Hamas: Tel Aviv rejected a "consensus" truce paper, and we condemn the "retreating" US position.

Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mardawi revealed new details on Sunday about the ongoing truce negotiations, accusing the Israeli occupation of rejecting a negotiating paper he described as "acceptable" and in line with "minimum national goals."

Al-Mardawi also strongly criticized the American position, describing it as a "backward step" and unacceptable, despite the fact that the document had been agreed upon verbatim with the American mediator over the past few weeks.

Details of the negotiations and the rejected paper

In a lengthy post on his X account, Mardawi explained that, after weeks of "serious and responsible" negotiations with the US envoy, Hamas had reached "an acceptable formula that aligns with the minimum national goals and the requirements for protecting our people."

He pointed out that the US envoy agreed to present it to the Israeli side.

However, according to Al-Mardawi, the surprise was the occupation's rejection of the paper and its request that the American side present it to Hamas as a "final, non-negotiable proposal."

"Catastrophic loopholes" in Tel Aviv's rejected proposal

Al-Mardawi revealed that the paper, which the American side later described as a "final proposal," was "laden with catastrophic loopholes" and went beyond the negatives of previous Israeli proposals, emphasizing that it:

It did not guarantee a real withdrawal from the territories.

It did not guarantee a comprehensive cessation of war at any stage.

It did not ensure a sustainable flow of humanitarian aid.

It did not guarantee the implementation of any commitment beyond the seventh day, the day on which the "Israeli detainees" were supposed to be handed over, leaving what would happen after that at the mercy of Israeli estimates and intentions without any guarantee.

Al-Mardawi summed up this position by saying: “In clearer terms: Take what we have, and we will see later whether we will fulfill our obligations.”

Hamas responded: "Yes, but..."

Despite these loopholes, Mardawi said that Hamas's position was "yes, but..." explaining: "We said 'yes' in principle, but we refused for the understandings to be a legitimacy for the continuation of genocide and starvation, and a gateway to political and security fraud."

The movement called for amending the paragraphs that "do not guarantee a halt to the killing, do not open the way for sustainable relief and return from displacement sites, and do not impose clear obligations on the occupation to withdraw and cease fire."

The irony, according to Al-Mardawi, is that these amendments "are completely identical to what was agreed upon, word for word, with the American mediator over the past weeks."

The American position is a "step backward"

The result, unfortunately, according to Mardawi, is that the American position described Hamas's response as a "step backward" and unacceptable, "even though they know it is a strict adherence to what was agreed upon with them."

Hamas's message to the world

Al-Mardawi sent a message to all relevant parties and to the entire world: "We are not the party that thwarts efforts or evades. We have provided responsible approval and made amendments that protect our people from genocide."

We demand an end to the aggression, the provision of aid, the return of the displaced, and the freedom of prisoners.

What we are asking for is not political conditions, but a minimum of human dignity.”

The Hamas leader concluded by saying, "Whoever truly wants to stop the war should pressure those who are killing, starving, and besieging, not those who are defending their people and are merely asking for guarantees of compliance."

We will continue to make every effort to reach an agreement that leads to the withdrawal of the army and ends the war, starvation and genocide."