• fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Political bluster does not negate what internal negotiations are resulting in. This does not at all disprove my sources. I’m sorry, Hamas is holding this one up. As stated, everyone was waiting for Hamas to sign. If your assertions about Israel hold any weight, Hamas really could have stuck it to them and signed the cease fire, forcing Israel to either back up it’s bluster or move forward. But they didn’t.

    And these are the facts.

    • IndustryStandard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      Israel publicly stated they would not abide by the ceasefire.

      You said Israel signed the ceasefire deal which is not a fact.

      • fukhueson@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        I didn’t say anything. You’d have to quote me, which you can’t :)

        You have a problem with what Blinken and the resolution itself are saying, and they say Israel accepted the deal. Take it up with them. I’m done with you, this exact situation was discussed with you in a previous thread by another user. This is a bad faith effort to muddy the waters, and I reject this kind of discussion.

        Goodbye.

        Edit: since reading the original article is not a thing here:

        Driving the news: Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked back the proposal and told Israel’s Channel 14 that he is interested in a “partial deal” with Hamas that will free “some of the hostages” held in Gaza and allow Israel to continue fighting in the enclave.

        A day later, under pressure from the U.S., Qatar and hostages families, Netanyahu corrected his comments and recommitted to the proposal.

        But if it were up to the above user, this wouldn’t have been mentioned.