Iran stated that it needed to be. I know Israel/US said it isnt, but that isnt how a ceasefire works. All sides actually have to agree to the terms of a ceasefire to have a ceasefire.
I can't understand how it is possible that when such ceasefires are agreed there isn't a designated third party who has the signatures of both parties and can say, and prove, if it's been violated.
They say it, but can they prove it? Because everyone seems to be saying a different thing. Shouldn't Pakistan be able to say "this is the document, these are the terms, these are the signatures, case closed"?
I'm not saying they're lying, I am just wondering why they don't seem to have a definitive proof of what they say- they say one thing and the US "disagrees"- why can't any of the parties just show the fucking document?
Most likely not. I've seen Iranian sources claim that the 10 point plan is violated[1]. However I (1) do not know about Iran's government structure and (2) I can only trust other sources that I believe are trustworthy.
However I think assuming that Israel violating the ceasefire (as they have done multiple times in the past) is more reasonable than assuming a country with a ~400B GDP (similar to Hong Kong, Portugal) has leaders that "can't read".
reglardless if it was, it was an agreement with the US who can be convinced with money to stop the bombs. Israel is a different beast. they will only accept death as payment.
and yes because Iran does include it in their terms it.means US now gets to fight Israel.with diplomacy :') again.
Not that anyone is going to listen to Australia, but Australia believes it is part of the ceasefire terms that were agreed to:
Asked on 7.30 if the ceasefire should apply to Israel's action in Lebanon, [Australian Foreign Minister] Senator Wong was adamant it should. "Yes," she said. "Our position is that the world expects that the ceasefire should apply to the region."
"Our position is that it should" is very different from "the text of their statement says". This is Senator Wong's (or Australia's) idea of what would happen in an ideal world, not anything anybody involved recognizes as relevant. (I mean, they may not recognize the text as being relevant, either, but this is a step below even that.)
>Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced the ceasefire between Iran and the United States on X, saying the two sides agreed to an immediate ceasefire everywhere, including Lebanon, where Israel launched strikes.
This suggests that either the Americans are lying or they did not read the agreement carefully before signing. Either way I don't think it's a good look for the United States.
The US has plenty of ability to force Israel to stop its invasion of Lebanon and it has done similar things twice before by economic means. All parties to the agreement are aware of this.
