4 ms·

It was a very strange day yesterday: the whole week coverage had been building up to a meeting in Cairo, Hamas signalled they were going to accept the cease fir

It was a very strange day yesterday: the whole week coverage had been building up to a meeting in Cairo, Hamas signalled they were going to accept the cease fire. Saturday AM EST, it was reported that Hamas confirmed they were going to accept the deal. By noon Saturday EST, the "Israel-Hamas War"...idk what to call it, live blog? collection-of-news headline?...was gone for the first time in months. Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Piecing it together from Twitter natsec people, standard blob, certainly not polarized against israel, Israel didn't even send a delegation to the talks, and the far right Israeli leader said Bibi promised him they wouldn't accept "a rushed deal" (i.e. the cease fire), and people were irate. An irate Israeli TV reporter revealed the anonymous "diplomatic source" promising no deal Friday night was Bibi himself. The blogs are back up now, with a sort of hurried framing that the talks fell apart because Hamas wanted a permanent cease fire (no mention of any of the above -- I assume that'd complicate it too much for, it needs to be a nice little set piece of Israel vs. Hamas. It's really, really strange watching the coverage the last week, in America, without any attachment to either "side". I guess its easier to push the A vs. B framing on a new subject, our college kids, rather than trying to explain how any of this makes any sense at all.

NewJazz 3y ago
Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
  - NewJazz 3y ago
    I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
      - arp242 3y ago
        "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
        JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
        runarberg 3y ago
        I think it is much easier to understand the situation if we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a ceasefire. The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way. No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful. In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
  - wazoox 3y ago
    "transparently" or "allegedly and repeatedly" ? People have been protesting precisely because absolutely no progress have been made towards freeing the hostages, on the contrary. So obviously "return of the hostage" is a simple mantra to which Israeli government pay some lip service. What they actually plan to do with Hamas or Gaza people in general remains to be known, we have all reasons to question every single word coming from them.
  - racional 3y ago
    Its stated war aims, at the outset. By this point these aims appear to have evolved, and it now seems primarily concerned with encouraging what it refers to as "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip. And as a secondary aim, to incrementally expand the settlements in the West Bank (in the hopes of securing their eventual annexation).
edanm 3y ago
> Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Correcting you on this - the protests were not because Israel "rejected a cease fire". For one thing, these are the same protests that happen every Saturday for the last few weeks of the war, continuing the "tradition" of protests that happened every Saturday for the ~10 months before the war. For another, Israel didn't "reject" the ceasefire deal, Hamas did, or at least that's the way it is being talked about by Israel itself. There are many reasons to think Israel (and specifically Netanyahu) may have tried to tank the deal, but Hamas are the ones that eventually walked away.
- refulgentis 3y ago
  You're right that there's been protests. The claims in the post, not sending a delegation, Bibi's anonymous statements being deanonymized, and the protests this weekend being intensified and a subject hostages families spoke about at the protests are all verifiable.
  - edanm 3y ago
    Yes I don't disagree with any of those.

NewJazz 3y ago

Netanyahu has also said that he intends to do an operation in Rafah regardless of whether Hamas gives up the remaining hostages. https://text.npr.org/1248276817 https://text.npr.org/1248276817

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
Israel's war aims have transparently been about both returning the hostages and removing Hamas from power.
- NewJazz 3y ago
  I am just pointing out that Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon. They'll probably need to have new elections.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Israel isn't planning on agreeing to a ceasefire anytime soon A permanent one, no. But that wasn't ever on the table. A multi-week ceasefire is absolutely still on the table in exchange for hostages.
    - arp242 3y ago
      "We might agree to a cease-fire for a little bit, but I guarantee you will invade you soon anyway" is not exactly what I'd call good faith language. What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? It's a completely absurd thing to say. This has long been the problem, with the Israeli government never offering any perspective or hope on a long-term solution.
      - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
        > What's even the point of a cease-fire if you don't at least offer the possibility of something long-term? To get aid to civilians. To let fighters regroup and restock. To open a window for negotiating a permanent ceasefire. I can't think of an example of a permanent cease fire being immediately agreed without surrender or withdrawal.
        runarberg 3y ago
        I think it is much easier to understand the situation if we take Netayahiu at his own words. He does not want any ceasefire, he has said so in the past, and he keeps saying that now. His actions are consistent with the fact that he does not want any ceasefire, as he tries to vandalize any prospects of a ceasefire, even a temporary one, e.g. by wowing to invade Rafah, even if there is a ceasefire. The timing of this ban on Al Jazeera is also consistent with his behavior of trying to vandalize any ceasefire talks. Al Jazeera is a Qatar based media company, and Qatar is also the mediator in the ongoing talks. If Netanyahu wanted these talks to be successful he would not antagonize the mediator this way. No, the Israeli government does not want a ceasefire, neither a permanent one, nor a temporary one. What they want is to make it look like they are making an effort, but only enough to improve the optics. There may be a faction inside the military which actually wants a ceasefire, so perhaps—and hopefully—a ceasefire can be negotiated despite vandalism attempts by the Israeli government, but I’m not hopeful. In the meantime, I do take Netanyahu at his words, that he does not want a ceasefire, and he wants in invade Rafah, to continue the genocide, and to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians.
- wazoox 3y ago
  "transparently" or "allegedly and repeatedly" ? People have been protesting precisely because absolutely no progress have been made towards freeing the hostages, on the contrary. So obviously "return of the hostage" is a simple mantra to which Israeli government pay some lip service. What they actually plan to do with Hamas or Gaza people in general remains to be known, we have all reasons to question every single word coming from them.
- racional 3y ago
  Its stated war aims, at the outset. By this point these aims appear to have evolved, and it now seems primarily concerned with encouraging what it refers to as "voluntary migration" from the Gaza Strip. And as a secondary aim, to incrementally expand the settlements in the West Bank (in the hopes of securing their eventual annexation).

edanm 3y ago

> Israel reporting (not just Haaretz) reported huge, multiple, protests (it was at night there, early afternoon EST) due to Israel rejecting a cease fire. Correcting you on this - the protests were not because Israel "rejected a cease fire". For one thing, these are the same protests that happen every Saturday for the last few weeks of the war, continuing the "tradition" of protests that happened every Saturday for the ~10 months before the war. For another, Israel didn't "reject" the ceasefire deal, Hamas did, or at least that's the way it is being talked about by Israel itself. There are many reasons to think Israel (and specifically Netanyahu) may have tried to tank the deal, but Hamas are the ones that eventually walked away.

refulgentis 3y ago
You're right that there's been protests. The claims in the post, not sending a delegation, Bibi's anonymous statements being deanonymized, and the protests this weekend being intensified and a subject hostages families spoke about at the protests are all verifiable.
- edanm 3y ago
  Yes I don't disagree with any of those.