World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
I have to say that this is the most color I've seen in months on the actual reasons why. On first read, it gives an understanding that both sides are willing to approach a deal - but lack trust in the process and the mediators ability to coerce the other side to actually commit and follow through.
A more cynical read (my second one) through this is that Hamas is still viewing civilian hostages as an asset and leverage. They are hesitant to get a six week ceasefire because they think they should get more than that for civilian hostages. Recent reports are making it clear that Hamas is executing the hostages. Whether as part of their negotiations, a breakdown in discipline, or just simple evil - the mediators have failed to impress upon Hamas the depth of their strategic mistake.
I don't think this is a bad reading of the article in vacuum, but I don't think it's a fair reading of the situation because AP intentionally or unintentionally has left quite a bit out. Hamas agreed to a US-backed ceasefire back in May that Israel refused. There was plenty of trust on both sides that they'd get what was in the deal, but Israel didn't want that particular deal at that particular time.
What's happening now is Hamas wants Israel to remove their troops and generally stop killing Palestinians, in addition to the other parts of the deal. Israel refuses to put this in writing, saying they'll stop killing people for now, but they're going to leave troops behind to occupy the area - but eventually they'll remove those troops. You're right that Hamas doesn't trust Israel's going to remove those troops, and I think that's entirely reasonable given how the "bridging proposal" is a variation of May's proposal, but striking out things like withdrawing troops. Seems like if that's those are the major changes they're making to the written proposal, they probably don't plan on following through.
But it's also entirely unreasonable for Israel to strike that in the first place. The Palestinians don't want Israel to be an occupying force. There's nothing they can do about the civilians continuing to settle and take their land, but at the very least they're asking for the additional soldiers that have invaded the land in the last year to get out while they're not actively killing Palestinians.
On top of that, Israel's occupation of the Philadelphi Corridor and Rafah crossing is in violation of the Camp David agreements with Egypt. It's really difficult to trust you can make a deal with somebody who's currently not following the agreement they have with your mediator.
This is a helpful article that explains the original deal in more detail than most people want to know: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/6/text-of-the-ceasefire-proposal-approved-by-hamas
Do you have a copy of the bridging proposal? I haven't seen any actual text.
I don't think they've released the text nor a comprehensive list of what it includes. They've only alluded to a few things, like the occupation.
This AP article says as much when it says, "Blinken, who is back in the region this week, said Monday that Israel had agreed to the proposal without saying what it entails." https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/why-is-israel-demanding-control-over-2-gaza-corridors-in-the-cease-fire-talks/
Al-Jazeera and similar have all said some variation of that as far as I've seen.