216
submitted 9 months ago by Rapidcreek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] GrymEdm@lemmy.world 59 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Well now I'm confused, because there's a post from today about how Israel is not sending a delegation to Egypt for ceasefire/hostage talks according to CNN. Here's the direct link to the article, which states:

  • "Israel is not sending a delegation to Cairo for talks on a deal for a ceasefire and release of hostages from Gaza, an Israeli official told CNN Sunday."
  • "Another diplomatic source played down the prospects of an imminent deal, saying progress was slow and it was unlikely there would be a breakthrough within the next 48 hours."
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 50 points 9 months ago

The article immediately clarified Israel hasn't agreed to anything.

Biden keeps saying a ceasefire is about to happen, despite no signs it will

So his administration keeps releasing these unsourced reasons that it total is happening, despite no signs it is.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] goferking0@lemmy.sdf.org 46 points 9 months ago

He said Israel had “basically” accepted the deal, but did not specify whether it still had reservations or what those were.

So its still just lip service?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

Well sort of. I think what means is that they got all the nods, but no signature on the paper.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Biden and Hamas leaders said the aid convoy deaths could complicate negotiations for a ceasefire and hostage release deal. But Egyptian security sources said the incident had pushed both sides to intensify their efforts, in order to preserve progress made so far, Reuters reported.

Seems like the IDF firing into the crowds of starving refugees, causing crowd crush and killing over a 100 people and wounding 800+ was a really bad look, so Israel is onboard instead of threatening a Rafah ground assault.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 44 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Hamas has repeatedly rejected any kind of temporary ceasefire. I can't see why this would be any different.

Was Hamas even involved in the drafting of this deal or did the US and Israel just throw this together to paint Hamas as unreasonable when they reject it again? None of the articles I've read have made any effort to clarify who drew this up beyond vaguely gesturing at Israel, US, and Egypt.

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago

As best as I can find this is basically a deal that gives Israel it's biggest ask in exchange for maybe not bombing during Ramadan. So yeah something they cooked up to make Hamas look unreasonable.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Hamas has repeatedly rejected any kind of temporary ceasefire.

Palestinian officials have advocated for a permanent ceasefire, with the expectation that any concessions they extract from the Israelis will be forfeit as soon as a temporary ceasefire closes.

Was Hamas even involved in the drafting of this deal

Right now, the primary advocates on behalf of the Palestinians are Qatari and Egyptian officials with sympathies toward their Arab neighbors. Any actual members of Hamas have been playing cat-and-mouse with Israeli assassins, which has in turn made the Israeli demands for a proper accounting of hostages very difficult.

After all, if you clearly state how many hostages survived the carpet-bombing of Northern Gaza, the Israelis can use that figure to coordinate their strikes in and around the southern end.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

Israel has repeatedly rejected any kind of permanent ceasefire

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 5 points 9 months ago

Yeah, which is why this shit is still going on. Hamas would be extremely naive to think a temporary ceasefire is anything more than a promise to start bombing again later after they've refreshed their troops and stockpiled more weapons.

[-] TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Thank you for your list! I saw this recently and forgot to save it. Glad you're on it.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 34 points 9 months ago

Oh yay, a possible 6 weeks of just a little genocide instead of full on genocide!

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 24 points 9 months ago

So, you don't want a ceasefire?

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 36 points 9 months ago

I want a permanent ceasefire and an end to the genocide.

[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 7 points 9 months ago

And what terms do you propose that would be observed by Hamas?

[-] EmilyIsTrans 17 points 9 months ago

They'd probably be pretty happy with an end to the apartide state

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] snooggums@midwest.social 14 points 9 months ago

I can confidently say that if Israel stops supporting settlers taking Palestinian homes, killing Palestinians indiscriminately, and no longer enforce apartheid Hamas would observe an end to violent hostilities.

It isn't like Hamas can offer more than not being the instigator of violence, and if your calender goes back further than October you will see that Hamas arose to power in response to Israeli violence.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] AA5B@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Baby steps. Let’s try to stop killing each other, then we can figure out how to remain stopped and keep from starting again

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 5 points 9 months ago

Previous ceasefire for set times went right back to genocide, so forgive me if I have doubts about a longer one having better results.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago
[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 17 points 9 months ago

Sure, do you condemn the IDF?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 33 points 9 months ago

Subtitle:

White House officials claim provisional agreement is on the table as scale of starvation crisis revealed

So it's a US official anonymously saying that an offer is on the table...

Like every other post OP has made on the subject, the headline isn't factual and immediately clarified in the article.

If Israel was going to agree to it, they'd sign it

But they won't, so they don't.

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago
[-] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 9 months ago

What is your motive when posting this?

[-] Rapidcreek@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

Ah...it's news. What's your motive for asking?

[-] boyi@lemmy.sdf.org 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

because I think you have bad intentions. Like you will post this to show that Israel are ready for ceasefire but Hamas is ~~the~~ the one that doesn't want to compromise. I might be wrong. Anyway, that's why I asked you.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 18 points 9 months ago

For those repeatedly reporting this:

"Talks took place in Doha, the Qatari capital, on Saturday and were expected to move to Cairo on Sunday as the scale of looming starvation pushed the US to start air-dropping food into the enclave."

The Israeli agreement apparently happened in Doha, but won't be official until they sign the agreement in Cairo... where they may not actually show up.

It's passed Sunday into Monday, so we'll see where it goes, but I'm frankly not optimistic.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

Its curious to see how the media narrative has turned in the wake of some of these primary votes. Biden's gone from "Israel can do no wrong" to "We're doing everything we can (short of denying them more weapons and diplomatic cover at the UN) to stop these atrocities".

I have to wonder what happens as we close in on the general election and Trump goes all in on being pro-Palestinian genocide. Do the Democrats rediscover their love of human rights and rules based international order? Or do they all double back and try to out-compete the Republicans on the "We Love Israel" front?

[-] jordanlund@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

Generally, it's pro-Israel all the way down because of donations. That's really all they care about.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

It goes a bit beyond that, even. Israel is pivotal to the control of the Suez canal and a point of military access into the Persian Gulf for Western forces. They're the guard dog of the Middle East, a central trading hub between the Mediterranean and the Indian Ocean, and an agricultural hub in a region notorious for drought. There are lots of reasons to support Zionism that go beyond just getting a bundler with an AIPAC affiliation channeling donor cash in your direction.

To quote old Smoke'n Joe Biden, "If Israel did not exist, we would have to invent it."

[-] Maggoty@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago

We uhh.. we actually control the Suez. Well the Egyptians administer it. But the Sinai Peninsula is a UN peacekeeping mission. Which always has an American Infantry Battalion deployed.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] harderian729@lemmy.world 11 points 9 months ago

A ceasefire in exchange for what?

Giving up the only leverage they have over Israel?

[-] SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca 12 points 9 months ago

Holding civilians hostage is a war crime. So do you support war crimes?

[-] Keeponstalin@lemmy.world 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)
[-] Synnr@sopuli.xyz 8 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Mama always said, two wrong ain't make a right. My father said that complex geopolitical games are not won with bias, but with detached foresight.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] theparadox@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

But do you condemn Hamas?®

Most people don't support war crimes.

But, at the moment, it's war crimes vs. bigger war crimes. The question is, is the perpetrator of war crimes willing to stop war crimes when it's the only conceivable leverage to stop bigger war crimes? Big war crimes likely doesn't give a fuuuuuck about the little war crimes though - they literally killed the hostages in several situations. They are just pitching a tent because it's an excuse for them to do even bigger war crimes.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)
[-] blahsay@lemmy.world 3 points 9 months ago

Let them eat leverage hey?

[-] joyjoy@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

Hamas better not do anything stupid over the next six week period.

[-] cupcakezealot 25 points 9 months ago

hamas proposed a full ceasefire with the release of all hostages and israel rejected it

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Kalkaline@leminal.space 21 points 9 months ago
[-] mwguy@infosec.pub 4 points 9 months ago

For good reason.

[-] _number8_@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

that's all aaron bushnell right there. most noble american act of the 20th century

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] blahsay@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

Hamas will never accept any offer that lets the young female hostages tell of their horrors. They'll mull it over and find some excuse.

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 19 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Its all projection, folks.

Israeli military chief rabbi-designate under fire over remarks on rape

Rabbi Colonel Eyal Karim's remarks 14 years ago stirred controversy at the time and remain on an Israeli religious website today

He responded that in the interests of maintaining warriors' morale and fighting fitness during armed conflict, it was permitted to "satisfy the evil inclination by lying with attractive Gentile women against their will".

His nomination on Monday as the military's head rabbi by its chief of staff revived public debate over Karim. Yedioth Ahronoth, Israel's best-selling newspaper, weighed in with a front-page headline that read: "New chief military rabbi: rape is permissible in a war".

UN experts condemn ‘credible’ reports of executions, sexual assault by Israeli soldiers

The independent experts affiliated with the U.N. Human Rights Council said the allegations constitute “egregious human rights violations,” adding to criticisms of the Israeli war effort in Gaza as its military reportedly prepares a ground invasion of Rafah.

“We are particularly distressed by reports that Palestinian women and girls in detention have also been subjected to multiple forms of sexual assault, such as being stripped naked and searched by male Israeli army officers,” the experts said. “At least two female Palestinian detainees were reportedly raped while others were reportedly threatened with rape and sexual violence.”

The release adds that some photographs of women in degrading circumstances had been distributed online by Israeli soldiers.

[-] underisk@lemmy.ml 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

There has, to my knowledge, not been a single first-hand account of a woman saying "I was raped by Hamas". All of it is based on anonymous eye witnesses, dead bodies Israel assures us were raped, or doctors speaking on behalf of returned hostages they refuse to name and have yet to come forward.

For as much rape as supposedly went on it sure is strange that there aren't at least a few victims speaking of their experiences, if only just to confirm it happened. I'm happy to believe women when there are women to believe.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SmilingSolaris@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

That's a lot of trauma porn you just gave yourself.

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
216 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2799 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS