Blinken orders crackdown on Israel-Hamas leaks
Source: Politico
05/19/2024 04:07 PM EDT
Secretary of State Antony Blinken directed his top staff to crack down on leaks about diplomacy relating to the Israel-Hamas war, saying clearly that he was “angry” with the constant stream of press reports revealing sensitive information.
Not only did classified materials make it into press reports, he chided State leadership earlier this month in a small team meeting, but also fresh proposals to broker a cease-fire and secure the release of hostages held by Hamas. Those leaks made tricky negotiations even harder, he said, and eroded trust within the State Department that documents or details of closed-door conversations wouldn’t find their way to a reporter.
In the meeting, Blinken urged those who report directly to him to help plug the leaks, particularly those related to the conflict in Gaza, according to three State Department officials. One of the State officials, granted anonymity to detail yet another private discussion, said Blinken’s message has since been sternly delivered throughout the department.
Matthew Miller, the State Department’s top spokesperson, didn’t directly confirm the details of the discussion but said in a statement: “The secretary has been clear that leaks about sensitive diplomatic discussions don’t advance the interests of the United States and can make it difficult to engage in the sort of broad internal consultations that enrich the policymaking process.”
Read more: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/05/19/blinken-crackdown-israel-hamas-leaks-00158807
= new reply since forum marked as read
were floating details about some of the negotiations that were going on between the Israeli government and Hamas with Qatar & Egypt as brokers. 
Apparently Blinken considered that info a "leak" (note, many of those articles were citing "anonymous sources" ).
But having been through negotiations training multiple times and having done such (as my worksite's AFGE Local Steward, VP, and then President over the years, when we were re-doing a site union contract), I think the issue had to do with revealing some of the back and forth proposals (possibly before "the other side" had even seen them).