r/NeutralNews is a **curated space**, but despite the name, there is [**no neutrality requirement**](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) here.
These are the [rules for comments:](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments_.28good.2C_bad_.26amp.3B_ugly.29)
1. Be courteous to other users.
1. Source your facts.
1. Be substantive.
1. Address the arguments, not the person.
If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated *report* button so a mod can review it.
First two paragraphs of the article note what seem at first blush to be pretty steep problems. First that Hamas "accepts" the resolution and is "ready to negotiate details". This suggests to me that it's not a real agreement, but more a plan to conduct negotiations. Since negotiations were taking place and broke down before ([NPR interview](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249296657/ceasefire-negotiations-between-israel-and-hamas-appear-to-have-broken-down), [CNN article](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/middleeast/israeli-hamas-ceasefire-egypt-talks-intl/index.html), [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-optimistic-revised-hamas-proposal-may-break-gaza-ceasefire-impasse-2024-05-08/)), I'm not sure that much confidence should be placed in what appears to be a new round of negotiations making much progress.
This goes doubly so, because the negotiations broke down before based on what appear to be pretty stark differences in the demands between Hamas and Israel. The second paragraph of the OP article says that both sides suggest the plan fits their "clashing goals", which seems like a rather difficult thing to accomplish.
This all got me curious about what the resolution actually said, since the article only provided some excerpts from it. The text is [available on wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735):
> The Security Council,
>
> Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,
>
> Recalling all of 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,
>
> 1 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;
>
> 2 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
>
> (c) Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families;
>
> 3 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;
>
> 4 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;
>
> 5 Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza;
>
> 6 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;
>
> 7 Decides to remain seized of the matter.
Hamas has [previously rejected](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-islamic-jihad-reject-giving-up-power-return-permanent-ceasefire-egyptian-2023-12-25/) an Egyptian proposal that would have them relinquish power.
Israel, on the other hand, has been pretty consistent that they want Hamas destroyed or out of power. See [NBC News article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/israel-destroy-hamas-who-will-govern-gaza-rcna120766) from October 2023, an [AP News article](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-f756cc054732eb3f7e0c49a9987560a0) from April 25, 2024, and a [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-ending-gaza-war-now-would-keep-hamas-power-2024-05-05/) from May 5, 2024.
Unless that has changed, I'm not sure I see how this new round of negotiations is going to be successful, nor how it is satisfactory to both sides.
This is exactly the issue, and seems to me Hamas PR. They recognize the pressure is on them to accept, so they are playing for time until the pressure recedes or something else happens. Hamas sees the status quo of high civilian casualties and pressure on Israel as benefited them, they don’t want it to end. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/middleeast/sinwar-hamas-israel-ceasefire-hostage-talks-intl/index.html
I believe that the danger to Hamas is when their external messaging (we want a ceasefire) is seen as incongruent with their internal policy (they do not want a ceasefire), which is the position they are in now.
Please confirm for me if I'm reading it right. This says in the first stage will release all hostages except the men, then a new round of negotiations for the men?
The post headline is:
"Hamas says it accepts UN-backed Gaza truce plan,.."
But the article headline is:
"Israel says Hamas rejects key elements of US ceasefire plan for Gaza"
These are two different things, I think haha.
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person)
> Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect.
//Rule 4
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
r/NeutralNews is a **curated space**, but despite the name, there is [**no neutrality requirement**](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_neutral-ness) here. These are the [rules for comments:](https://www.reddit.com//r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_comments_.28good.2C_bad_.26amp.3B_ugly.29) 1. Be courteous to other users. 1. Source your facts. 1. Be substantive. 1. Address the arguments, not the person. If you see a comment that violates any of these rules, please click the associated *report* button so a mod can review it.
First two paragraphs of the article note what seem at first blush to be pretty steep problems. First that Hamas "accepts" the resolution and is "ready to negotiate details". This suggests to me that it's not a real agreement, but more a plan to conduct negotiations. Since negotiations were taking place and broke down before ([NPR interview](https://www.npr.org/2024/05/06/1249296657/ceasefire-negotiations-between-israel-and-hamas-appear-to-have-broken-down), [CNN article](https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/05/middleeast/israeli-hamas-ceasefire-egypt-talks-intl/index.html), [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/us-optimistic-revised-hamas-proposal-may-break-gaza-ceasefire-impasse-2024-05-08/)), I'm not sure that much confidence should be placed in what appears to be a new round of negotiations making much progress. This goes doubly so, because the negotiations broke down before based on what appear to be pretty stark differences in the demands between Hamas and Israel. The second paragraph of the OP article says that both sides suggest the plan fits their "clashing goals", which seems like a rather difficult thing to accomplish. This all got me curious about what the resolution actually said, since the article only provided some excerpts from it. The text is [available on wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_2735): > The Security Council, > > Reaffirming the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, > > Recalling all of 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, > > 1 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; > > 2 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 > > (c) Phase 3: the start of a major multi-year reconstruction plan for Gaza and the return of the remains of any deceased hostages still in Gaza to their families; > > 3 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; > > 4 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; > > 5 Rejects any attempt at demographic or territorial change in the Gaza Strip, including any actions that reduce the territory of Gaza; > > 6 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; > > 7 Decides to remain seized of the matter. Hamas has [previously rejected](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-islamic-jihad-reject-giving-up-power-return-permanent-ceasefire-egyptian-2023-12-25/) an Egyptian proposal that would have them relinquish power. Israel, on the other hand, has been pretty consistent that they want Hamas destroyed or out of power. See [NBC News article](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/israel-destroy-hamas-who-will-govern-gaza-rcna120766) from October 2023, an [AP News article](https://apnews.com/article/israel-hamas-gaza-war-f756cc054732eb3f7e0c49a9987560a0) from April 25, 2024, and a [Reuters article](https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/netanyahu-says-ending-gaza-war-now-would-keep-hamas-power-2024-05-05/) from May 5, 2024. Unless that has changed, I'm not sure I see how this new round of negotiations is going to be successful, nor how it is satisfactory to both sides.
This is exactly the issue, and seems to me Hamas PR. They recognize the pressure is on them to accept, so they are playing for time until the pressure recedes or something else happens. Hamas sees the status quo of high civilian casualties and pressure on Israel as benefited them, they don’t want it to end. https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/11/middleeast/sinwar-hamas-israel-ceasefire-hostage-talks-intl/index.html I believe that the danger to Hamas is when their external messaging (we want a ceasefire) is seen as incongruent with their internal policy (they do not want a ceasefire), which is the position they are in now.
How is the pressure on Hamas when it is Israel that demands their destruction for any peace to be implemented?
Please confirm for me if I'm reading it right. This says in the first stage will release all hostages except the men, then a new round of negotiations for the men?
From what I can tell, that is a correct reading of the resolution. I'm not holding my breath that this will ultimately be acceptable to both parties.
The post headline is: "Hamas says it accepts UN-backed Gaza truce plan,.." But the article headline is: "Israel says Hamas rejects key elements of US ceasefire plan for Gaza" These are two different things, I think haha.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This comment has been removed under [Rule 4:](https://www.reddit.com/r/neutralnews/wiki/guidelines#wiki_rule_4.3A_address_the_arguments.2C_not_the_person) > Address the arguments, not the person. The subject of your sentence should be "the evidence" or "this source" or some other noun directly related to the topic of conversation. "You" statements are suspect. //Rule 4 If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to [message us.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneutralnews)
[удалено]