Reports have found that it is Israel that won’t agree to the ceasefire deal’s framework, despite Blinken’s claims.

Following the UN Security Council vote to approve a three-phase ceasefire in Gaza, U.S. officials and other international allies of Israel are cynically placing blame on Hamas for a stall in current ceasefire negotiations — even as Israel has insisted on indefinitely continuing its massacre in Gaza and Hamas has said its main request is a guarantee that Israel would actually honor the ceasefire.

But reports from a wide variety of news sources on how both Israel and Hamas are approaching the ceasefire proposal suggest that Blinken is lying about which party is accepting of the deal. Indeed, reports have found that it is actually Israel that won’t agree to the deal’s framework: an immediate ceasefire with a limited prisoner and hostage exchange, then a permanent ceasefire and withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza, and ultimately the reconstruction of Gaza and return of Palestinians to their homes.

Israel’s insistence on continuing its genocide has been consistent throughout the last eight months, including in reaction to the most recent ceasefire proposals of the past weeks. Officials have said Israel will only stop bombarding Gaza when they decide that Hamas has been eliminated and Palestinians there no longer pose a threat to Israel — a pledge that requires the mass slaughter of Palestinian civilians, as military procedures and Israel’s own public statements have shown.

But the main demand from Hamas appears to be straightforward, according to other officials familiar with the negotiations. Multiple outlets citing such sources have echoed what Hamas officials have said: that they are primarily concerned with getting guarantees from the U.S. and Israel that the deal will actually lead to a ceasefire and withdrawal from Gaza.

Specifically, Hamas is concerned about a lack of assurances from the current proposal about the transition between the first and second phases of the plan, Reuters reports, citing multiple sources involved with the talks. The first phase involves a six-week ceasefire, with the release of some Israeli hostages, while the second phase calls for a permanent ceasefire and Israeli troop withdrawal.

Archived version: https://archive.ph/vNwMx

  • NotAnotherLemmyUser@lemmy.worldEnglish
    84·
    6 months ago

    I thought I read something earlier today that mentioned that the current deal is that the hostages be returned and then Israel will pull out it’s troops.

    Hamas wants to alter it so that they release a few hostages, then Israel pulls out, and then they release the rest of the hostages.

    It sounds like Israel had already agreed to that deal so isn’t this in Hamas’ ball park to accept or not?

    Then again it sounds like every time the deal is altered, the other side wants to male new changes,

    As Blinken mentioned in a different article:

    “At some point in a negotiation, and this has gone back and forth for a long time, you get to a point where if one side continues to change its demands, including making demands and insisting on changes for things that it already accepted, you have to question whether they’re proceeding in good faith or not.” https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-hamas-war-ceasefire-negotiations-ab6925549d8f523a6e5c61e88e7eec8a

    Has anyone actually published the entire deal (at any stage) in its entirety so that everyone can see what is being debated?

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      9·
      6 months ago

      The Three-phase plan from the UN Resolution:

      Phase one includes an “immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, and the exchange of Palestinian prisoners”.

      It calls for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from “populated areas” of Gaza, the return of Palestinians to their homes and neighbourhoods throughout the enclave, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale.

      Phase two would see a permanent end to hostilities “in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza”.

      In phase three, “a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza” would begin and the remains of any deceased hostages still in the Strip would be returned to Israel.

      The Council also underlined the proposal’s provision that if negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will continue as long as negotiations continue. No territorial change

      In the resolution, the Security Council rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of the enclave.

    • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
      122·
      6 months ago

      This is the actual deal. It’s been approved by the US, UN, and Qatar as a mediator. According to the US, it came from Israel, but there’s apparently a little civil war going on in Israel’s government about whether to “agree” to it or not. It seems likely to me that the terms were simply dictated to a mostly-unwilling Israeli government, then announced (by the US) “on behalf of Israel,” and now they’re pouting about it but also don’t want to say out loud to their sugar daddy “fuck you I don’t want to,” because then we might stop arming them so comprehensively and vetoing things for them at the UN, and so they’re stuck.

      Hamas’s proposed changes are not public, so it’s impossible to say how big a deal they are or how necessary. I tend to blame Israel in general because they are so clearly acting in bad faith and also they’re the ones killing all these innocent people, but… I also have to say that Blinken’s statement makes some sense to me.

      It would have been very easy for Hamas to simply agree to the deal on the table, and if Israel wants to reject it, or “accept” it but just continue the war immediately under some paper thin excuse (both of which seem highly likely), then at least there’s not this weird confusion about whose fault that is. It’s hard to come up with an explanation for Hamas wanting changes and fucking the whole thing up that doesn’t involve blaming them for the inevitable results of that decision at least partly. To me as an unqualified observer person.