Latest news with #hostageExchange
LBCI
29-05-2025
- General
- LBCI
Washington's revised hostage deal reignites debate inside Israeli cabinet — the details
Report by Amal Shehadeh, English adaptation by Mariella Succar A revised proposal by U.S. presidential envoy Steve Witkoff for a hostage exchange deal between Israel and Hamas has reignited tensions within the Israeli government, with several cabinet ministers threatening to resign if the proposal is approved, arguing that it amounts to a lifeline for Hamas. The proposal, which was discussed during a security meeting, comes at a time when Israeli security agencies have presented the government with two options: announce the continuation of the war or move forward with an immediate hostage deal. According to the revised proposal, the deal would unfold in two phases. The first phase would begin with a 60-day cease-fire, during which 10 hostages out of 20 would be released over the course of a week in two stages. In return, 18 bodies out of 38 currently held by Hamas would be transferred to Israel. In exchange, Israel would release 125 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences, as well as 1,111 detainees from Gaza arrested after October 7. Over both phases of the deal, Israel would also return 180 Palestinian bodies. On the tenth day of the ceasefire, Hamas would provide Israel with a full report on the health status of the remaining 10 living hostages. Also in the first phase, Israeli forces would withdraw to positions held before the resumption of hostilities on March 18, which would include maintaining a presence along the Philadelphi Corridor but pulling out from the Morag axis. The second phase, which would follow the mutual release of hostages and remains, would see negotiations begin on principles for ending the war. If an agreement is reached, the remaining living hostages and bodies would be released. During this stage, humanitarian aid deliveries to Gaza would resume under the supervision of the United Nations and international organizations. If the negotiations fail, Israel would retain the right to resume military operations or extend the ceasefire in exchange for additional hostage releases. Most expectations indicate that the 10 remaining hostages are all Israeli soldiers. Despite the opposition, expectations are that the Israeli government will approve the proposal, as it closely resembles previous deals Israel had accepted. Still, concerns remain over Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu potentially stalling during the second phase to justify sending Israeli troops back into Gaza. Attention now turns to the upcoming Israeli security cabinet meeting and what the Netanyahu-Ben Gvir-Smotrich government will ultimately decide: continue the war or reach a deal that is hoped for by hostage families and opponents of the conflict, who warn that prolonging the war could lead to Israel's collapse on multiple fronts.
Asharq Al-Awsat
29-05-2025
- Business
- Asharq Al-Awsat
Hamas Source Explains ‘General Framework Agreement' with US Envoy Steve Witkoff
Following days of conflicting reports about a possible ceasefire deal between Hamas and Israel, the Palestinian movement confirmed in an official statement that it had reached a 'general framework agreement' with US envoy Steve Witkoff. The agreement outlines a path toward a permanent ceasefire and a full Israeli military withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Witkoff stated he had 'very positive impressions' regarding the potential for a ceasefire and said a new proposal may be presented soon. Earlier, sources close to Hamas suggested the group had agreed to a proposal involving a 70-day truce, partial Israeli withdrawal, and the phased release of ten Israeli hostages. However, Witkoff disputed this account, clarifying to Axios that Israel would only accept a temporary ceasefire and a hostage exchange that included half of the living hostages and half of the bodies of the deceased, paving the way for substantive talks on a permanent ceasefire. Hamas's updated statement on Wednesday marked a shift, stating the movement had reached agreement on a framework for a permanent ceasefire, complete Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, the entry of humanitarian aid, and the establishment of a professional body to manage the territory post-conflict. The framework also includes the release of ten Israeli hostages and a number of bodies in exchange for an agreed-upon number of Palestinian prisoners. The agreement would be guaranteed by mediators, pending a final response from the relevant parties. A senior Hamas official outside Gaza told Asharq Al-Awsat that the official statement reflects the movement's position on a formal proposal it received through backchannel negotiations. The source stressed that there is only one active negotiation channel and dismissed reports based on Israeli media leaks targeting right-wing audiences. The official added that the proposal emerged through discussions with individuals close to the US, including Palestinian-American academic Bishara Bahbah, who is associated with the Trump administration. Hamas accepted the proposal in principle, based on Witkoff's outline. According to the source, the framework calls for an initial partial ceasefire that would transition into direct negotiations aimed at ending the war entirely. Disagreements remain, however, over the timeline of the hostage release: whether to free half of the hostages on day one and the remainder on the final day, or to shorten the interval to improve the chances of success. The decision now rests with Israel's response to the mediators. Witkoff's original plan reportedly proposed a 60-day ceasefire, with the release of half the hostages immediately and half the bodies at a later date without an explicit guarantee of ending the war. Hamas, meanwhile, pushed for an extended 90-day truce and a gradual Israeli withdrawal under international supervision, with negotiations for a lasting ceasefire starting immediately upon implementation. As for Witkoff's earlier denials of an agreement, the Hamas source downplayed them, saying the group focuses on official communications, not public statements. He noted that Witkoff recently told hostage families that an agreement might be within reach. The official concluded that Hamas remains open to advancing under the framework, pending Israel's final position.
RNZ News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
Two complaints about Middle East reporting not upheld
Photo: RNZ / Cole Eastham-Farrelly The Media Council has ruled in favour of RNZ on two stories about the Gaza conflict. Both complaints concerned similar issues and were considered together. Ms Olivia Coote complained about a story on 20 January 2025 headed 'A long-awaited ceasefire has finally begun in Gaza. Here's what we know.' Mr Eric Mattlin complained about a story on 31 January 2025 headed 'Palestinian militants begin handover of three Israeli hostages in latest ceasefire deal'. Both complained that different information and terminology used about the hostage/prisoner exchange for those on both sides of the conflict breached the Media Council's Principle 1 - Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. Mr Mattlin complained more generally that the 31 January story was biased in favour of Israel. The Council said it could find no fault with the word "hostages" being used to describe those abducted by Hamas on 7 October. The Council also believed that the use of the term "militants" to describe members of Hamas was defensible, given the NZ Oxford Dictionary definition of a person who was "aggressively active" particularly in support of a political cause. The use of the word "prisoner" was more complicated and the complainants raised some interesting points about the legitimacy of the arrests and the detention of the Palestinians, and the implications of the words used. However, one definition of the word "prisoner" in the NZ Oxford Dictionary was simply "a person kept in prison", so the Council did not believe that the use of the word "prisoner" meant they were legitimately imprisoned. Accordingly, the Council considered the terminology used by RNZ in the story did not breach Principle 1. On whether RNZ's coverage was biased when it gave more details about the Israelis released than the Palestinians, again the Council said it could understand the concerns of the complainants. It was understandable that those on either side of highly charged subjects felt that their side of the story was not being put clearly, or that they would have preferred a different angle to have been taken. However, the Council accepted RNZ's point that there was more information available about the Israeli hostages, and the fact that there were only three Israelis and many Palestinians in each story meant it was not surprising that there was more information about the Israelis. The Council concluded that there was a significant amount of balance in both stories, which were in response to the most recent developments in the conflict, and it was acceptable to focus on those events. Extensive coverage of background factors is not required under Principle (1) which states in part: "Exceptions may apply for long-running issues where every side of an issue or argument cannot reasonably be repeated on every occasion and in reportage of proceedings where balance is to be judged on a number of stories, rather than a single report." On balance, the Council said these were thought-provoking complaints, but the Council could find no evidence of systemic bias in the stories, which reported the latest developments in the conflict, using the information available. The Council's full finding can be found here : Media Council - Eric Mattlin and Olivia Coote against Radio New Zealand The decision follows the release, by RNZ, of an independent editorial assessment of its coverage of the Middle East. The report can be found here : RNZ : Editorial Reviews
