this post was submitted on 22 May 2024

141 points (93.3% liked)

World News

39143 readers

3217 users here now

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.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

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 [email protected]

Politics [email protected]

World Politics [email protected]

Recommendations

How to spot Misinformation and Propaganda

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

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

141

Egypt changed terms of Gaza ceasefire deal presented to Hamas, surprising negotiators, sources say (www.cnn.com)

submitted 6 months ago by MicroWave to c/world

35 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Egyptian intelligence quietly changed the terms of a ceasefire proposal that Israel had already signed off on earlier this month, ultimately scuttling a deal that could have released Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and set a pathway to temporarily end the fighting in Gaza, according to three people familiar with the discussions.

The ceasefire agreement that Hamas ended up announcing on May 6 was not what the Qataris or the Americans believed had been submitted to Hamas for a potential final review, the sources said.

The changes made by Egyptian intelligence, the details of which have not been previously reported, led to a wave of anger and recrimination among officials from the US, Qatar and Israel, and left ceasefire talks at an impasse.

top 35 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 35 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Now that is a twist I didn't see coming.

[+] MeanEYE -48 points 6 months ago (4 children)

That's a twist pretty much everyone saw who is not Israel hater. Israel reported the very day the talks broke up that terms were changed, but Hamas announced day prior they are accepting the terms, making Israel look like they are the ones who didn't accept.

It was the same story about hospital being bombed. Everyone reported Israel bombing hospital and it took months of independent investigation to figure out what Israel initially said, which was that the stray rocket fell on parking lot and amount of victims wasn't 500.

This is what Hamas does, fight media war making Israel look bad at every opportunity. Yesterday we could see just how much they fact check things when they reported a joke from social media as a fact checked news story about how "MOSAD agent named Eli Copter was responsible for deaths of Iranian leaders"... Seriously (h)Eli Copter. We came up with better jokes when we were kids.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago

Israel doesn't need any help looking bad. Anyone with an ounce of integrity already hates them.

[–] Madison420 19 points 6 months ago

It still hasnt been proven, independents aren't allowed into the battle zone right now only those approved by Israel who then can't claim to be unbiased.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

This is what Hamas does, fight media war making Israel look bad at every opportunity.

I mean, that's kind of predictable.

I think that the decision by Hamas to kick off a fight with Israel in the first place was a really bad idea, but let's assume that they've committed to that. Hamas has no prospect whatsoever of winning a military conflict with Israel. Whatever gains they hope to make are going to have to be predicated on the actions of others, so they're going to have to hope that they can sell someone else on involving themselves. And that's going to mean the media and such.

[+] MeanEYE -11 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely... but most people seem to be falling for it.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Well, specifically what do you mean by that?

As a strategy, I'd say that it hasn't worked. I haven't been following the conflict closely, but the only use of outside hard power that I off-the-cuff recall seeing has been:

Some rockets out of Lebanon.
Some long-range weapons that Iran fired -- some of which were shot down by the US, France, UK, Jordan, and Israel.

Like, Israel's caught some negative press, sure, but if you're Hamas, you aren't gonna start a war that you're gonna lose in hard power terms with the goal of getting some words.

And a lot of that criticism, I believe, isn't related to what Hamas would probably want to see. Hamas wants Israel to stop existing. That's not what is being talked about.

In the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Arab residents of the region tried to eject Jewish settlers, and Jews took the opportunity to kick Arabs out from a lot of the territory entirely. I think that the meaningful criticism mostly surrounds the potential for Israel doing something like a repeat, but involving the Gaza Strip -- if you've got a war that the other guy kicked off, you've got some political impetus to rewrite the situation to be more to your liking. I mean, Hamas doesn't want the conversation to be over whether it's acceptable for Israel to force Gaza residents out into Egypt. That's not a situation where Hamas stands to gain in terms of having the war at all. They want to win something, not have pressure limiting how badly they wind up losing.

[+] MeanEYE -11 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Actually it has been working. Everyone is calling Israel evil and calling for recognition of genocide. ICC is summoning Netanyahu and number of countries are recognizing Palestine as a country. This has not happened so far. I know Hamas has only one goal which is destruction of Israel, but am not sure others realize this.

So in summary world is sending a message where terrorizing people, killing hundreds of innocents will get you what you want. More money, recognition and legitimacy. I dread to see what is coming in future.

[–] FlyingSquid 6 points 6 months ago

The ICC is summoning no one. The prosecutor in the case has requested a warrant for Netanyahu, some of his cabinet and Hamas leaders.

So I'm not sure how that shows it's working. You just seem to want Israel to face no repercussions.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Everyone is calling Israel evil and calling for recognition of genocide.

I mean, there are some vocal people out there, but I'd give reasonable odds that a lot of them weren't too keen on Israel in the first place. Getting them more worked up doesn't change the situation.

I don't think that the meaningful parties here, the ones who could change the situation, have shown much interest in doing what Hamas would like to see.

What Hamas would need for this to be a successful strategy, I think, is concrete action from outside countries aiming to produce a situation not only more-favorable to Hamas than the pre-war situation, but one so much more favorable that it's worth the costs of the war for Gaza. I haven't seen anything that looks to me like that.

[+] HappycamperNZ -12 points 6 months ago (1 children)

See, you're being downvoted but I see no media openly recalling their articles and saying they jumped to conclusions.

Is Israeli innocent of everything - very doubtful. But people are screaming how bad Israel is because of what is seen in the media, that they argue and scream more about how bad they are when facts come out the media was wrong.

[–] small44 23 points 6 months ago (1 children)

People scream about how bad israel is based on high civilians casualities, ton of genocidal israel statements and ton of videos documenting IDF crimes

[+] HappycamperNZ -20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Yes, and where do you see these?

Are you reading peer reviewed journal articles, or media articles about them? ICJ and ICC reports, or media commentary on it? Are you talking with victims and politicians, or what the media says is happening?

This is the point the other poster and I are getting at - your entire information on this conflict is the media that has been shown multiple times to jump to conclusions.

Does it excuse actions from both sides - no. But have a fucking think about what the media is telling you.

[–] small44 14 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Tiktok and telegram have a ton of them unedited videos. Many of them are filmed by soldiers themseves venting about their crimes. There's zero way to interpret them wrong

[–] FlyingSquid 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Are you saying the videos are AI or something?

[–] HappycamperNZ -3 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

No, but I see how my wording can seem that way. Its that when your view of something is based on the media, you can't dismiss someone bringing new facts to light with that viewpoint formed by the media.

[–] solidgrue 20 points 6 months ago

The three sources familiar with the matter told CNN that a senior Egyptian intelligence official named Ahmed Abdel Khalek was responsible for making the changes. Abdel Khalek is a senior deputy to the Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel, who has been Burns’ counterpart in leading Egypt’s mediation in the ceasefire talks.

One source familiar with the negotiations said Abdel Khalek told the Israelis one thing and Hamas another. More of Hamas’ demands were inserted into the original framework that Israel had tacitly agreed to in order to secure Hamas’ approval, the source said. But the other mediators were not informed; nor, critically, were the Israelis.

Oops?

[–] whereisk 8 points 6 months ago (2 children)

In the age of secure electronic communications what's the point of untrusted intermediaries?

PGP the message and send it via some method.

[–] Telodzrum 1 points 6 months ago

"When tech workers are asked to try diplomacy"

[–] MinFapper 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

How would you get the other party's public key?

[–] brianorca 5 points 6 months ago

The whole point of a public key is it can be publicized. Use any public publishing method, the more public the better.

[–] whereisk 4 points 6 months ago

Publicize/transmit it anywhere / everywhere you have plausible control or you can trace the origin of everything. Radio, newspapers, billboard, official website - multiple sources that all agree with each other should do it. You only need to do it once.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago (2 children)

What was the change?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

A Hamas document obtained by CNN outlining the version of the framework they agreed to included achieving a permanent ceasefire and a “sustainable calm” to be reached in the second phase of the three-stage deal. Israel has been averse to agreeing to discuss an end to the war before Hamas has been defeated and the remaining hostages are released from captivity.

Now, three weeks later, with ceasefire talks stalled, those involved are raising questions about the motives of Egypt, which for years has served as a key intermediary between Israel and Hamas, particularly Hamas members inside Gaza.

[–] steventhedev 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

3 hostages per week for 6 weeks in return for an immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces and a full end to the war.

In other words: 18 hostages, some of whom might be dead, and 114 who would never be returned.

This was not a minor change that could possibly be construed as testing which terms would be acceptable. This was a deliberate attempt to sabotage negotiations and produce a headline of "Hamas agrees to ceasefire" to avoid US pressure on Qatar to kick out Hamas leadership.

[–] Keeponstalin 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

What source are you using? I can't find that in the CNN article

[–] mlg 5 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I thought this was already known and intentional?

They said Hamas accepted a watered down version of the original deal which was that it included a permanent ceasefire of which Israel refused to agree to.

The point of Egypt being an intermediary was to convince both sides to come to an agreement, so it doesn't really seem off that they would try changing requirements to see how each side would respond.

[–] brianorca 3 points 6 months ago

We knew the deal was changed, but not by who. (As far as I know.)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago (1 children)

What in the world was Egypt thinking? 🤔 How would they profit from something this foolhardy?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

It's possible there was some bribe money in it for Ahmed Abdel Khalek. Lots of money to be made by providing weapons for continuing conflict, easy to bribe a secondary official to make sure any agreements were derailed.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I forgot about personal greed! Very much a possibility.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

I forgot about personal greed

Oh wow. Wherever you're living must be nice.

[–] Linkerbaan 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

America was actively involved in these changes.

Also the reason israel didn't see them is because israel didn't send negotiators to Cairo.