fukhueson @ fukhueson @lemmy.world

Posts

268

Comments

485

Joined

2 yr. ago

The resolution itself says Israel accepted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735?wprov=sfla1

The resolution, presented by the United States, details the three-phase proposal and notes Israel's acceptance thereof.

While initially Netanyahu grumbled, Israel accepted it.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-june-24-2024/

QUESTION: Yeah. Sorry – (laughter) – I have so many. Yesterday, the prime minister – the Israeli prime minister – basically rejected the whole Biden plan, and he said, okay, we want to exchange some of the hostages for a few prisoners and that’s it, that’s the end of it. So do you still think that the ball is in Hamas’s court and not in Israel’s court?

MR MILLER: So I saw the comments the prime minister made yesterday, and then I saw the statement his office put out clarifying that they wanted to secure the release of all hostages, and then I saw the further statement the prime minister said today where he said – made clear he supports the proposal that Israel put on the table and the President laid out. So I will just say I think all of us that speak publicly at times make mistakes and misspeak, and when we do so, we have an obligation to come clarify. And we’re glad he did.

While members of Hamas had accepted the proposal, and after bad faith negotiations from Hamas, the one guy who actually had the power to accept it did not. Netanyahu's fear of losing power aside, had Hamas actually accepted the proposal, this would have panned out better. It would force Netanyahu to rebuff the acceptance of the proposal without being able to say Hamas made unworkable demands.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-phase_Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war_ceasefire_proposal

On 10 June, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 2735 backing the 31 May proposal, noting Israel's acceptance thereof and calling on Hamas to accept the proposed agreement as well. The following day, Hamas and Islamic Jihad replied to the resolution with amendments to the proposal, including a timeline for a permanent ceasefire and troop withdrawals, and the Office of the Israeli Prime Minister stated, "The claim that Israel agreed to end the war before achieving all its goals is a total lie". The United States responded to the Palestinians' proposed amendments by calling them unworkable. The day after that, Hamas denied adding any new ideas to the ceasefire proposal. On 21 June, Hamas stated, "The priority is to stop the criminal war on our people", and three days later, Netanyahu stated Israel would only accept a partial ceasefire that would not end the war.

...

October 2024, U.S. officials said that they believed that Sinwar was no longer interested in a ceasefire deal with Israel. These officials said that Sinwar had become "inflexible" and "fatalistic" as the war had progressed, adding that he was hoping for it to expand into a wider regional conflict involving Iran.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-17-2024/

So, a few things about that. First of all, as you know, we’ve been trying to achieve a ceasefire that returns the hostages home, alleviates the suffering of the Palestinian people, and ends the war for many months now. And the chief obstacle to reaching that ceasefire and bringing an end to the war has been Sinwar, who has refused to negotiate at all in recent weeks and has said no time and time again. That obstacle has obviously been removed. Can’t predict that that means that whoever replaces Hamas[1] will agree to a ceasefire, but it does remove what has been in recent months the chief obstacle to getting one. So,we’re going to continue to work with our partners to try to find an end to the war. The Secretary already today while on Air Force One with the President flying to Berlin called the prime minister of Qatar, who has been one of our two mediators – other mediators – working to reach an end to the war. He called the foreign minister of Saudi Arabia to talk about the path forward, and he will be having additional contacts in the days ahead.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-august-7-2024/

MR MILLER: I don’t think there is. I really don’t think – it’s what the Secretary said yesterday, obviously, and I think is accurate, which is it doesn’t really change the situation. Two things can be true: Number one, Sinwar is a brutal terrorist with blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens, and not just American citizens but citizens of many countries around the world. Let’s remember, it’s not just citizens of Israel that were killed on October 7th; there were citizens of multiple countries, as I said, including the United States. That is true.

It is also true that he continues to be the person that calls the shots for Hamas. And that was true before the death of the leader of the – the political leader of Hamas; it continues to be true today. Ultimately, it was Sinwar that had the final decision-making authority, as we can see throughout these negotiations, on whether to accept a ceasefire or not.

So yes, Sinwar absolutely ought to be brought to justice. We believe that, for the – his significant acts of terrorism. And we also think he ought to accept the ceasefire deal that is manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people as well as, of course, in the interests of Israel and the broader region.

Yes it does, if he's willing to do that wouldn't that open up options for negotiations? And why did resolution 2735 go nowhere?

The source I provided does not support your opinion.

Rather than adopting a resolution that emboldens Hamas, let’s instead demand Hamas implement Resolution 2735 without further condition or delay.

https://press.un.org/en/2024/sc15723.doc.htm

By resolution 2735 (2024) (to be issued as document S/RES/2735(2024)), the 15-member organ noted that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases, the first of which would include an immediate, full and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages; the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed; the exchange of Palestinian prisoners; withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza; the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes; and the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout Gaza.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/11/20/middleeast/netanyahu-offers-5-million-and-safe-passage-for-returning-hostages-intl/index.html

It wasn't the way the us wanted it. They've held since the beginning of this that hostages must be released if a ceasefire is established. This resolution did not require that.

https://usun.usmission.gov/explanation-of-vote-on-a-un-security-council-resolution-on-the-situation-in-the-middle-east/

We made clear throughout negotiations we could not support an unconditional ceasefire that failed to release the hostages.

Because, as this Council has previously called for, a durable end to the war must come with the release of the hostages. These two urgent goals are inextricably linked.

This resolution abandoned that necessity, and for that reason, the United States could not support it.

Simply put, this resolution would have sent a dangerous message to Hamas: There’s no need to come back to the negotiating table.

Honestly don't understand how hostages weren't a required part of that resolution.

Edited to include the "required" component. There is nothing requiring a hostage release with the ceasefire, to clarify my initial statement.

I had been posting (and commenting with) positive news about the country prior to the election, to a chorus of up voted comments saying otherwise.

Lemmy is infested.

Down votes don't make me wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_experiment

Yea I mean, Poynter is a non-profit fact checking and journalism institute... They launched IFCN. Square all those accusations you're seeing around here for me :)

The title poses the claim in question from a neutral standpoint, and presents it's fact checking case in the article. I don't agree with the idea that a controversy is implied simply by doing that, or that there is an open question implied either. That is not apparent to me whatsoever, and I think this is a personal opinion rather than anything concrete. By reading the article, that is confirmed, and the reader also gains a lot of additional information on the matter.

But don't report on those things, because it's irresponsible to do that. It's simply to fill the 24/7 news cycle, not to inform anyone (despite this being a fact checking institute). /s

What is going on in this sub?

It might be beneficial for some to understand the "what" and "why" behind the "no," no?

Thank you. The number of up votes the comments get saying that we shouldn't even bother discussing this are staggering.

Better let the misinformation go uncountered, right?

Maybe we shouldn't inform the population about this... And any other of Trump's plans since they're so obviously bad they don't need explanation?

Simply irresponsible to not do so, especially after an election where so much of the population were convinced Trump would be better for the economy. If anything we should be working harder to inform people, not looking for reasons to avoid these topics. What if someone saw that RFK would be doing this and saw no counter to his misinformation? Because it's below someone to even discuss?

It's a duty to inform people, and I'm glad poynter is taking the initiative.

Wrong.

Post is about Hamas torturing people. "But what about Israel" is whataboutism.

I will not litigate bad faith arguments with you anymore. And that description of deflation you provided definitely fits your argument. I know this because the original comment makes no mention of "both sides bad." Just Israel. Over.

Yes, by definition it is whataboutism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

Whataboutism or whataboutery (as in "what about ...?") is a pejorative for the strategy of responding to an accusation with a counter-accusation instead of a defense against the original accusation.

Not liking that doesn't make it not whataboutism.

Whataboutism

But they weren't attacking them for their religion right? So then it's not antisemitism? /s

Scary to see this kind of propaganda on Lemmy extend to the real world. People hunting various Jews in the streets and those actions get a pass from users here.

If there was a Democrat who did what Trump did, I'd not hesitate to enforce the law because I was afraid of the consequences.