Israel rejects Hamas Gaza war truce, lays out own terms
Israel rejects Hamas Gaza war truce, lays out own terms
The proposal comes following Netanyahu's rejection of a Hamas offer that sought an end to the war in return for the release of the remaining hostages.
The proposal comes following Netanyahu's rejection of a Hamas offer that sought an end to the war in return for the release of the remaining hostages.
The Israeli government has offered a new proposal to Hamas that would see a two-month ceasefire in return for the release of Israeli hostages, after rebuffing a Hamas offer.
The proposal was given to Egyptian and Qatari mediators following the approval by the Israeli war cabinet ten days prior, according to Israeli officials speaking to Axios.
It is also unknown if any of the over 6,000 Palestinians that have been detained by the Israeli military since 7 October from the occupied West Bank will be included in the deal.
Some 250 hostages were taken during Hamas' attack on Israel on 7 October, with 130 being released during a one-week ceasefire in November.
Families of the Israeli hostages have ramped up calls for their release, with protests occurring outside Netanyahu's house and inside the Israeli Knesset on Sunday.
UN agencies have repeatedly called for a ceasefire for an increase in humanitarian aid into Gaza, as UNRWA reports that 570,000 people face catastrophic hunger in the enclave.
You're viewing part of a thread.
Nope. The following article is from the famous israeli outlet called Haaretz.
A Brief History of the Netanyahu-Hamas Alliance
For over a decade, Netanyahu has lent a hand, in various ways, to the growing military and political power of Hamas. Netanyahu is the one who turned Hamas from a terror organization with few resources into a semi-state body.
[edit: I shorten the quote cause actually this is the wrong article in relation to how Israel helped the creation of Hamas. Please see comment bellow with 3 links for relevant info.]
I don't disagree that Netanyahu and his right wing coalition were complicit with Hamas, and that regime change is needed. I've said that in other comments in this thread.
I push back against the simplistic statement that "Israel created Hamas". It is way more complicated than that. Hamas was founded in 1987 as a splinter group of the Muslim Brotherhood. Also, Hamas was elected by the Palestinian people, not the Israeli government. And, they are part of a wider radical Islamist movement, along with ISIS and the Houthis, that are sponsored by Iran. You could just as well say that Hamas was "created" by Iran.
I also push back because simply saying that Israel "created" Hamas, as if it were Israel's fault alone, implies a lack of agency on the part of Hamas. Even if Netanyahu and his nutty right wing coalition provided some funding for Hamas, it was Hamas itself that carried out the raping and murdering on October 7. They own that atrocity, even if many other actors are complicit in it.
I push back against the simplistic statement that “Israel created Hamas”.
If that was the case you would have said something like:
No, Hamas was funded by Israel, not created.and not
That’s a conspiracy theory.
So please don't try to bs me.
Btw, here are a few more related articles:
EU's Borrell says Israel financed creation of Gaza rulers Hamas - Reuters
For years, Netanyahu propped up Hamas. Now it’s blown up in our faces - Times of Israel
How nice of you to tell me what I should have said to make you believe me. Charming.
I said would, you read should.
Bye-bye now.
I must say that I don't understand why people like yourself always jump to questioning people's motives and honesty rather than engaging directly with the argument. It is basically an ad hominem attack.
- Complicated is no synonym of conspiracy theory, see Reality vs Fantasy.
- Pointing out someone's contradictory arguments is definitely not ad hominem attack.
The argument started by person A stating a fact and person B claiming it's a conspiracy.
I stepped in and said it's no conspiracy.
Person B says, I didn't mean conspiracy, I meant it's more complicated
I respond to person B if you meant complicated, you would have said something along those lines. Instead you said conspiracy theory.Calling out bs is not an attack on the person, it's a reflection to what they say.
It is not a "fact" that Israel "created" Hamas. Providing some funding 20 years after their founding is not creating. Perhaps calling that a "conspiracy theory" was not the best choice of words. Clarifying what I meant with further conversation is not "bs". Questioning my integrity rather than engaging with the argument is an ad hominem attack.
Permanently Deleted