There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

mwguy ,

For some of the hostages. Not all of the hostages.

ahornsirup ,
@ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz avatar

Which is a very important distinction that people here seem to overlook. If you give in to a terrorist’s and hostage taker’s demands you’re inviting more terrorism and hostage-taking because it worked.

T00l_shed ,

Let’s just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options.

mwguy ,

Honestly, at this point there aren’t any other options. Because the last major conflict in the region was 5 years ago in 2018, there was a real feeling around the world that Hamas/Gaza had “turned a corner” and was open to living in peace with its neighbors. That’s why you had seen rising calls from the West, even the US, calling for a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. And there was a real hope that maybe covid had “reset” the expectations of both sides in the same way that the end of the Cold War seemingly had.

But it looks like Hamas had no intention of that. Instead they unleashed an attack and had five years of rocket build up behind it instead of the normal two. At this point I don’t know how many more times we need to Hamas the show that it’s uninterested and even the ideal concept of peace. Even Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, a fellow terrorist organization; seems to have the ability to respect a border with Israel. So at this point yes tearing him off down even with the understanding that a new terrorist like organization might take its place is preferable to the status quo. Because there is a reasonable chance that even a new terrorist organization could respect a border, and not attack its neighbors. And honestly if a Taliban-esque group ends up taking over it probably be a better outcome for the day-to-day of Gazans. That’s f***** up as that is.

T00l_shed ,

Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn’t help anyone.

mwguy ,

How much more angry can they get? Like they’re angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer?

T00l_shed ,

I can’t believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel’s government ≠ Jewish people.

mwguy ,

Hamas didn’t cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There’s extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It’s believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win.

While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip.

T00l_shed , (edited )

Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source theguardian.com/…/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

And yet nowhere did anyone claim otherswise 😕 nor does it improve the situation or change how Bibi is viewed now

(judging by how you phrased this comment)

mwguy ,

The headline implies otherwise.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything.

This is why you need to read the rest of an article.

mwguy ,

The hostages are a group that’s assumed to be complete. That’s like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give “your tires” back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn’t say otherwise.

If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it’s clear why you wouldn’t do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I think this is dumb. The title didn’t say all hostages. The article didn’t say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it.

mwguy ,

I mean future articles covering it have said things like “Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected” for exactly this reason.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there.

mwguy ,

“Ceasefire-for-hostages”

Would you assume that they’re asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory?

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I wouldn’t assume anything.

mwguy ,

That’s not the truth. When you hear the title: “Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say”

Do you assume that it’s 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory?

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines.

mwguy ,

I did. That’s why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down.

Just like you would have.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Just like you would have

Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better.

mwguy ,

If you’d have thought a different amount, you’d have said it when i pointed it out.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

Considering it wasn’t a return of all of the hostages and additionally Hamas said they intend to repeat the terrorist attack that sparked this, what motivation does Netanyahu have to stop until Hamas is destroyed?

Overzeetop ,
@Overzeetop@kbin.social avatar

Well, lucky for him he didn't even entertain the ceasefire to see if he could have gotten them all back.

mwguy ,

The ceasefire would have happened in return for some of the hostages. Why would they give them more?

Overzeetop ,
@Overzeetop@kbin.social avatar

The way I read it was a ceasefire in return for some of the hostages. Nobody floats their final offer with the first contact.

  • Some of the hostages for humanitarian lanes
  • Most of the hostages for a 7 day ceasefire with monitored evacuations
  • All of the hostages for a 14 day ceasefire
  • All of the hostages and known leaders of HAMAS for an indefinite ceasefire, contingent on zero future incursions or military operations (you have to offer at least one impossible option past what you want)
mwguy ,

Israel needs to reset the value of hostages in the long run. They can’t afford for hostage taking to be viable in the long run. And as long as they are successful militarily; there’s no real reason for them to budge from their position.

hitmyspot ,

Ceasefires end, otherwise it’s called a truce. Hamas probably didn’t want to give up their strongest negotiating chip. In saying that, keeping hostages in this way is a war crime too.

Negotiating is the only path forward. Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.

If Israel don’t negotiate in good faith, why would Hamas stop terrorist attacks? Your rhetoric goes both ways.

mwguy ,

Netanyahu rejecting the offer outright leads to more death and violence in the short and long term.

Just the short term really. The least deaths in the long term from a game theory perspective is to make the value of the hostages zero or even negative.

Israel’s biggest mistake in the hostage back and forth was in the past giving up like 1000 fighters for some hostages.

Instead Israel should occupy like an additional acre of Palestine everytime a hostage/day is taken. Domestically the loss of territory seems to be the only thing that matters to Palestinians, in terms of political support. So they need to take that away.

hitmyspot ,

Your game theory is only considering the lives of hostages in the short and long term. Thousands are dying in the meanwhile.

mwguy ,

Thousands more would die in the next war for hoatages if they’re allowed to be viable. Long term, peace on the '67 borders is the only way to minimize total casualties.

Hamas has proven over the last 20 years that it will continue to attack Israel no matter what. It’s proven that it doesn’t care about the lives of Palestinians.

hitmyspot ,

I took agree that peace leads to less death. The question is how to get there.

Hamas are a terrorist organisation who committed a horrible act. Hamas are not in power in the west bank, yet the Palestinians there have suffered apartheid and lose land to Israeli settlers in breach of international law. This is happening for years.

If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it’s the same.

Hamas commits horrible acts. Israel commits horrible acts.

Keeping civilian hostages as human shields is a war crime. Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.

mwguy ,

Indiscriminately bombing civilians and civilian infrastructure is a war crime.

Israel clearly isn’t indiscriminately bombing Gaza.

If we look at stats from before October, the loss of lives is clearly on the Palestinians side to a much higher degree. If we look at since October, it’s the same.

That should be expected since only one side spends money on defensive technology. Hamas has been complaining about Israeli air strikes since it came to power. It’s spent billions on unguided rockets and ripping up infrastructure. But it’s built zero bomb shelters for it’s people, even admonishing civilians trying to use the built tunnels for shelter. It’s installed zero radar systems. It’s purchased zero anti-aircraft guns. It’s done absolutely nothing to protect it’s citizens and continues to start new wars.

Why would we expect the death tolls to be equal? That’s like me, an American complaining that healthcare in America isn’t available for everyone like it is for Canadians and demanding that Canada fix that problem.

hitmyspot ,

I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing. Some people are given warnings. Some are not. So perhaps I should clarify that not all of their bombing is indiscriminate. Much is.

Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions. This is not happening.

Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.

I am not saying Hamas is a good government. Both sides can be terrible. However, Hamas not building bomb shelters does not make it ok for Israel to bomb citizens indiscriminately.

I don’t expect the tolls to be equal. I do however take note that when Israel uses aggressive actions by Hamas for justification, that they are in fact the aggressors in the majority of cases with injury or death.

War is horrible. Civilians die. However, Israel’s policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.

mwguy ,

I would call bombing hospitals and refugee camps indiscriminate bombing

That seems to be more because you don’t know what the word “indiscriminate” means rather than that adjective being an accurate description of Israeli’s bombing campaign.

Proportional response and efforts to minimse civilian casualties are required under war conventions.

Actually only the second is required. And the second is happening. “Proportional response” is something that can be required by private party treaty as a peacetime control, but it’s not part of the rules of war.

Your point about only one side having the capability to be hugely aggressive onky bolsters my point. Israel is the aggressor in such a situation.

Actually it shows the opposite. Israel could have done what it’s doing at any point since the last major conflict and ceasefire in 2018. Their lack of aggression and desire for peace kept them from doing so and they only did so once provoked by a frankly disgusting series of acts that forced them to reconsider the viability of peace with Hamas.

That’s the opposite of aggression.

However, Israel’s policy seems clearly, with the current and past events, to be genocide. They are trying to eliminate the Palestinian people from land they want.

To believe this you must believe the IDF is one of the most incompetent military forces on the face of the planet.

hitmyspot ,

Did you even read the definition you linked to. " not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc "

They are bombing hospitals without care that it is a hospital. They are trying to justify it, but that’s not the same as being justified or mindful.

Your next point is that Israel by virtue of having firepower greater than Palestine is good by virtue of not already being on a bloody rampage? We don’t reward a murderer for eating in the prison canteen without murdering the other inmates. Your argument is absurd.

I said war conventions, you changed the goalposts and said rules of war. That’s a sneaky way to try and undermine my point, which is valid.

Also paying lip service to slight reduction in civilian casualties is not the same as prioritizing.

What justification could you possibly have for the annexation of the folan heights and other areas in the west bank that shows Israel seeking a peaceful solution, which the majority of the international community sees as a two state solution. Israel is purposely undermining that effort in contravention of international law for decades.

Whereas before it was a slow genocide, now it is slaughter. It’s. Een poutbrf out in this chain already but it’s worth pointing out again that over 50% of the Palestinians are under 18.

The lessons of the Holocaust have been lost to history. It’s a sad reflection on humanity that the nation state with those that lost the most are the very same that willfully inflicting the horror in others.

mwguy ,

Did you even read the definition you linked to. " not discriminating or discerning; lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc "

Yes and have you been paying attention to this war? They e avoided hitting hospitals that Hamas is operating out of. Every strike is balanced against their generic goal. There are reports from on the ground of them delaying strikes to ensure that the maximum number of civilians can get evacuated. It’s very clear they’re not indiscriminately bombing. It’s very clear they’re being selective in where they bomb.

Your next point is that Israel by virtue of having firepower greater than Palestine is good by virtue of not already being on a bloody rampage. We don’t reward a murderer for eating in the prison canteen without murdering the other inmates. Your argument is absurd.

I never claimed “good”, you called Israel aggressive. But they’re definitely not aggressive. To keep your metaphor going, if the 4’ guy keeps trying to rape the 7’ guy in the shower and keeps getting knocked in the teeth, the 7’ guy isn’t “aggressive” for that. Of one day the 4’ guy brings a bat and then gets beat up severely that’s still on the 4’ guy.

I said war conventions, you changed the goalposts and said rules of war. That’s a sneaky way to try and undermine my point, which is valid.

Not being sneaky. The conventions on war define the rules of war. They’re one and the same. Nothinf sneaky there, just a lack of knowledge on your part.

What justification could you possibly have for the annexation of the folan heights and other areas in the west bank that shows Israel seeking a peaceful solution, which the majority of the international community sees as a two state solution. Israel is purposely undermining that effort in contravention of international law for decades.

They’ve not annexed the Golan Heights that’s still disputed between them and the Rump state of Syria, similarly to the territory that’s in the middle of the Hezbollah/Lebanon stuff.

Israel pulled out of Gaza seeking a peaceful solution. Gazans and Palestinians mistook their desire for peace as a sign of weakness and have been attacking ever since.

And last I checked Palestinians rejected a two state solution deal that had 99% of the '67 borders, no settlers and land swaps to give Palestinians more land than they had in 1967.

hitmyspot ,

Strange there are so many dead Palestinians each year from Israeli actions if they are not aggressive.

So you think attaching hospitals is wrong then? Read the news from today. Not a bomb for this one, but an attack nonetheless.

Israel did not seek a peaceful solution.istael has never been at peace with it’s neighbours. Any of them. Relations were starting to normalise but that’s now hopeless for a long time. Although to be fair, both sides did seem to come to the table in good faith. It was apparent by the end that neither wished to come to an agreement that the other could tolerat. Israel is purposely settling in land that is not theirs to make a border impossible

Again, using your continuation of the metaphor, Israel is the 7 foot guy constantly harassing the 4 foot guy over many years. When the 4 foot guy finally snaps and punches back, the 7 foot guy paralyses him for life.

Hatsune_Miku ,
@Hatsune_Miku@lemmy.world avatar

uh-oh! pls don’t try to argue who has more dead. remember that gaza launches approximately 4000 missiles every year towards israel and if it wasn’t thx to israel’s IRON DOME a whole lot would be dead or worse :c

hitmyspot ,

Both actions and their consequences are important. Neither side is a “good” side. Hamas doesn’t represent all Palestinians. Israel’s policies do, as it’s an internationally recognised state with democratic processes.

Hamas firing thousands of rockets is terrorism. Israel eliminating Palestinians is genocide. Hamas’ stated objective is genocide.

Hatsune_Miku ,
@Hatsune_Miku@lemmy.world avatar

uuhhhhhm hamas is the governing body of gaza tho!

so if israel policids represent all of israel then hamas politics represents all of gaza too!

but yuh, it’s really bad! this is totally not Po pi po! :(

Hatsune_Miku ,
@Hatsune_Miku@lemmy.world avatar

also! how’s aussiezone’s performanace?

.world is buggy!

hitmyspot ,

Great. No issues. Local content. Constant uptime from my perspective. Mod is friendly and transparent.

mwguy ,

So you think attaching hospitals is wrong then? Read the news from today. Not a bomb for this one, but an attack nonetheless.

Yes attaching your military infrastructure to hospitals is wrong, it’s a war crime and it’s what Hamas is currently doing. It’s asking for it to be attacked.

Strange there are so many dead Palestinians each year from Israeli actions if they are not aggressive.

Are they from military actions or are they civil disputes. Every year Palestinians take pot shots at soldiers, fire a few rockets towards Israel,get lucky and kill some people. But that’s generally not the converted effort of it’s government.

Israel did not seek a peaceful solution.istael has never been at peace with it’s neighbours.

This is an objectively false statement.

filister ,

Oh and Israel cares so much about civilians lost. Perhaps you should check the numbers of killed and injured people on both sides even before 7.10, to get a bit of perspective.

mwguy ,

I mean they clearly do. A cheap and WW2 era artillery bombardment of the region could have killed an easy 200k in a week.

The UN believes a modern conflict will kill about 9 civilians for every militant. Hamas’ government last I checked reported about 11k casualties, 100% civilians. If that’s the IDF would need to have killed 1,200 Hamas fighters to meet that ratio. Given that there’s an estimated 20-40k fighters in Gaza we should expect 180k-360k casualties if the IDF nominally completes their goal of eliminating Hamas military.

aidan ,

According to random sources that may or may not be lying.

dependencyinjection ,

That Hamas did was abhorrent, as was the response of Israel.

What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious.

This just seems like nobody will win and everybody will suffer. For what?

JohnDClay ,

What motivation do Hamas have to just take the current occupation of Gaza and living in such a way? Genuinely curious.

Less lives lost, even in the long term. We won’t know what would have been, but there may well have been a diplomatic solution that got Gazan independence. But Hamas is built on violence is the answer.

deegeese ,

Your answer is basically “suffer forever so nobody dies trying to stop the suffering”.

JohnDClay ,

Why would a two state solution continue the suffering?

TheDankHold ,

In the West Bank, with no Hamas presence, Israeli settlers backed by the IDF come kill them and take their homes. The Israeli leadership doesn’t want a two state solution because extreme Zionists are in power.

JohnDClay ,

They weren’t in power when Hamas came to power. Both sides have been pushing each other towards wanting to annihilate each other. But do you think a two state solution would minimize the suffering, but is not a feasible outcome?

deegeese ,

A two-state solution was viable before Israel settled people in the middle of the west bank.

As an intentional tactic of Zionist settlers, it is now impossible to have a defensible border.

The only way forward now is to end apartheid and give full rights to the civilians living in the West Bank and Gaza.

Zionists will claim this “destroys Israel” or other nonsense we heard from South African defenders of apartheid.

JohnDClay ,

Didn’t Israel remove all Gaza settlements in 2005? Seems like they could do the same for the West Bank. And why would that be needed for an independent Gaza?

deegeese ,

Israeli Zionists would rather genocide Palestinians than give up their West Bank settlements.

JohnDClay ,

I would also be in favor of ending racist government policies and giving full rights and protections to Palestinians, but that is really difficult with the terrorist actions.

deegeese ,

That’s saying “the beatings will continue until morale improves”.

JohnDClay ,

It’s an escalation ladder, both sides need to deescalate together to lower hostilities.

deegeese ,

Saying “both sides” is siding with the oppressor.

JohnDClay ,

But they’re literally both oppressors

deegeese ,

GTFO with false equivalence between a democratically elected government with nuclear weapons, backed by the USA, and the terrorist band they’re propping up as a preferred enemy to undercut peaceful leadership.

JohnDClay , (edited )

You’re also against Hamas? Cool, we agree. Seemed like the original comment was defending their use of violence. I by no means support Israel or what it’s doing to the Palestinians. But Hamas is pretty terrible.

I agree the peaceful leadership was undercut. What I was trying to say was that that leadership was better and likely to incur less Palistinian death and suffering than Hamas and it’s ‘violence is the only answer’ stance.

TheDankHold ,

The Zionists I’m talking about funded and propped up Hamas. Likud is not younger than Hamas. You seem to have a very limited understanding of this.

JohnDClay ,

Sure, maybe, you’re right I have only spent a few hours looking into the origin and spread of Hamas. But whether Hamas was funded by Zionists is irrelevant to whether their use of violence creates more or less suffering overall. In response to the original question, I think Hamas is causing much more harm and suffering to the people of Gaza by their excessive violence than diplomatic efforts likely would have.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

But why shift it on Hamas when it’s Israel breaking every humanitarian law? I’m asking seriously. Whatever response Hamas expected, I’m not sure it included bombing every single hospital or it’s vicinity in one night (which happened already)

JohnDClay ,

Because the question was about Hamas not Israel. And Hamas actually benefits from an overreaction from Israel, since it will further radicalize the population, giving more credence to their stance of violence. So they may well have been hoping for exactly the response they are getting. But the issue is in so violently pushing for a maximalist dissolution of Israel goal, they gave up their chance at achieving independence.

JohnDClay ,

Also, the Gaza settlements were dismantled in 2005, before Hamas came to power in 2007.

TheDankHold ,

They went from occupation to siege. Not much improvement. I also wasn’t talking about Gaza so try to stay on topic.

JohnDClay ,

I was taking about Gaza, since that’s where Hamas is primarily active, and that’s what the original comment was about. That’s why I was focusing on Gaza.

TheDankHold ,

I’m talking about Palestinians in general because they all get brutalized and Hamas is used as justification when they are only in one territory. Hamas is used as a distraction from the fact that Israelis just want to steal all of Palestinians land.

Regardless, the occupation in Gaza turned into a blockade/siege, why do people say they occupation stopped like that meant anything in practical terms for the citizens on the ground.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

For the time being, and prior to cutover 7th, the two-state solution was either perpetually on hold or completely unworkable because of Israel (in both cases). Will it help stop the stuffing from moving on? Maybe if it’s implemented properly, yes.

givesomefucks ,

Well, yeah, if you care about lives on both sides…

Grimy ,

That’s a bit silly. Sentencing a whole population to “suffer forever” isn’t caring for them.

It’s like you didn’t even read what he said.

givesomefucks ,

Nah, I think people just didn’t get that I was saying the reason someone would view how Gaza was like before 10/7 as good, could only be because you only care about Israeli civilian deaths and not Palestinians.

Explaining jokes kind of ruins them, but I guess in this case I overestimated people.

Grimy ,

So your comment was sarcastic? (which kind of seems obvious in hindsight, woops)

I don’t really get your explanation to be honest and how what you said relates to that.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Use the /s

wurzelgummidge ,

For what?

To keep the wheels of the military industrial complex turning

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

The deal that went off was before that statement by Hamas.

BombOmOm ,
@BombOmOm@lemmy.world avatar

Hamas has been making such statements for years They want Israel off the map. Even the Hamas Charter of 1988 put this desire onto paper.

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

Wanting an occupying force off the map shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone, since Israel should have never existed (I’m for a one joint state solution where Palestinians get freedom and rights too but it’s not too hard for me to understand Hamas’ “radical” idea).

jesseaccountname ,

He just wants genocide. It’s infuriating seeing world leaders pretend they don’t get that so they can get what they want out of Palestinian deaths.

aidan ,

Why do you assume these sources are telling the truth?

xmunk ,

Well, color me surprised… he’s seemed so interested in a peaceful resolution.

givesomefucks ,

He doesn’t give a shit about hostages.

If he did, they wouldn’t be blowing up all of Gaza.

If any die from IDF strikes, he’ll just say that Hamas killed them and use their deaths to justify more bombings.

Therealgoodjanet ,

That’s right. So far 60 hostages have gone missing due to Israeli strikes. So, yeah. They don’t give a single shit.

RizzRustbolt ,

Dude had a chance to stop the whole thing in its tracks and didn’t take it.

This has always been about taking the land.

Tavarin ,
@Tavarin@lemmy.ca avatar

Hamas has stated they will repeat attacks like Oct 7th until all Israel is wiped out, and you think they will honour a ceasefire and actually accept peace?

Hamas only wants a ceasefire so they can regroup and rearm before attacking Israel again.

deegeese ,

Bibi doesn’t want peace, he wants genocide.

cuibono ,

That’s not very HaBibi of him

snek OP ,
@snek@lemmy.world avatar

I’m amazed the comment above this got downvoted lol like just have a laugh and move on with your life

dependencyinjection ,

I have a Jewish colleague who calls him Bibi. What’s the deal?

Marsupial ,
@Marsupial@quokk.au avatar

His first name is Benjamin, his family had other Benjamin’s, they nicknamed him Bibi.

Fried_out_Kombi ,
@Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world avatar

In Bibi’s eyes, every day that Hamas continues to exist is a good day. If Hamas ever ceases to exist, Israelis might go back to questioning his corruption charges.

autotldr Bot ,

This is the best summary I could come up with:

Benjamin Netanyahu rejected a deal for a five-day ceasefire with Palestinian militant groups in Gaza in return for the release of some of the hostages held in the territory early in the war, according to sources familiar with the negotiations.

Negotiations resumed after the launch of the Israeli ground offensive on 27 October, but the same sources said Netanyahu had continued to take a tough line on proposals involving ceasefires of different durations in exchange for a varying number of hostages.

An estimated 240 people were taken hostage after fighters from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and other groups based in Gaza, as well as civilians, crossed the reinforced border fence separating the territory from Israeli towns and kibbutzim.

According to three sources familiar with the talks, the original deal on the table involved freeing children, women and elderly and sick people in exchange for a five-day ceasefire, but the Israeli government turned this down and demonstrated its rejection with the launch of the ground offensive.

On Thursday the US national security council spokesperson John Kirby said Israel had agreed to daily four-hour “humanitarian pauses”, with the aim that the small breaks in bombardments could aid the passage of hostages out of Gaza.

In mid-October, the former Mossad operative David Meidan, who negotiated the release of the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit from Gaza over a decade ago, told Haaretz: “There’s no doubt that the first issue the state has to deal with is the matter of the captives … The window of opportunity for this is very narrow.

The original article contains 1,382 words, the summary contains 257 words. Saved 81%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •