Gershon baskin called steve witkof evening on September 6th i told steve witkof about the 8 points and hamas wants clear documents so they can decide

1. What Baskin and the press say happened: a back‑channel and a document

Multiple outlets relay Baskin’s account that he acted as a conduit: he was in touch with senior Hamas figures, handed them a draft on Sept. 5–6 that he and Hamas had written and that Steve Witkoff edited and approved, and that the U.S. envoy’s principles were conveyed to Hamas via Baskin ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Baskin’s own writings and interviews reiterate he communicated regularly with Witkoff and that he gave Hamas documents they could use to decide ^{[4] [5]}.

2. How mainstream outlets framed those claims

The Jerusalem Post, Yahoo/KAN reporting and the Times of Israel present the basic chain: Witkoff prepared principles, Baskin transmitted them to Hamas, and Hamas sought clear, written terms to evaluate the deal ^{[2] [6] [3]}. These outlets attribute the claims primarily to Baskin and to reporting by Israeli media; they do not publish U.S. State Department cables or a unified official record of the handoff in the material provided here ^{[6] [2] [3]}.

3. Baskin’s own public record: consistency and emphasis

Baskin’s Substack, interviews and op‑eds repeatedly describe his role as an intermediary between Witkoff and Hamas and depict him as conveying drafts and urging attention to sensitive points (bodies, hostage phases, etc.). He states Witkoff sent messages and approved edits, and he credits Witkoff and the Trump administration with driving the process ^{[4] [5] [7]}. Those are first‑person accounts, which news outlets cite rather than corroborate with third‑party documentation ^{[4] [1]}.

4. What the supplied sources do not show: independent documentary proof

Available sources do not include primary U.S. government documents, authenticated direct communications from Witkoff, or a Hamas-published text confirming the exact draft language Baskin describes; the coverage rests on Baskin’s statements and reporting that cites him ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Therefore independent confirmation of the precise timing, wording of the “8 points” or that Witkoff phoned Baskin on a specific evening on Sept. 6 is not found in current reporting ^{[1] [4]}.

5. Competing interpretations and implicit agendas

Supporters of the deal’s architects present Baskin’s narrative as proof of effective back‑channel diplomacy and credit Witkoff and Trump for pushing both sides ^{[2] [4] [8]}. Critics might view reliance on a single intermediary’s account as weak corroboration; that critique is implicit in the lack of official documentary confirmation in the supplied material ^{[1] [3]}. Baskin’s long career as a negotiator and his self‑presentation (Substack, interviews) give him credibility but also create an interest in framing events to emphasize his role ^{[4] [9]}.

6. Why “clear documents” matter to Hamas and negotiators

Sources cite Hamas wanting explicit, written terms to assess and instruct its political and military wings; Baskin relays that delivering clear, edited documents (rather than verbal assurances) was necessary for Hamas to decide. That fits standard negotiation practice: written texts give principals something concrete to evaluate and present to stakeholders ^{[1] [4]}.

7. Bottom line and how to read these claims

The supplied reporting consistently attributes to Baskin that he transmitted draft principles to Hamas — edited by Witkoff — in early September and that Hamas wanted clear documents to decide ^{[1] [2] [3]}. However, the materials provided are largely Baskin‑centric and media summaries of his statements; independent documentary proof from U.S., Israeli, Qatari or Hamas official records is not included in these sources ^{[1] [3]}. Readers should treat Baskin’s account as a credible insider narrative with corroborating media citations, while noting the absence of primary official records in the supplied reporting ^{[4] [2]}.