6 ms·

As best I can tell, the Iranian regime and Sharif both said that they ceasefire included a cease to strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu explicitly said that it did no

by jMyles 6mo ago

As best I can tell, the Iranian regime and Sharif both said that they ceasefire included a cease to strikes on Lebanon, Netanyahu explicitly said that it did not, and the Trump admin, Lebanon, and Hezbollah have not yet commented either way. Links to Pakistan and Israel statements here: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/8/us-iran-ceasefire-deal-what-are-the-terms-and-whats-next https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/8/us-iran-ceasefire-de...

GeoPolAlt 6mo ago
Trump and Leavitt have both said that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire
- deleted 6mo ago
  [deleted]
- overfeed 6mo ago
  Iran gets a vote, and ceasefires need belligerents' unanimity, by definition.
Pay08 6mo ago
Lebanon has also said that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Hezbollah, since they insist that both them and Israel are at war with Hezbollah, not with each other. The only parties that say it does are Hezbollah and Pakistan. Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera.
- bradleyankrom 6mo ago
  I've found Al Jazeera's (English) coverage of the region to be informative. YMMV.
  - Pay08 6mo ago
    Perhaps informative as a study of institutional bias and government interference.
    - bradleyankrom 6mo ago
      No? Sources? It's possible that Qatar's government has some editorial control over the Arabic content, but my understanding is that the English operations are separate.
      - Pay08 6mo ago
        It's the same company, English operations can't be separate. https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/should-i-trust-al-jazeera-how-to-verify-its-international-reporting-1eadb9 https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/should-i-trust-al-jaz... https://apnews.com/article/b39b94d6847f4ee6acafd6ad2da7e963 https://apnews.com/article/b39b94d6847f4ee6acafd6ad2da7e963
        bradleyankrom 6mo ago
        Those don't really add to your argument. The Kashmir issue sounds like a mistake that Al Jazeera tried to address. The Factually analysis indicates that Al Jazeera is generally reliable for news, with caution advised for coverage of highly-political events and editorials, which I think is typical of any media organization.
  - M_bara 6mo ago
    Honestly, it’s a good counter to get both sides of the coin. At the moment you’ll find BBC, CNN, NYT et al on one end and Al Jazeera on the other. I also look at DW for a more balanced approach. Don’t consume from one camp!
    - Pay08 6mo ago
      Fair call on CNN and DW, but the NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera, and the BBC switches around with whatever the current government is.
      - overfeed 6mo ago
        > NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera Hard disagree: the NYT adopts a weird passive voice that goes against its house style, along with headlines with no subject when it comes to events in Gaza[1]. Al Jazeera consistently names the doers of the verbs. 1. Once you're aware of it, it becomes impossible not to notice. It is the Wilhelm scream of news coverage.
        bootlicker3000 6mo ago
        This is such an important point, and I wish it were more widely spoken about. As a daily NYT reader, I noticed a profound shift in the early days of the current admin. I might be off on the timing, curious to know what other daily NYT readers have to say. It's an incredibly effective technique given the relative subtlety, and in my experience it seems to exhaust the mental resources of the critical reader.
        constantius 6mo ago
        You're very very off on the timing: the first year of the genocide (and the majority of the official casualties) was under the previous administration. The bias on Gaza was observed across the board from the start (and arguably for the last 70 years).
        oefrha 6mo ago
  - freehorse 6mo ago
    Out of curiosity, which news sources do you recommend/advocate for covering the middle east?
  - LorenPechtel 6mo ago
    Al Jazeera is effectively a terrorist mouthpiece. They lost their independence long ago.
- jMyles 6mo ago
  > Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera. Yeah, I agree - I have the same objections to ajazeera that I have to RT, CNN, Fox News, NYT, etc. - they are each overwhelming pressure from controlling corporations and states that they can't shine light where it needs to be shone. But in this case, I was really only pasting them for links to the statements by Pakistan and Iran, which I do trust them to link / quote faithfully. It wasn't meant as an endorsement of their editorial or news-gathering quality.
fernandopj 6mo ago
Iran is ATM saying it closed the Strait again, implied that it will wait until Israel stand down at least. Even if USA insist on Israel-Hezbollah (and so Lebanon) be kept apart from any deal to end their war in Iran, it would still mean a terrible strategic and diplomatic disaster between USA and Israel, because Israel Gov' will be left with two terrible scenarios: 1) Trump Admin' will concede to Iran they'd be leaving the region and leaving Israel to defend itself alone, because the Hormuz being open for business and the Gulf states being spared would be enough; or 2) USA will have to resume hostilities, meaning domestically Trump will have to explain the US Military is obliged to continue the war effort for as long as Israel want. IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios.
- MarsIronPI 6mo ago
  > IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios. Is that such a bad thing?
  - bamboozled 6mo ago
    Probably for the actual innocent people who live in Israel , yes
    - spaghetdefects 6mo ago
      Israel is a modern day Nazi Germany. I wouldn't call anyone there over the age of 18 "innocent".
      - ndiddy 6mo ago
        I think that's unfair. There are some people with sane politics there, although it's definitely a small minority. For example: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/taylor-swift-fan-account-twitter-creator-israeli-military-prison https://www.teenvogue.com/story/taylor-swift-fan-account-twi...
      - mancerayder 6mo ago

by jMyles 6mo ago

GeoPolAlt 6mo ago

Trump and Leavitt have both said that Lebanon is not part of the ceasefire

deleted 6mo ago
[deleted]
overfeed 6mo ago
Iran gets a vote, and ceasefires need belligerents' unanimity, by definition.

Pay08 6mo ago

Lebanon has also said that the ceasefire doesn't apply to Hezbollah, since they insist that both them and Israel are at war with Hezbollah, not with each other. The only parties that say it does are Hezbollah and Pakistan. Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera.

bradleyankrom 6mo ago
I've found Al Jazeera's (English) coverage of the region to be informative. YMMV.
- Pay08 6mo ago
  Perhaps informative as a study of institutional bias and government interference.
  - bradleyankrom 6mo ago
    No? Sources? It's possible that Qatar's government has some editorial control over the Arabic content, but my understanding is that the English operations are separate.
    - Pay08 6mo ago
      It's the same company, English operations can't be separate. https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/should-i-trust-al-jazeera-how-to-verify-its-international-reporting-1eadb9 https://factually.co/fact-checks/media/should-i-trust-al-jaz... https://apnews.com/article/b39b94d6847f4ee6acafd6ad2da7e963 https://apnews.com/article/b39b94d6847f4ee6acafd6ad2da7e963
      - bradleyankrom 6mo ago
        Those don't really add to your argument. The Kashmir issue sounds like a mistake that Al Jazeera tried to address. The Factually analysis indicates that Al Jazeera is generally reliable for news, with caution advised for coverage of highly-political events and editorials, which I think is typical of any media organization.
- M_bara 6mo ago
  Honestly, it’s a good counter to get both sides of the coin. At the moment you’ll find BBC, CNN, NYT et al on one end and Al Jazeera on the other. I also look at DW for a more balanced approach. Don’t consume from one camp!
  - Pay08 6mo ago
    Fair call on CNN and DW, but the NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera, and the BBC switches around with whatever the current government is.
    - overfeed 6mo ago
      > NYT has always been at least somewhat aligned with Al Jazeera Hard disagree: the NYT adopts a weird passive voice that goes against its house style, along with headlines with no subject when it comes to events in Gaza[1]. Al Jazeera consistently names the doers of the verbs. 1. Once you're aware of it, it becomes impossible not to notice. It is the Wilhelm scream of news coverage.
      - bootlicker3000 6mo ago
        This is such an important point, and I wish it were more widely spoken about. As a daily NYT reader, I noticed a profound shift in the early days of the current admin. I might be off on the timing, curious to know what other daily NYT readers have to say. It's an incredibly effective technique given the relative subtlety, and in my experience it seems to exhaust the mental resources of the critical reader.
        constantius 6mo ago
        You're very very off on the timing: the first year of the genocide (and the majority of the official casualties) was under the previous administration. The bias on Gaza was observed across the board from the start (and arguably for the last 70 years).
      - oefrha 6mo ago
- freehorse 6mo ago
  Out of curiosity, which news sources do you recommend/advocate for covering the middle east?
- LorenPechtel 6mo ago
  Al Jazeera is effectively a terrorist mouthpiece. They lost their independence long ago.
jMyles 6mo ago
> Also, I really wouldn't suggest using aljazeera. Yeah, I agree - I have the same objections to ajazeera that I have to RT, CNN, Fox News, NYT, etc. - they are each overwhelming pressure from controlling corporations and states that they can't shine light where it needs to be shone. But in this case, I was really only pasting them for links to the statements by Pakistan and Iran, which I do trust them to link / quote faithfully. It wasn't meant as an endorsement of their editorial or news-gathering quality.

fernandopj 6mo ago

Iran is ATM saying it closed the Strait again, implied that it will wait until Israel stand down at least. Even if USA insist on Israel-Hezbollah (and so Lebanon) be kept apart from any deal to end their war in Iran, it would still mean a terrible strategic and diplomatic disaster between USA and Israel, because Israel Gov' will be left with two terrible scenarios: 1) Trump Admin' will concede to Iran they'd be leaving the region and leaving Israel to defend itself alone, because the Hormuz being open for business and the Gulf states being spared would be enough; or 2) USA will have to resume hostilities, meaning domestically Trump will have to explain the US Military is obliged to continue the war effort for as long as Israel want. IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios.

MarsIronPI 6mo ago
> IMHO don't see how Israel-US can politically survive those two scenarios. Is that such a bad thing?
- bamboozled 6mo ago
  Probably for the actual innocent people who live in Israel , yes
  - spaghetdefects 6mo ago
    Israel is a modern day Nazi Germany. I wouldn't call anyone there over the age of 18 "innocent".
    - ndiddy 6mo ago
      I think that's unfair. There are some people with sane politics there, although it's definitely a small minority. For example: https://www.teenvogue.com/story/taylor-swift-fan-account-twitter-creator-israeli-military-prison https://www.teenvogue.com/story/taylor-swift-fan-account-twi...
    - mancerayder 6mo ago