300 “they were considering releasing” doesn’t answer my question, but it is as close as I can google.
No reason it can’t be both.
The channel being open did not depend on the Israeli position. That’s why you have negotiation. Israel continued to refuse so their initial rejection does not mean a deal was not on the table. The fact that it went through intermediaries did not mean that Hamas was not involved.
The President of the US went to Israel and gave Bibi propaganda cover. Does anyone believe that was free?
Well, this is not reassuring:
The parties are now fully in a day-to-day extension phase of the truce, where Hamas must offer up a new list of 10 hostages in order to secure another 24 hours in the pause in fighting. Given the serious challenges that came up with Hamas claiming until the last minute that they were having trouble locating enough hostages, anxious negotiators are anticipating that the process of extending the truce into an eighth day could be very challenging.
Negotiators had believed before the two-day extension of the truce that Hamas would likely not be able to offer more women and children to stretch the pause beyond an eighth day. When Hamas is unable to release any more women and children alive, the understanding is that Israel will re-launch its military campaign, possibly as soon as this weekend.
One wonders how many of the remaining hostages are actually dead, or held by others that Hamas doesn’t control.
The article notes that only women and children have been subject to release so far as part of the deal.
Given the number of women in the Israeli army, that strikes me as odd.
If the purpose of the Hamas attack was to draw Islamic support from other countries then it’s to their advantage to drag out the hostage situation for as long as possible.
Hamas misogyny could explain that; don’t release male Israelis who could be soldiers against them. Then too, I get the impression that the invaders scooped up women and children and killed men during their raid. That is, other than the women who were raped and slaughtered at the concert attack.
Bingo. And they have been used as pawns ever since, most recently this year by Hamas leadership. IMO, the British dumped the problem and ran away. I believe that the sentiment in Europe at the time was “let’s find a way to make all those Jews go away somewhere else”. And the neighboring Arab nations made it worse (again, IMO, because of deep anti-semitism), by not agreeing to a sensible plan for the Palestinians, because basically, fuck em.
The New York Times reports that Israeli intelligence knew about Hamas’ plans last year.
If true, this sounds like it oughta be the final nail in Bibi’s coffin.
Same way the revelation that Bush was warned about 9/11 put the nail in his, eh?
I’m curious how anyone could possibly know this.
I largely agree with Broomstick and I think no country is immune from a far-right dictatorship coming to power. And the extreme end of the religious right in Israel are one of many examples of fanatics who would divide the groups up in a way where any sane person would view it as a member national/ethnic group oppressing its own members.
Arabs left their home in 1948 because of a war. If that war didn’t happen because the Arab states agreed to the partition plan, why would anyone leave their home?
The ceasefire has ended.
That seemed likely.
Israelis that were at anti-government protests get a partial pass on this (but not much, because what have they achieved?), but otherwise we are talking about having a Nazi and convicted criminal with governmental power, yes, in Israel. So it is at least partially what Israel is about, in a way that matters.
Because some Palestinians left their homes under the threat of violence to civillians not involved in tge fighting by right wing zionist paramilitaries that had very similar ideologies to the settler groups that do similar things to this day.
That’s certainly a narrative that exists out there.
To the extent that there is truth to it, if the partition plan borders were accepted then any Arabs driven from their homes in the new Palestine would be able to return to Palestinian territory; optimistically we might hope that the same would apply to Arabs in the new Israel; the two countries would hopefully have better relations (well, they wouldn’t immediately be embroiled in a regional war and there would be a Palestinian government with skin in the game to have relations with, so that seems almost a given) so that’s not necessarily far fetched. But even if not - even if some Arabs in Partition Plan Israel are displaced to Palestine and Jews in Partition Plan Palestine are displaced to Israel - surely that’s barely a blip on the radar compared to how history actually played out… you can’t honestly expect that nearly as many people would have been displaced without a mahor regional war.
Wiping out the Jews so that the Palestinians would live in an Arab state (whether independent or absorbed into Jordan) in the entirety of Mandatory Palestine wasn’t a sensible plan?
Gonna bump this once in the hopes of getting an answer.
It’s probably too context dependant to give you a straight yes or no answer.