already a deal from Hamas on the table and it has been called very reasonable by all parties except israel (especially Netanyahu) who doesn't want peace.

Hamas rejected this nothing-burger deal that would make them give away all the hostages so they don't get bombed for a few weeks and then israel annexes Gaza afterwards.

This would only delay annexation, not prevent it.

[-] SevenOfWine@startrek.website -4 points 9 months ago

He's not arguing in good faith.

Here he's arguing that Hamas hasn't rejected anything, ie. they haven't rejected a deal.

Further down in the comments, he says that the Israeli deal is stupid, thereby admitting that there is an Israeli deal which Hamas is rejecting.

Check out his comment history.

[-] maness300@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hamas already proposed a deal for a permanent ceasefire. Israelies are the ones not agreeing to it.

It doesn't make sense for Hamas to give up prisoners in exchange for a 'temporary' ceasefire. All that's going to happen is a massacre when the ceasefire expires and Hamas won't have the leverage they have now.

This is straight out of the Republican playbook of proposing bullshit they know will never be agreed upon just to paint the opposition as unagreeable.

Fuck Zionists and fuck their supporters. They're the same as Nazis.

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Yet it's always framed as Hamas rejects (temporary) ceasefire and never highlighted how it's Israel rejecting any permanent ceasefire. As if only considering a full ceasefire instead of a temporary pause to the unending bombing and starvation campaign is unreasonable.

[-] rdri@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

What was their deal though?

[-] autotldr@lemmings.world 6 points 9 months ago

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Hamas officials said on Tuesday that there had been no breakthrough in the mediated talks with Israel aimed at pausing the war and freeing the remaining hostages in the Gaza Strip, one day after President Biden said he was hopeful that a cease-fire would be in place by next week.

Basem Naim, a Hamas spokesman, said in a text message that the militant group had yet to formally receive “any new proposals” since senior Israeli officials met with Qatari, Egyptian and U.S. mediators in Paris last week to advance a possible deal.

As the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins in less than two weeks, and as the death toll in Gaza approaches 30,000, global pressure has been mounting on Israel to agree to a deal to stop the war, at least temporarily.

Those pressures have led Israel to make significant concessions in the negotiations, two officials said, including an offer to release 15 Palestinians jailed on serious terrorism charges in exchange for five female Israeli soldiers being held in Gaza.

At a news conference in Washington on Tuesday, Matthew Miller, a State Department spokesman, said that negotiators “made significant progress” last week and were continuing to push for an agreement between Israel and Hamas.

With no accord in place, the Palestine Red Crescent Society said it had suspended emergency medical missions for two days in a part of Gaza where Israeli forces on Sunday intercepted a convoy evacuating patients from a hospital, interrogating and detaining workers on the suspicion that they were ferrying Hamas fighters.

The original article contains 1,225 words, the summary contains 256 words. Saved 79%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2024

104 points (84.2% liked)

World News

39365 readers

932 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.