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.
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.