The person who could make that decision did not, and they proposed a new agreement, which is not accepting the proposal put forth. If only Sinwar agreed to it, then Hamas would actually have accepted it. But the person in the article who said they accepted it was not able to make that decision because this decision was up to Sinwar.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-17-2024/

MR MILLER: The – now, there may – the – so it – so here’s the difference. Over the past few weeks, there have been no negotiations for an end to the war because Sinwar has refused to negotiate. There’s been no path to ending this war because Sinwar has refused to talk about releasing the hostages or coming to a ceasefire. We now see an opportunity with him being removed from the battlefield, being removed from the leadership of Hamas, and we want to seize that opportunity.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-october-9-2024/

MR MILLER: So we continue – we’re in conversation with them. We would like to get back to the point of getting to a ceasefire, which would set the stages for an end to the war and would help answer this question about what the future looks like and what the day after looks like for the situation in Gaza. As I’ve said over the past few weeks, Sinwar has been unwilling to engage in any meaningful way in the ceasefire talks. And I think it is probably reasonable to conclude he’s watching what is happening in north, he’s watching Iran’s attacks against Israel, and looking and thinking maybe he’s about to get what he’s always wanted, which is a full-scale regional war, and that may have changed his calculation. But either way, he ought to return to the talks because it is manifestly in the interest of the Palestinian people to get to a ceasefire in Gaza.

https://www.state.gov/briefings/department-press-briefing-august-7-2024/

MR MILLER: I don’t think there is. I really don’t think – it’s what the Secretary said yesterday, obviously, and I think is accurate, which is it doesn’t really change the situation. Two things can be true: Number one, Sinwar is a brutal terrorist with blood on his hands, including the blood of American citizens, and not just American citizens but citizens of many countries around the world. Let’s remember, it’s not just citizens of Israel that were killed on October 7th; there were citizens of multiple countries, as I said, including the United States. That is true.

It is also true that he continues to be the person that calls the shots for Hamas. And that was true before the death of the leader of the – the political leader of Hamas; it continues to be true today. Ultimately, it was Sinwar that had the final decision-making authority, as we can see throughout these negotiations, on whether to accept a ceasefire or not.

So yes, Sinwar absolutely ought to be brought to justice. We believe that, for the – his significant acts of terrorism. And we also think he ought to accept the ceasefire deal that is manifestly in the interests of the Palestinian people as well as, of course, in the interests of Israel and the broader region.