• Trump reacts to not winning the Nobel Peace…
  • Trump says mass government layoffs will be 'Democrat…
  • Oct. 10, 2025, 4:15 PM EDTBy Minyvonne Burke…
  • Are there health benefits to communal screaming?

Be that!

contact@bethat.ne.com

 

Be That ! Menu   ≡ ╳
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics Politics
☰

Be that!

Sept. 24, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Kevin CollierState and federal law enforcement agencies warned earlier this year that young people were at risk of radicalization on the chat platform Discord, according to government documents obtained by NBC News.Two intelligence assessments from the Department of Homeland Security and Ohio’s Statewide Terrorism Analysis & Crime Center (STACC) marked for distribution to police specifically cite Discord as a platform on which American youth have been exposed to extremist material from foreign terrorist organizations. Both documents are unclassified but marked “For Official Use Only.” They were obtained by the Property of the People, a pro-transparency nonprofit that seeks and publishes government documents through Freedom of Information Act requests, and shared with NBC News.It’s unclear how widely disseminated the documents were, but law enforcement information centers like STACC routinely share warnings and analysis with other police agencies.The reports, which draw on academic studies and law enforcement data, provide insight into how officials understand the risks of online radicalization. The FBI declined to comment and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) did not respond to a request for comment. Discord did not respond to a request for comment about the documents.Discord, which was launched in 2015 as a communications platform for gamers, is particularly popular with young men — a 2023 Pew study found that a third of teen boys in the U.S. used it. Discord has previously faced criticism over its moderation practices. The platform allows for the creation of private chat groups on nearly any topic, and has long faced criticism over lax moderation. Co-founder and former Discord CEO Jason Citron testified to the Senate Judiciary Committee in January 2024 that Discord uses a mix of proactive and reactive tools to enforce its terms of service and community guidelines.One DHS memo from the Office of Intelligence and Analysis, dated Jan. 21, said that “specific discussions or aspirational plotting tends to occur on Discord, where the average age of members — when determinable — was 15, according to academic reporting.”In 2021, the Institute for Strategic Dialogue, a London think tank, found 24 English-language Discord servers associated with extreme right-wing activity. It determined that the average age of members was 15 and that they sometimes discussed far-right terror groups like the neo-Nazi Atomwaffen Division.Suspects in several high-profile mass shooting events in recent years allegedly used Discord to announce their actions or trade in violent or nihilistic content there. In 2022, the shooter in Buffalo, New York, who has since pleaded guilty to numerous charges related to killing 10 people, appeared to have posted a to-do list for the shooting on the platform. A few months later, the man who eventually pleaded guilty to killing seven in Highland Park, Illinois, appeared to have shared violent memes there.In 2024, an Iowa school shooter who killed two people before dying of a self-inflicted gunshot wound had warned on Discord that he was “gearing up.”A second document, dated April 30, jointly produced by DHS and Ohio’s STACC, focuses on attempts by foreign terrorist organizations to radicalize minors online. The website for STACC describes itself as Ohio’s primary fusion center, or law enforcement intelligence sharing hub. It did not respond to a request for comment.Since August 2023, STACC said, the U.S. had disrupted three plots nationwide in which juveniles had reportedly shared the Islamic State terrorist group’s messaging “in online environments, including private Discord chats and gaming platforms.”The April memo found that domestic violent extremists “create and disseminate violent content on youth-oriented platforms,” with some specifically calling on minors to commit violence before they become legal adults.Western countries more broadly, the second document said, have disrupted “more than 20 juvenile-driven plots” between January and November 2024. The documents, which primarily address radicalization of youth by foreign terrorist groups, also say that young Americans have been exposed to ISIS content online in spaces designed for minors. Teenagers “probably have become increasingly susceptible to such messaging due to post-pandemic shifts in online behavior, social isolation, and rising mental health issues,” one of the memos says.Discord has gained increased attention over recent weeks after authorities said that Charlie Kirk’s alleged assassin used the chat app to communicate with friends in the wake of the killing. No law enforcement official has suggested that the suspect coordinated the attack with anyone else. Discord, in a statement last week, confirmed the suspect had an account on its platform, but said it has “found no evidence that the suspect planned this incident or promoted violence on Discord.” Last week, FBI Director Kash Patel said that the agency was looking into more than 20 people who shared a private Discord channel with the suspect. Discord does not encrypt its private channels, meaning that the company has technical access to users’ conversations and can turn them over to law enforcement if presented with a court order or warrant.It has, however, been repeatedly accused of lax moderation. The company has also been the subject of an ongoing lawsuit alleging it didn’t do enough to stop predators, and it has been referred to as a platform for abusers in other child exploitation cases. Discord has said that it does not comment on legal matters and that it has ramped up its safety practices.Discord’s most recent transparency report said that the company had disabled 36,966 accounts in the first half of 2024 for promoting violent and graphic content or extremism. The U.S. government asked it for information on user accounts or servers 3,782 times in that period, the report said.Kevin CollierKevin Collier is a reporter covering cybersecurity, privacy and technology policy for NBC News.

admin - Latest News - September 24, 2025
admin
12 views 13 secs 0 Comments




Law enforcement agencies warned earlier this year that young people were being radicalized in Discord servers, according to documents obtained by NBC News.



Source link

TAGS:
PREVIOUS
Sept. 24, 2025, 4:48 AM EDT / Updated Sept. 24, 2025, 4:55 AM EDTBy Alexander Smith and Jean-Nicholas FievetA call between world leaders is usually a carefully choreographed event reserved for talk of war and peace. France’s Emmanuel Macron used his hotline to President Donald Trump to complain about New York traffic.After giving a speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Monday night, Macron found himself stuck behind a police barricade while trying to reach his country’s diplomatic mission in the city. Whereas regular folk may have sat patiently or taken to social media to vent their fury, Macron put aside any tension over their dueling stances on Israel’s war in Gaza and dialed his friend in the White House.“How are you?” Macron was filmed saying into his cellphone. “Guess what? I’m waiting in the street because everything is frozen for you!”He then attempted to use their traffic-chat as an excuse to discuss more weighty matters.“I would love this weekend have a short discussion with Qatar and you on the situation in Gaza,” said the French leader.French President Macron on the phone to President Trump.Document BFMTVAfter the barricade chat, an official traveling with Macron told NBC News that Macron “took the opportunity to call Donald Trump on the phone while walking, for a very warm and friendly conversation that allowed them to discuss several international issues.”It wasn’t possible to hear Trump’s response. NBC News has reached out to the White House for comment.Police officers guarding the barricades appeared somewhat embarrassed at having to block the path of a visiting world leader.“I’m sorry president, I’m really sorry, it’s just that everything’s frozen right now,” one of them said in the video. Macron seemed to joke with them that they could turn a blind eye to him crossing, saying he wanted to “negotiate” with them.He was not the only world leader to suffer such a traffic-related indignity. Earlier in the day, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan was also seen held up at the barriers.French media reported that Macron was soon able to complete his journey to the consulate.Beneath the minor traffic-related indignity there was genuine friction between the two leaders this week. Macron had just announced that France would become the latest country to recognize Palestinian statehood — something Trump decried as a reward for Hamas’ terror attack of Oct. 7, 2023.”I think it honors Hamas and you can’t do that because of October 7. You just can’t do that,” Trump told reporters while sitting next to Macron on Tuesday.The French leader retorted that “nobody forgets the 7th of October, but after almost two years of war, what is the result.” He added, “This is not the right the right way to proceed.”Macron added later Tuesday that if Trump wants his long-coveted Nobel Peace Prize then he needs to stop the war in Gaza.”There is one person who can do something about it, and that is the U.S. president,” Macron told France’s BFMTV. “And the reason he can do more than us, is because we do not supply weapons that allow the war in Gaza to be waged. We do not supply equipment that allows war to be waged in Gaza. The United States of America does.”France is the latest European country to formally recognize Palestine as a state, joining the United Kingdom and adding to a growing list of global nations that now numbers more than 145. The United States, along with Germany, Italy, Japan and a handful of others, are firmly in the minority.Macron has sought to cast himself as a Trump-whisperer who can act as a counterweight to the American leader: Someone who gets on with the president personally but is unafraid to stand up for European interests when the need arises.Nevertheless, their relationship has blown hot and cold. Personal interactions have been characterized by uncomfortably long handshakes and macho knee-slapping. And in June, Trump branded Macron as “publicity seeking” leader who “always gets it wrong,” after Macron made comments about his counterpart’s decision to leave the G-7 summit in Canada early.Though he didn’t mention France by name, Trump during his U.N. address told European nations that “your countries are going to hell” because of their “failed experiment of open borders.”Alexander SmithAlexander Smith is a senior reporter for NBC News Digital based in London.Jean-Nicholas FievetJean-Nicholas Fievet is a senior desk editor for NBC News based in London.Reuters contributed.
NEXT
Sept. 24, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health NewsTaking a page from the private insurance industry’s playbook, the Trump administration will launch a program next year to find out how much money an artificial intelligence algorithm could save the federal government by denying care to Medicare patients.The pilot program, designed to weed out wasteful, “low-value” services, amounts to a federal expansion of an unpopular process called prior authorization, which requires patients or someone on their medical team to seek insurance approval before proceeding with certain procedures, tests, and prescriptions. It will affect Medicare patients, and the doctors and hospitals who care for them, in Arizona, Ohio, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Texas, and Washington, starting Jan. 1 and running through 2031.The move has raised eyebrows among politicians and policy experts. The traditional version of Medicare, which covers adults 65 and older and some people with disabilities, has mostly eschewed prior authorization. Still, it is widely used by private insurers, especially in the Medicare Advantage market.And the timing was surprising: The pilot was announced in late June, just days after the Trump administration unveiled a voluntary effort by private health insurers to revamp and reduce their own use of prior authorization, which causes care to be “significantly delayed,” said Dr. Mehmet Oz, administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.“It erodes public trust in the health care system,” Oz told the media. “It’s something that we can’t tolerate in this administration.”But some critics, like Dr. Vinay Rathi, an Ohio State University doctor and policy researcher, have accused the Trump administration of sending mixed messages.On one hand, the federal government wants to borrow cost-cutting measures used by private insurance, he said. “On the other, it slaps them on the wrist.”Administration officials are “talking out of both sides of their mouth,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, a Washington Democrat. “It’s hugely concerning.”Patients, doctors and other lawmakers have also been critical of what they see as delay-or-deny tactics, which can slow down or block access to care, causing irreparable harm and even death.“Insurance companies have put it in their mantra that they will take patients’ money and then do their damnedest to deny giving it to the people who deliver care,” said Rep. Greg Murphy, a North Carolina Republican and a urologist. “That goes on in every insurance company boardroom.”Insurers have long argued that prior authorization reduces fraud and wasteful spending, as well as prevents potential harm. Public displeasure with insurance denials dominated the news in December, when the shooting death of UnitedHealthcare’s CEO led many to anoint his alleged killer as a folk hero.And the public broadly dislikes the practice: Nearly three-quarters of respondents thought prior authorization was a “major” problem in a July poll published by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.Indeed, Oz said during his June press conference that “violence in the streets” prompted the Trump administration to take on the issue of prior authorization reform in the private insurance industry.Still, the administration is expanding the use of prior authorization in Medicare. CMS spokesperson Alexx Pons said both initiatives “serve the same goal of protecting patients and Medicare dollars.”Unanswered questionsThe pilot program, WISeR — short for “Wasteful and Inappropriate Service Reduction” — will test the use of an AI algorithm in making prior authorization decisions for some Medicare services, including skin and tissue substitutes, electrical nerve stimulator implants, and knee arthroscopy.The federal government says such procedures are particularly vulnerable to “fraud, waste, and abuse” and could be held in check by prior authorization.Other procedures may be added to the list. But services that are inpatient-only, emergency or “would pose a substantial risk to patients if significantly delayed” would not be subject to the AI model’s assessment, according to the federal announcement.While the use of AI in health insurance isn’t new, Medicare has been slow to adopt the private-sector tools. Medicare has historically used prior authorization in a limited way, with contractors who aren’t incentivized to deny services. But experts who have studied the plan believe the federal pilot could change that.Pons told KFF Health News that no Medicare request will be denied before being reviewed by a “qualified human clinician,” and that vendors “are prohibited from compensation arrangements tied to denial rates.” While the government says vendors will be rewarded for savings, Pons said multiple safeguards will “remove any incentive to deny medically appropriate care.”“Shared savings arrangements mean that vendors financially benefit when less care is delivered,” a structure that can create a powerful incentive for companies to deny medically necessary care, said Jennifer Brackeen, senior director of government affairs for the Washington State Hospital Association.And doctors and policy experts say that’s only one concern.Rathi said the plan “is not fully fleshed out” and relies on “messy and subjective” measures. The model, he said, ultimately depends on contractors to assess their own results, a choice that makes the results potentially suspect.“I’m not sure they know, even, how they’re going to figure out whether this is helping or hurting patients,” he said.Pons said the use of AI in the Medicare pilot will be “subject to strict oversight to ensure transparency, accountability, and alignment with Medicare rules and patient protection.”“CMS remains committed to ensuring that automated tools support, not replace, clinically sound decision-making,” he said.Experts agree that AI is theoretically capable of expediting what has been a cumbersome process marked by delays and denials that can harm patients’ health. Health insurers have argued that AI eliminates human error and bias and will save the health care system money. These companies have also insisted that humans, not computers, are ultimately reviewing coverage decisions.But some scholars are doubtful that’s routinely happening. “I think that there’s also probably a little bit of ambiguity over what constitutes ‘meaningful human review,’” said Amy Killelea, an assistant research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.A 2023 report published by ProPublica found that, over a two-month period, doctors at Cigna who reviewed requests for payment spent an average of only 1.2 seconds on each case.Cigna spokesperson Justine Sessions told KFF Health News that the company does not use AI to deny care or claims. The ProPublica investigation referenced a “simple software-driven process that helped accelerate payments to clinicians for common, relatively low-cost tests and treatments, and it is not powered by AI,” Sessions said. “It was not used for prior authorizations.”And yet class-action lawsuits filed against major health insurers have alleged that flawed AI models undermine doctor recommendations and fail to take patients’ unique needs into account, forcing some people to shoulder the financial burden of their care.Meanwhile, a survey of physicians published by the American Medical Association in February found that 61% think AI is “increasing prior authorization denials, exacerbating avoidable patient harms and escalating unnecessary waste now and into the future.”Chris Bond, a spokesperson for the insurers’ trade group AHIP, told KFF Health News that the organization is “zeroed in” on implementing the commitments made to the government. Those include reducing the scope of prior authorization and making sure that communications with patients about denials and appeals are easy to understand.‘This is a pilot’The Medicare pilot program underscores ongoing concerns about prior authorization and raises new ones.While private health insurers have been opaque about how they use AI and the extent to which they use prior authorization, policy researchers believe these algorithms are often programmed to automatically deny high-cost care.“The more expensive it is, the more likely it is to be denied,” said Jennifer Oliva, a professor at the Maurer School of Law at Indiana University-Bloomington, whose work focuses on AI regulation and health coverage.Oliva explained in a recent paper for the Indiana Law Journal that when a patient is expected to die within a few years, health insurers are “motivated to rely on the algorithm.” As time passes and the patient or their provider is forced to appeal a denial, the chance of the patient dying during that process increases. The longer an appeal, the less likely the health insurer is to pay the claim, Oliva said.“The No. 1 thing to do is make it very, very difficult for people to get high-cost services,” she said.As the use of AI by health insurers is poised to grow, insurance company algorithms amount to a “regulatory blind spot” and demand more scrutiny, said Carmel Shachar, a faculty director at Harvard Law School’s Center for Health Law and Policy Innovation.The WISeR pilot is “an interesting step” toward using AI to ensure that Medicare dollars are purchasing high-quality health care, she said. But the lack of details makes it difficult to determine whether it will work.Politicians are grappling with some of the same questions.“How is this being tested in the first place? How are you going to make sure that it is working and not denying care or producing higher rates of care denial?” asked DelBene, who signed an August letter to Oz with other Democrats demanding answers about the AI program. But Democrats aren’t the only ones worried.Murphy, who co-chairs the House GOP Doctors Caucus, acknowledged that many physicians are concerned the WISeR pilot could overreach into their practice of medicine if the AI algorithm denies doctor-recommended care.Meanwhile, House members of both parties recently supported a measure proposed by Rep. Lois Frankel, a Florida Democrat, to block funding for the pilot in the fiscal 2026 budget of the Department of Health and Human Services.AI in health care is here to stay, Murphy said, but it remains to be seen whether the WISeR pilot will save Medicare money or contribute to the problems already posed by prior authorization.“This is a pilot, and I’m open to see what’s going to happen with this,” Murphy said, “but I will always, always err on the side that doctors know what’s best for their patients.”Lauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health NewsLauren Sausser and Darius Tahir | KFF Health News
Related Post
September 22, 2025
Video shows moment of deadly explosion at cafe in Russia
October 9, 2025
C-SPAN caller confronts Johnson about shutdown effects
October 2, 2025
Oct. 2, 2025, 5:00 AM EDTBy Tom WinterCurrent and former police leaders, citing rising threats of violence, are expressing alarm over a“disturbing rise in rhetoric” in the U.S. and calling for the criminal prosecution of “individuals, including elected and public figures, who incite violence or contribute to a climate that fosters targeted attacks.” In an unusual step, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, one of the country’s largest police associations, recently passed a resolution condemning the “incitement of violence.” “There has been a disturbing rise in rhetoric from political and community leaders that has contributed to acts of violence against law enforcement officers, elected officials, and members of the public,” the association states in the document. “The IACP urges political and community leaders to exercise restraint, responsibility, and thoughtfulness in their public statements, recognizing the influence their words have on public behavior and safety.”Former police leaders expressed alarm in interviews, warning that the number of threats to the public, schools, political leaders and law enforcement was the highest they had seen in their careers. “The level of vitriol is at a spot that I’ve never observed in my entire career,” former St. Paul, Minnesota Police Chief Todd Axtell told NBC News. “It’s having devastating impacts on community and police departments and law enforcement agencies throughout the country.”Ed Davis, who served as Boston police commissioner during the Boston Marathon bombings, said the threat levels are unprecedented and law enforcement agencies lack the resources to both counter rising threats and conduct traditional policing.“I talk to my colleagues around the country frequently, and we’re just astounded … that we find ourselves in this situation,” Davis said in an interview. “And everybody’s looking for guidance or leadership on this, and there just doesn’t seem to be any right now.”Both men are members of IACP, a U.S.-based nonprofit organization of top police executives with more than 35,000 members in the U.S. and chapters in over 170 countries. In late August, the organization passed the resolution to draw public attention to the problem and highlight the dangers of incendiary rhetoric and individuals who might act on it. “Society must recognize that there are individuals who are vulnerable, easily manipulated, and dangerously impressionable,” the group said in its resolution. “And that when public figures or other influential individuals spread hate, words have consequences, and in the wrong hands, they can become weapons.”Call for prosecutionsThe association also urged law enforcement officials to enforce existing laws to combat the problem. “The IACP calls for the enforcement of criminal sanctions against individuals, including elected and public figures, who incite violence or contribute to a climate that fosters targeted attacks.”Legal experts say law enforcement agencies can charge individuals with violating laws that bar making specific violent threats against people, groups, or institutions, if certain criteria are met. Local prosecutors can use state laws banning terroristic threats and federal prosecutors can charge individuals with making interstate threats.The group emphasized that they are not trying to restrict political speech in any way, noting that free speech is “a cornerstone of democratic society.”Then-Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis walks down Mascot Street in Mattapan after meeting with investigators where a body was found in the backyard of a home in November 2010.John Tlumacki / Boston Globe via Getty Images fileOne police leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity and is a member of the IACP, said, “I will tell you that we have more people dedicated to threat investigation and protected missions than any time in our 90-year history of this organization.”A second police commander agreed. “The drumbeat has picked up,” they said.The two said that threats of violence have spread from being primarily received by elected officials and political figures to a broader group including CEOs, health care providers, housing administrators, educators and, in particular, judges.These threats are on top of the day-to-day policing work that these agencies must contend with, along with more traditional threats such as mass shootings at schools and threats from terrorist organizations, they said.One police executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he had a simple message for politicians: Their words have impact. “This isn’t a political matter; this is, ‘Stop the speech that’s causing people to radicalize and take action,’” the police executive said. “‘Because, whether you believe it or not, they believe you’re talking to them.’”Concerns on the groundNBC News also spoke to two leaders of statewide police agencies in noncoastal states with hundreds of staff and large Democratic and Republican populations. The two leaders, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said they have personally investigated active-shooter incidents and dealt with rising threats to politicians and public employees.They were granted anonymity so they could freely discuss the challenges they face as law enforcement officials and their recommendations, given an environment where people who publicly criticize threats of violence are then routinely threatened themselves. They said norms regarding free speech and threats of violence had changed.“It was almost like, before, people knew where the line was to avoid saying the things that are illegal,” said one police commander, referring to the past. “And now it doesn’t seem that anybody really cares about what they say.”Then-St. Paul Police Chief Todd Axtell at a news conference, in St. Paul, Minn., on June 13, 2019.John Autey / Pioneer Press via AP fileOne of the statewide leaders said he has over 100 investigators in his state focused exclusively on school threats to educators and possible mass shooters at schools.Many of the cases, police say, have a significant mental health component.“I can’t think of the last one that we charged that didn’t go down a mental health competency road,” one of the officials said.The variety of threats police are trying to counter is widening, officials said, as crime continues to rise. One official described the duties he faced on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. “What’s different about today is, in one day we went to an active shooter, I’m protecting dignitaries that are going to high-profile events because it was 9/11,” he said. “I’m in pursuit of a stolen car with shots fired, and that’s all within 15 minutes of each other.”The official said that investigating threatening speech online, for example, pulls police away from public safety duties. “We’re now investing people, resources and time to go down and try to find what, in many times, ends up being a keyboard warrior.”’Vacuum of leadership’One of the law enforcement officials in active duty said they were sounding an alarm because other community leaders have not spoken up enough about the rising threat. “I think this is a vacuum of leadership,” he said, adding: “Policing has the opportunity, if not the responsibility, to stand up.” He added that their goal was to work with leaders from other parts of society and communities. “We want to come to the table and be a part of facilitating that more thoughtful discourse in and teach people, or at least show people, that you can actually disagree and argue with each other without weapons.”“People are mad,” the official added, “and there’s not a voice to quiet it right now.”“It’s not just about policy, it’s about tone,” said Axtell, the former St. Paul police chief. “And if we want to turn down the temperature in our communities, leaders at every level must take responsibility for the words they use and the impact those words have.”Davis, the former Boston police commissioner, called for restraint and accountability from public officials.“I think the challenge is for public officials across the nation not to get caught up in the back-and-forth and be the adult in the room when these things start to happen,” Davis said. “I think public officials should be stressing that almost every person who does something outrageous like this is held accountable for it.”Tom WinterTom Winter is NBC’s National Law Enforcement and Intelligence Correspondent.
October 5, 2025
Savewith a NBCUniversal ProfileCreate your free profile or log in to save this articleOct. 5, 2025, 8:48 AM EDTBy Megan Lebowitz and Alexandra MarquezWASHINGTON — Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a Sunday interview on “Meet the Press” that ongoing negotiations between Hamas and Israel are not yet the end of the war and that setting up a group to govern Gaza “takes some time,” but emphasized that there was a plan to do so. It comes as Israel and Hamas appear to be inching closer to implementing a 20-point peace plan proposed by President Donald Trump. “Everyone has agreed, including Israel, that eventually, at some point here, as this process plays out, Gaza will be governed by a Palestinian technocratic group that’s not Hamas, that are not terrorists, with the help and the assistance and the guidance of an international consortium like the board of peace,” Rubio said, echoing the language of the proposed peace plan. At the same time, Rubio noted that “you can’t set up a governance structure in Gaza that’s not Hamas in three days.””I mean, it takes some time,” he said.The peace plan stipulates that Gaza would “be governed under the temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee.” The plan also provides that Hamas, which had governed Gaza, would not have any role in governing in the future. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu publicly backed the peace plan, which includes the release of all Israeli hostages by Hamas, during a visit to the White House last week.Hamas has expressed willingness to release all hostages, alive or dead, and plans to send a team on Sunday to Cairo, where more in-depth negotiations are slated to begin on Monday. Trump administration special envoy Steve Witkoff and the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, plan to attend on behalf of the U.S.Palestinians mourn the death of loved ones killed in Israeli strikes, outside al-Aqsa Martyrs hospital in Deir el-Balah in the central Gaza Strip on Oct. 1. Bashar Taleb / AFP – Getty ImagesAsked by moderator Kristen Welker whether the peace negotiations mark the end of the war in Gaza, Rubio said “not yet.””There’s some work that remains to be done,” he said, pointing to ongoing meetings to determine the logistics of implementing a peace plan. The parties now need to determine first, how hostages are released, and second, how to create new Palestinian leadership. Palestinians watch smoke billowing during Israeli strikes at the Gaza Strip on Oct. 1,. Bashar Taleb / AFP – Getty Images”How do you create this Palestinian technocratic leadership that’s not Hamas, that’s not terrorists, and with the help of the international community?” Rubio said, laying out ongoing issues. “How do you disarm any sort of terrorist groups that are going to be building tunnels and conducting attacks against Israel?”There are ongoing talks to determine logistically how hostages could be released, he said. “You have to make sure the Red Cross can get there, what time they’re going to be there, where they’re going to be,” Rubio said. “All that has to be worked through.”Asked whether hostages could be released as early as this week, Rubio said, “We want it to be as soon as possible.”Megan LebowitzMegan Lebowitz is a politics reporter for NBC News.Alexandra MarquezAlexandra Marquez is a politics reporter for NBC News.
Comments are closed.
Scroll To Top
  • Home
  • Travel
  • Culture
  • Lifestyle
  • Sport
  • Contact Us
  • Politics
© Copyright 2025 - Be That ! . All Rights Reserved