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

    • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
      194·
      6 months ago

      You take credibility advice from an organization that proudly identifies itself as right of CBS News and The Weather Channel?

      Isn’t that a little bit biased?

      If you think the article is lying, say so. Don’t hide behind the ‘impartiality’ grift.

      • mecfs@lemmy.worldEnglish
        46·
        5 months ago

        Sorry what?

        They rate CBS News and weather channel as “middle” and “reliable”.

        Ad fontes media are by no means perfect, but they are generally the best in the field. Unlike some of their competitors they don’t rate Reuters and AP as left wing lol.

        Obviously reliability and bias are subjective — as is everything in the social sciences. But that doesn’t mean attempting to quanify it is not useful. It’s subjective to quantify democracy for example but the economists democracy index is useful — or the Human development index etc.

        • Five@slrpnk.netEnglish
          121·
          5 months ago

          AFAIK the Economist’s Democracy Index and the Human Development Index use methodologies and statistical methods generally respected by social science.

          Ad Fontes is a grift posing as a public interest institution to re-package the horseshoe theory and sell it back to gullible people for $500 memberships while promising institutions greater ad revenue if they play along with the con. It’s another tool of the consent manufacturing industrial complex. Are you even aware of their methodology? It’s a joke.

    • Keeponstalin@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      82·
      5 months ago

      It’s no surprise Truthout is biased towards Palestinian Human Rights, but they are certainly more credible than Ad Fontes or MBFC suggests. If you look at the few articles that Ad Fontes shows as ‘low credibility’ you can see that the articles are well sourced and quoted. If you look at MBFC, they are rated as ‘Mixed’ on factual reporting despite no Articles failing a fact check.

      Although Truthout has not failed a fact check by an IFCN fact checker, they have reported some stories that were not factual. For example, a reporter claimed that Karl Rove was indicted on charges when in fact, he wasn’t. The reporter continued to claim without evidence. See the link here. Although this is only one example, it shows that this source should be checked when in doubt.

      Overall, we rate Truthout strongly Left Biased based on story selection and political positions that favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to publishing a false story and promoting anti-GMO propaganda. (5/15/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 12/01/2022)

      The article listed here links to a broken Truthout link, with the article author being Jason Leopold. I’m not sure about the article since I can’t see it, but he has other articles here until 2013.

      No failed fact checks for anything Palestine related. The one other article mentioned you can find here listed as an Op-Ed. Written by Robert Schooler in 2016, and the only article on Truthout written by him.

      That’s certainly not enough for me to write off the entire news outlet. Neither of these people are the ones writing these articles about what is happening in Gaza. If you find info in the article you think may not be factual, let me know.