Hacker News Reader

These stories predate the deal terms I'm talking about. They refer to a different set of terms (and a dispute about whether Qatar screwed up the negotiations or Israel did). I should have stated this more clearly upthread: the terms Hamas rejected, and were offered repeatedly afterwards, were the May 27 terms.

This isn't about whether Israel negotiated in better faith than Hamas did; that's not my point at all.

View on HN

The deal terms of the May 27th deal were part of the sabotage those multiple Haaretz articles discuss. Israel did not want a ceasefire.

That does not matter to my point, because Hamas ended up taking those terms anyways. They should have taken them in May, because they are in a much worse position today --- something that was hard to imagine 6 months ago, when their position was already dire.

I am adding important context.

Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with the point I made upthread.

It’s important context for people to understand that this is the second ceasefire proposal, with much worse terms, after a proposal they had just accepted. Why would they accept, knowing that Israel may withdraw again and worsen the terms? It’s not rational. You can say whatever “should” have been in hindsight, but that doesn’t mean it actually “would” have happened anyways.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com