MR MILLER: I think it confirms two things. Number one, as the IPC itself said, we need to get a ceasefire. And that is the best way – bar none – to alleviate the humanitarian situation on the ground and alleviate the very real, very tragic of the – situation of the Palestinian people. And that is why we are working every day to try to get a ceasefire. It’s why we were so disappointed that Hamas rejected the ceasefire proposal that was on the table that the United Nations Security Council and countries around the world endorsed.
…
QUESTION: Yeah. Also, do you have a written or public statement from Hamas stating that they don’t support the ceasefire, considering that according to you they were the ones who in previous months —
MR MILLER: Yeah.
QUESTION: — proposed something similar?
MR MILLER: Yeah. They came back several weeks ago and rejected the proposal that was on the table in written – in written form. They gave us a written response that rejected the proposal that had been put forward by Israel, that the – that President Biden had outlined, that the United Nations Security Council and countries all around the world had endorsed. Obviously, we don’t make the text of that public, because these are very sensitive negotiations, but it was a written rejection and counter-proposal that came from Hamas.
Not that the original article wasn’t proof enough. Additionally:
What he’s saying: Speaking from Doha after meeting with the Prime Minister of Qatar, Blinken said: “Hamas proposed numerous changes to the proposal that was on the table. Some of the changes are workable and some are not.”
He argued the deal currently under discussion is almost identical to the one Hamas itself proposed on May 6. “It was a deal that Israel accepted and the world was behind. Hamas could have answered with a single word: ‘yes.’”
“Instead, they waited almost two weeks and then proposed more changes, a number of which go beyond positions it has previously presented and agreed to. As a result, the war will go on and more people will suffer,” Blinken said.
“It’s time for the haggling to stop and the ceasefire to start. Israel accepted the proposal as it is, Hamas didn’t. It is clear what needs to happen,” he said.
National security adviser Jake Sullivan said later Wednesday that “many of the proposed changes in Hamas’ response are minor and not unanticipated. Others differ more substantially from what was outlined in the UN security council resolution” endorsing the deal, which passed on Tuesday.
I’m sorry your opinion doesn’t change what happened. Hamas rejected the cease fire. You can quibble about whether you think it was put forward by whatever party, whomever it was put forward by, it was rejected by Hamas.
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has said that if a ceasefire plan backed by the US and UN does not progress, Hamas will be to blame.
Mr Blinken reiterated his call for Hamas to accept the plan as outlined by President Biden 11 days ago.
He said the onus was on “one guy” hiding “ten storeys underground in Gaza” to make the casting vote, referring to Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
Mr Blinken said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had “reaffirmed his commitment” to the proposal when they held talks in Jerusalem on Monday.
Mr Netanyahu has not publicly endorsed what Mr Biden outlined nor said whether it matches an Israeli proposal on which Mr Biden’s statement was based.
Mr Blinken described as a “hopeful sign” Hamas’s response to a resolution passed by the UN Security Council on Monday supporting what Mr Biden had announced.
The resolution noted that Israel had accepted what Mr Biden had presented and called on Hamas to do so as well.
Hamas issued a statement on Tuesday welcoming “what was included” in the resolution.
But Mr Blinken said Hamas’s response was not conclusive, adding that that “what counts” is what is said by the Hamas leadership in Gaza, “and that’s what we don’t have”.
If the proposal did not proceed then it was “on them”, he said.
And I’ll tack on, why had Hamas rejected in written form the proposal and responded with a counter proposal?
Additionally, your source says they signal support. No where did it say Israel rejected it. Even from your article:
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, in Tel Aviv to meet Israeli officials, called this a “hopeful sign” but said it was not conclusive.
More important “is the word coming from Gaza and from the Hamas leadership in Gaza. That’s what counts, and that’s what we don’t have yet,” Blinken told reporters in Tel Aviv.
You are lying. Also, considering it was a cease fire, not negotiations, that was proposed, this seems like a feeble attempt to obfuscate the situation.
Netanyahu stated he was “prepared to make a partial deal—this is no secret—that will return to us some of the people,” referring to the approximately 120 hostages still detained in Gaza. “But we are committed to continuing the war after a pause, in order to complete the goal of eliminating Hamas. I’m not willing to give up on that,” he added.
These remarks come as a surprise after U.S. President Joe Biden presented the plan as an Israeli initiative, referred to by some in Israel as “Netanyahu’s deal.” His comments could further strain U.S.-Israel relations, as the U.S., Israel’s primary ally, has made significant diplomatic efforts to push for the ceasefire.
This post was recently removed, citing misinformation regarding acceptance of cease fire deals between Israel and Hamas. I had sufficiently provided proof of my statements in the comments, but here is the resolution itself stating Israel had accepted in section 1. I request my comment be restored.
Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
Recalling all its relevant resolutions on the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question,
Underscoring the importance of the ongoing diplomatic efforts by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States aimed at reaching a comprehensive ceasefire deal, consisting of three phases,
Welcomes the new ceasefire proposal announced on May 31, which Israel accepted, calls upon Hamas to also accept it, and urges both parties to fully implement its terms without delay and without condition;
Notes that the implementation of this proposal would enable the following outcomes to spread over three phases:
(a) Phase 1: an immediate, full, and complete ceasefire with the release of hostages including women, the elderly and the wounded, the return of the remains of some hostages who have been killed, the exchange of Palestinian prisoners, withdrawal of Israeli forces from the populated areas in Gaza, the return of Palestinian civilians to their homes and neighborhoods in all areas of Gaza, including in the north, as well as the safe and effective distribution of humanitarian assistance at scale throughout the Gaza Strip to all Palestinian civilians who need it, including housing units delivered by the international community;
(b) Phase 2: upon agreement of the parties, a permanent end to hostilities, in exchange for the release of all other hostages still in Gaza, and a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza; and
Underlines that the proposal says if the negotiations take longer than six weeks for phase one, the ceasefire will still continue as long as negotiations continue, and welcomes the readiness of the United States, Egypt, and Qatar to work to ensure negotiations keep going until all the agreements are reached and phase two is able to begin;
Stresses the importance of the parties adhering to the terms of this proposal once agreed and calls upon all Member States and the United Nations to support its implementation;
Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;
Reiterates its unwavering commitment to the vision of the two-State solution where two democratic States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace within secure and recognized borders, consistent with international law and relevant UN resolutions, and in this regard stresses the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip with the West Bank under the Palestinian Authority;
I didn’t say anything. You’d have to quote me, which you can’t :)
You have a problem with what Blinken and the resolution itself are saying, and they say Israel accepted the deal. Take it up with them. I’m done with you, this exact situation was discussed with you in a previous thread by another user. This is a bad faith effort to muddy the waters, and I reject this kind of discussion.
Goodbye.
Edit: since reading the original article is not a thing here:
Driving the news: Earlier this week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu walked back the proposal and told Israel’s Channel 14 that he is interested in a “partial deal” with Hamas that will free “some of the hostages” held in Gaza and allow Israel to continue fighting in the enclave.
A day later, under pressure from the U.S., Qatar and hostages families, Netanyahu corrected his comments and recommitted to the proposal.
But if it were up to the above user, this wouldn’t have been mentioned.
https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-june-25-2024/
Not that the original article wasn’t proof enough. Additionally:
https://www.axios.com/2024/06/12/blinken-hamas-gaza-hostage-ceasefire-proposal
Israel did not sign that proposal. They did not put it forward either. This entire statement is incorrect.
I’m sorry your opinion doesn’t change what happened. Hamas rejected the cease fire. You can quibble about whether you think it was put forward by whatever party, whomever it was put forward by, it was rejected by Hamas.
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/blinken-says-hamas-signal-support-un-backed-gaza-truce-deal-is-hopeful-sign-2024-06-11/
hamas says yes to negotiations, Israel rejects
I guess I’ll post this again…
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cj77j7ppj52o.amp
And I’ll tack on, why had Hamas rejected in written form the proposal and responded with a counter proposal?
Additionally, your source says they signal support. No where did it say Israel rejected it. Even from your article:
You are lying. Also, considering it was a cease fire, not negotiations, that was proposed, this seems like a feeble attempt to obfuscate the situation.
Got it, only hamas bad Israel can do no wrong
Removed by mod
Hmm my sources don’t seem to share that opinion.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/netanyahu-says-he-will-only-accept-partial-ceasefire-deal/ar-BB1oOcH2
"
Netanyahu stated he was “prepared to make a partial deal—this is no secret—that will return to us some of the people,” referring to the approximately 120 hostages still detained in Gaza. “But we are committed to continuing the war after a pause, in order to complete the goal of eliminating Hamas. I’m not willing to give up on that,” he added.
These remarks come as a surprise after U.S. President Joe Biden presented the plan as an Israeli initiative, referred to by some in Israel as “Netanyahu’s deal.” His comments could further strain U.S.-Israel relations, as the U.S., Israel’s primary ally, has made significant diplomatic efforts to push for the ceasefire.
"
Removed by mod
This post was recently removed, citing misinformation regarding acceptance of cease fire deals between Israel and Hamas. I had sufficiently provided proof of my statements in the comments, but here is the resolution itself stating Israel had accepted in section 1. I request my comment be restored.
Including the resolution text:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735
Israel publicly stated they would not abide by the ceasefire.
You said Israel signed the ceasefire deal which is not a fact.
I didn’t say anything. You’d have to quote me, which you can’t :)
You have a problem with what Blinken and the resolution itself are saying, and they say Israel accepted the deal. Take it up with them. I’m done with you, this exact situation was discussed with you in a previous thread by another user. This is a bad faith effort to muddy the waters, and I reject this kind of discussion.
Goodbye.
Edit: since reading the original article is not a thing here:
But if it were up to the above user, this wouldn’t have been mentioned.