So which party is scuppering the ceasefire?

[Itoosurvive]

Excellent article in the FT outlining what the stumbling blocks are.
Interesting reading. Haven't seen this much detail elsewhere.

https://www.ft.com/content/89d1168e-764f-4900-8fa8-42007b49082f

The crux of the article

"The latest proposal sets out a multi-phase process that would bring about an initial six-week pause in the fighting during which Hamas would release 33 hostages, according to diplomats briefed on the talks. These would include children, the elderly, women — including female soldiers — and wounded captives. That would be followed by a second phase that calls for “restoring a sustainable calm”, in wording proposed by the US, one diplomat said. Mediators hope this will overcome the main hurdle to a deal: Hamas’s insistence on a permanent ceasefire at the end of any arrangement, which Israel has repeatedly rejected. The Lebanese newspaper Al-Akhbar, which is close to Hamas ally Hizbollah, also reported that the proposal included a phased withdrawal of Israeli forces from the heart of the Gaza Strip in order to allow displaced Palestinians in the south to return to their homes and neighbourhoods in the north. The proposal says Israel would release 20 Palestinian prisoners for every civilian hostage, and 40 for each female soldier released. The stakes of a deal were underlined in a UN report released on Thursday that said if the war ended today, it would take until 2040 to rebuild all the homes destroyed in the fighting in Gaza. The report also warned that the damage to the economy will set back development for generations. Hamas seized about 250 people during its October 7 attack that killed 1,200 people, according to Israel. Israel’s retaliatory offensive on Gaza has killed more than 34,000 people, say Palestinian health officials, and severely depleted Hamas’s military capability." From FT

@Itoosurvive

Very good article but I afraid a lot of pro Palestinian protestors are not interested in the negotiating strategies of Israel or Hamas.

The fact that ceasfire requires negotiation does not fit the simplistic narrative many people want i.e. Israel the aggressor and the only combatant in this war

We also have a very worrying trend I believe in seeing Hamas as some sort of victim in this and righteous freedom fighters.

Very good article but I afraid a lot of pro Palestinian protestors are not interested in the negotiating strategies of Israel or Hamas.
Not true and patronising. We are not fools we know peace needs to be negotiated. That is what most of us have been calling for! peaceful solutions that doesn't involve bombing and killing the s**t out of each other

Its quite extraordinary that Israel feel forced to release so many prisoners (ie people that they at least believe are guilty of some sort of criminal activity) in exchange for ONE hostage (ie entirely innocent civilians who were captured in deeply traumatic circumstances).

This.

You might be, however, listening to some of the protesters talk, it's apparent lots don't.

But aren’t Israel insisting they will still send ground troops into Rafah? How does that help negotiations?

The majority not just me,

listening to some of the protesters talk
I would suggest that is a very vocal minority

Are they criminals though? they haven't been convicted of anything. They are not asking for convicted criminals to be released just people who are being held without conviction, many of whom are minors, to be released. They shouldn't be in there for so long in the first place, convict them or release them!

Its quite extraordinary that Israel feel forced
You clearly don't understand how negotiations work - there is give and take on both sides no one is "forced" into anything.

I agree with @mids2019 - I've had the same impression / views from the pro Palestinian protesters. Added on to the fact all of the protestors I've encountered have been aggressive and rude, then on top of that when reading their online activity they seem to be ignoring the point that both sides need to negotiate the ceasefire (rather than just Isreal stopping attacks).

Yes that is what they seem to be saying
No idea how a ceasefire can be negotiated if one side are still gong to continue with their ground offensive regardless

I was just going to say the same thing. I'm not sure how a ceasefire can be negotiated if one side are saying that they will be attacking anyway.

The only people responding here and picking holes in the negotiations have been the pro-Israelis.

I've had the same impression / views from the pro Palestinian protesters
These protesters aren't negotiating so their view is irrelevant

Added on to the fact all of the protestors I've encountered have been aggressive and rude
Really? protesters you have personally encountered?

@Dulra yes protesters I have personally encountered - as recently as Wednesday this week!

Exactly, there won’t be any ceasefire if that ground offensive happens.

Sorry to hear that. Where was it? I have said numerous times that I would never condone protesters on either side that engage in behaviour that is anti-semitic, racist or abusive. They let everyone down when they lower legitimate peaceful protests in that way and the message is lost, which is so frustrating

All the protestors holding up signs 'we want a negotiated cease fire now' israel-Hamas let's get deal'..... don't see many of them

I think a significant obstacle (among others) will be that the Israeli government is continuing to insist that a Rafah ground offensive will happen, regardless of any deal.

That's not a negotiated ceasefire, then. It's a "lay down your arms and prepare to die".

I'm getting a little bored of you not actually reading what I write tbh.

So you're version of a justice system is run on 'belief' not actual evidence and rulings

Random children arrested and held without charge for years but its OK because Israel 'believe' they may have done something - not sure what though but something

Goodness you must hate the justice system in the UK that arrest and charge individuals based on evidence

Ah so sorry didn't realise 'ceasefire now' wasn't clear enough for you, I would have thought it was common sense that ceasefires tend to need both parties at the table with both parties agreeing to lay down weapons

I'll ensure my next sign is dumbed down enough for everyone to understand

That's not what I said, or even implied.

You described people being held without charge as prisoners and that belief of a crime is sufficient for Israel to hold someone as a prisoner.

Interesting that in your eyes one type of person being held against their will and without charge is a hostage and another type of person being held against their will and without charge is a prisoner.

I wonder why 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Because thats the language used by the FT article & all other reputable news outlets since the first reports of these hostages-for-prisoners deals which have been discussed since October 7th - when entirely innocent civilians were captured & held as bargaining 'chips' by Hamad. The widely understood and longstanding word for people captured in this way is 'hostages'.

I can't read the article as it's behind a paywall.

There are nearly 3000 Palestinians being held in administrative detention, hundreds of them are children.These are people who have not been charged with a crime, been given legal representation or tried in court. In no other liberal democracy would it be acceptable to hold people without charging them. These 'prisoners' are hostages of the Israeli government and all of them should either be charged or released without delay.

We agree that the people taken by Hamas are hostages so why not the Palestinians taken by Israel?