106

Hamas tells negotiators it doesn’t have 40 Israeli hostages needed for first round of ceasefire | CNN (www.cnn.com)

submitted 6 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

93 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 72 points 6 months ago

Article is way better than the headline...

The framework that has been laid out by negotiators says that during a first six-week pause in the fighting, Hamas should release 40 of the remaining hostages, including all the women as well as sick and elderly men. In exchange, hundreds of Palestinian prisoners would be released from Israeli prisons.

Hamas has told international mediators – which include Qatar and Egypt - it does not have 40 living hostages who match those criteria for release, both sources said.

CNN’s record of the conditions of the hostages also suggests there are fewer than 40 living hostages who meet the proposed criteria.

Hamas just hasn't been taking civilian noncombatants as hostages like Israel has been doing.

Most hostages are combatants, and that doesn't meet the details for this requirement

The majority of the almost 100 hostages who remain alive are believed to be male IDF soldiers or men of military reserve age.

load more comments (23 replies)

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 37 points 6 months ago

You mean Israel went into negotiations making unreasonable demands? Like almost every other time?

[-] MeanEYE@lemmy.world 7 points 6 months ago

Oh come on. What kind of "return elderly people, pregnant women and other feeble hostages" is unreasonable demand? What would be reasonable demand? Keep them forever. Abuse them?

load more comments (11 replies)

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

What are the demands of each side? Can we lay them out and compare? Or do we know already that Hamas demands are reasonable? Do we always have to take sides? I personally want what's best for the Palestinian people so I want a ceasefire and return to negotiations. But this partisan flailing isn't helping the cause. Unless of course we're ok sacrificing more Palestinians? I don't get it.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 2 points 6 months ago

Do sides have to be taken in a negotiation?

I would say yes. That's the whole point of a negotiation.

[-] TheFonz@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Should we grant:

A. Both sides be reasonable?
B. Only Israel should be reasonable?
C. Only Hamas should be reasonable?
D. None of the above.

I just don't understand why you're calling out only one party?

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 6 months ago

Because one party is demanding something the other party says it doesn't have.

[-] Zomg@lemmy.world 3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Problem I think is why they don't have them now if they had them at some point.

Unless they never had them to begin with; having people and now no longer having them points to killing them which, surprise, hurts negotiation.

Who knows though, Israel might of taken them for innocent Palestinians and did it to themselves :(

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (7 replies)

load more comments (3 replies)

[-] Sam_Bass@lemmy.world 21 points 6 months ago

Theyre dead, Jim

load more comments

this post was submitted on 10 Apr 2024

106 points (87.3% liked)

World News

38936 readers

1883 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.