3 ms·

Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefi

Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire. https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/lebanon-attacks-israel-iran-ceasfire https://www.axios.com/2026/04/08/lebanon-attacks-israel-iran...

halflife 7mo ago
So if both sides do not agree to that request it’s not part of the ceasefire, pretty simple.
- lesuorac 7mo ago
  If both sides don't agree on the terms of a ceasefire you don't have a ceasefire.
  - sysguest 7mo ago
    hmm so the iranian diplomatic side can't even read english...? I mean, I wouldn't expect a random diplomat to read iranian... but would 99.999999999% expect to read english those iranian side who didn't point out "hey english version is different!" are all bonkers
    - nemothekid 7mo ago
      1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate. 2. Iranians can't read. Which do you think is more likely?
      - lesuorac 7mo ago
        > 1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate. Are they any more accurate than what Iran or America thinks? IIUC, this whole thing is phone tag.
        nemothekid 7mo ago
        Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy. However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read". [1] https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858 https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858
- deleted 7mo ago
  [deleted]
throw310822 7mo ago
I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.
- ReflectedImage 7mo ago
  There is a designated third party Pakistan and they say Lebanon is part of the ceasefire.
  - throw310822 7mo ago
    They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?
    - geysersam 7mo ago
      Pakistan are the mediators, why would they lie about the explicit terms of the agreement? They would immediately loose all trust if they did.
      - throw310822 7mo ago
        I'm not saying they're lying, I am just wondering why they don't seem to have a definitive proof of what they say- they say one thing and the US "disagrees"- why can't any of the parties just show the fucking document?

halflife 7mo ago

So if both sides do not agree to that request it’s not part of the ceasefire, pretty simple.

lesuorac 7mo ago
If both sides don't agree on the terms of a ceasefire you don't have a ceasefire.
- sysguest 7mo ago
  hmm so the iranian diplomatic side can't even read english...? I mean, I wouldn't expect a random diplomat to read iranian... but would 99.999999999% expect to read english those iranian side who didn't point out "hey english version is different!" are all bonkers
  - nemothekid 7mo ago
    1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate. 2. Iranians can't read. Which do you think is more likely?
    - lesuorac 7mo ago
      > 1. The version of the ceasefire that you are got third hand from Twitter or American news outlets are not accurate. Are they any more accurate than what Iran or America thinks? IIUC, this whole thing is phone tag.
      - nemothekid 7mo ago
        Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy. However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read". [1] https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858 https://x.com/mb_ghalibaf/status/2041943537386958858
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

throw310822 7mo ago

I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.

ReflectedImage 7mo ago
There is a designated third party Pakistan and they say Lebanon is part of the ceasefire.
- throw310822 7mo ago
  They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?
  - geysersam 7mo ago
    Pakistan are the mediators, why would they lie about the explicit terms of the agreement? They would immediately loose all trust if they did.
    - throw310822 7mo ago
      I'm not saying they're lying, I am just wondering why they don't seem to have a definitive proof of what they say- they say one thing and the US "disagrees"- why can't any of the parties just show the fucking document?