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
Not a straw man, but whatever. If you fail to see that the comment I was replying to is basically “they’re not the good guys, BUT…”, not much to discuss. I’ll maybe just add that a few years ago, when comments like “I’m not racist, BUT…” were everywhere, people like you were going around telling everyone that the part before the BUT doesn’t count, so I took the liberty of ignoring it.
So, is it hypocrisy or just cognitive dissonance?
For anyone reading the above: Hamas is the one in negotiations with Israel. The words that came out after ‘but’ was a factual statement, not a justifying qualifier.
Hamas is negotiating with Israel on behalf of Gaza. Textbook case of prejudice hijacking reading comprehension.
Man says “hamas aren’t good guys, but they are the only ones bargaining on behalf of Gazans”
And you say “he said hamas are good guys”
If you learned “everything after the But in a sentence is a lie” and still believe it that vehemently without nuance into your adult life, you should reevaluate who you’re taking your life advice from. Things can have nuance, and this war is fucking filled with it. Gazans who haven’t known a life outside of death and destruction of their home voting for people who claim they’ll fight for them (Hamas), radicalized by the violence enacted upon them by Israel. Israel insisting the death tolls are anyway near similar, riling up their citizens and voter bases about Hamas, an organization that, with it’s absolute best opportinity for a ‘surprise’ attack on October 7th, barely scratched the surface of the innocent deaths since this has begun. It was a travesty, a loss of innocent life, and it was met with another travesty, another loss of life, but in greater force than they could have ever attempted.
If you can’t sympathize with a people who have been starved, bombed, displaced, and then blamed for their existence, then history has failed you.
It’s easier to win a discussion when you just state falsehoods, especially misquoting the other person, as the other person would have to defend it. On to a new lie, and around we go.
Many people will, unfortunately, listen to the lies, because the person defending themselves will look like they have nothing new to come up with, rather just stand there defending themselves.
Just look at any Trump discussion.
The statement in question.