Hamas Wants Guarantees Ceasefire Will Actually Happen, While US Says Hamas Is Rejecting the Proposal
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
From what I am understanding a few points Hamas wants changed:
Israel needs to rebuild it
Would still be better to agree to a temporary ceasefire whilst a permanent one is negotiated.
If there was any chance of it turning into a permanent ceasefire; yes. However israel has made it clear in no uncertain words that they will continue the Genocide after 6 weeks.
Netanyahu is not the end-all-be-all of Israeli decisionmaking. Unlike Hamas, the Israeli state is a democratic institution. If an agreement is formulated between that guarantees the Israeli citizenry that Gazan islamic terrorists won't repeat an october 7 massacre in the future, Netanyahu will not be able to stop it. Time is what is needed to create such an agreement.
However, as always, Hamas prioritizes their own interests above those of the Gazan populace. They know very well Israel can not realistucally agree to an unconditional, permanent end to hostilities, as that was the situation that led to october 7th in the first place.
At the minimum I would expect a permanent end to the war to be conditioned on Hamas releasing the remaining civilian hostages.
An Apartheid is not a democracy. But still the war cabinet fully supports what Netanyahu is saying here.
So you are correct to point out that it is not just Netanyahu but the israeli government that does not want a ceasefire.
The rest of your comment makes no sense. Consider reading my previous comment again.
Even if it were, those aren't mutually exclusive. Most, if not all democracies are flawed in some fashion.
So much so that members have been on the verge of resigning several times. You underestimate just how frail Netanyahus position really is.
It does, just not at the terms Hamas demands.
I'm perfectly willing to clarify. If there is something you fail to understand, please highlight it.
No they are mutually exclusive. Annexing the West Bank without giving its inhabitants the right to vote means israel is not a democracy.
One cannot be a Democracy and an Apartheid at the same time.
I cannot respond to the rest of your comment as you appear to be describing an alternate reality which we are not present in.
https://www.un.org/unispal/document/eu-annual-report-on-human-rights-and-democracy-in-the-world-2018-country-updates/
Here's what the UN says on the matter.
So at least in the reality where the UN exists, Israel is a democracy and the Palestinian territories are occupied (as opposed to annexed).
I'd love to hear more about the reality that "we" (you and your woefully uninformed friends I presume?) are present in.
Apartheid condemnations from all major NGO's against israel were around 2022 your article is 2018.