in ,

Trump and Netanyahu Deny Fabricated Cease-fire Reports

Storylines focusing on allegged ties between former President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu regarding a cease-fire deal have been making waves in the media. However, significant doubts have been raised concerning their authenticity. High-ranking aides close to both Mr. Trump and Mr. Netanyahu have flatly denied that such a conversation occurred.

Esteemed PBS journalist, Judy Woodruff, had inadvertently amplified these speculations. She publicly suggested on air that a conversation about the cease-fire had transpired between the two statesmen. Soon after, she was met with a storm of denials from both camps, leading to a memorable turnaround.

Support Trump NOW with this FREE FLAG!

A dubious report by Axios had initially breathed life into these rumors, suggesting a telephone conversation on the cease-fire deal had taken place between Trump and Netanyahu. The office of Mr. Netanyahu was quick to shut down these allegations, maintaining no such conversation happened. In the face of this strong denial, Axios updated its coverage to reflect the Prime Minister’s firm stance.

Interestingly, the narrative resurfaced when Judy Woodruff referenced the discredited Axios report on air during a PBS broadcast. She propounded that Trump had actively reached out to Netanyahu, advising him against agreeing to a deal as it was believed it would advantage the Democratic Presidential nominee, Kamala Harris.

Upon realizing the error in her citation, Judy Woodruff took prompt action to remedy her misstep. She issued a statement acknowledging her on-air slip and labeling her reference to the contested reports from Axios and Reuters as a ‘mistake’.

Woodruff further clarified her position in the statement, explaining that due to the dynamic nature of live TV, she had unintentionally repeated Axios’ debunked reporting. She admitted not having been aware at the time of the thorough rebuttals issued by both the Trump and Netanyahu camps. She followed with a heartfelt apology for her oversight.

Former President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, notable figures in their respective nations, last held an in-person meeting at the illustrious Trump Mar-a-Lago club located in plush Palm Beach, Florida on July 26.

This meeting was largely seen as an attempt to mend their rapport, which had reportedly soured after Netanyahu congratulated President Biden upon his electoral victory in 2020, a well-publicized event Trump remains reluctant to duly acknowledge.

Trump’s campaign communications director, Steven Cheung, refuted notions suggesting a cease-fire discussion took place during their meeting. Cheung espoused that Trump only urged Netanyahu ‘to get the war over with’, dismissing any contradictory claim as a fabrication of facts.

Echoing Cheung’s sentiments, Netanyahu’s representative, Omer Dostri, tagged the assertions about Trump advising the prime minister to hold off on a deal as an outright ‘fabrication’. Dostri’s sharp denial further reinforced the narrative that no such conversation took place between the two leaders.

Despite the prevailing denials, Axios persisted in its narrative, citing ‘U.S. sources’ who maintained that an August 24 telephonic conversation about the cease-fire transpired between Trump and Netanyahu. Their claim poised Trump’s perceived intervention as a push for Netanyahu to accept the proposed deal.

Reuters, another global news outlet, hopped on to the bandwagon, creating a news report centered around Axios’s shaky account. It reiterated the notion of a potential conversation on the cease-fire without presenting substantial evidence to back it.

A source close to Donald Trump categorically denied this alleged exchange. The source maintained that, following their July 26 rendezvous, no further direct dialogue had been exchanged between the former president and Prime Minister Netanyahu.

In stark contrast to the litany of fallacious reports clouding the media, the truth remains marred in controversy. All stated proof of this theorised discussion remain unsupported, and the denial from both parties involved stays unflinching.