its time for them to either put up or shut up.
Of course we all know that if HAMAs rejects the proposal, it'll be blamed on Israel for some reason and if or when HAMAs violates the cease fire, again, it'll be blamed on Israel.

will probably not happen, since the Iran attack over a week ago did not cause much Arab support, and in fact Jordan actually was involved in helping to blunt the attack.

I suspect most Arab regimes in the area are anxious to contain the conflict, since their governments are vulnerable to radical Islamic elements.

I just don't see other Arab nations getting involved, they've so far shown a lack of interest in expanding the war.

They broke the truce on Oct. 7.
They kidnapped the hostages.
They continue to hold the innocent hostages.
They have promised future Oct 7 terror attacks on Israel.
They continue to attack Israel with rockets.
They have refused all offers.

Hamas should be seen for what they really are - committed to sacrificing the Palestinian people on their behalf.

charge of negotiating? Bias anyone?

then who?
Pres. Biden seems to think so.
I think I'll rely on Pres. Biden's judgement.

the negotiations, Saudi Arabia, and other negotiators are not bias?

The problem isn't bias, it is if the parties involved are willing to compromise.

it remains to be seen if HAMAs is, I have my doubts.
We'll find out soon enough.

if not the SoS?

He has been exceptionally good at his job.

It's his job as Secretary of State and he has the full trust of President Biden.

And Israel was blamed for it by anti-Jewish protestors.

Remember, the only thing Israel can do according to all the protestors is either dissolve or commit mass suicide.

They didn't and don't care when Jewish blood is spilled.

sounds about as definitive as "some day". A cease-fire built on terms as vague as that is one that will not hold because the definition can be anything anybody wants to claim it to be. But people want vague things like this for their own purposes. A proposal with more defined terms such as : Israel to withdraw completely by a date certain, Hamas to withdraw by that same date and an international peacekeeping force is put in place. That would be an example.

Simply saying the equivalent of "I might decide not to shoot you tomorrow but there may come a time" is a garbage proposal. After all of the back and forth and meetings and conferences the best that could be done is "give us a few hostages, we'll give you some prisoners and for awhile we might not shoot you"? I think grade school kids on the playground could come up with that in 5 minutes or less.

But then again this may be a combination of lousy media (always a safe bet) and the parties involved in the negotiations not disclosing all of the intricacies and terms that are going on here. For example is there any financial component involved here to any party in any way? Is there any "assurance of safe haven" involved in order to alleviate concern about targeted assassinations? Is any country stepping forward and providing support in some way?

But from a negotiation standpoint it may be counter-productive to make big public statements to the effect that your "proposal" is wonderfully generous which automatically is publicly saying your opponent is a fool if they don't accept it. Putting out a proposal with that is about as productive as if Hamas/Qatar/Egypt put out a proposal to Israel with a statement like "here is the only proposal Israel deserves". The rhetoric characterizing the proposal and making implications by way of the rhetoric is unnecessary and usually doesn't help. Some think it nudges the other party but it also can drive things the other way.

This could also just be a "cover" for the coming assault on Rafah. You make a proposal that you know has been turned down before. Then when it gets rejected again you say "hey it's not our fault, we tried" and then it's bombs away. I don't think it was ever the intent of either party to do anything but fight on with each other. I think the "lulls" are planned rearmament periods by all sides. I know that sounds pessimistic but when you go deep and read a great amount of the actions of the parties back and forth over the many, many decades you come away finding little in the way of sincere, honorable conduct towards each other. Not at the individual citizen level so much as the ones in power. Seems to be the SOP here baked in over history to fight till the sun burns away.