▲ 413 ▼ Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say (www.theguardian.com) submitted 2 years ago by snek@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world 142 comments fedilink hide all child comments Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 18 points 2 years ago (2 children) For some of the hostages. Not all of the hostages. permalink fedilink source hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which is a very important distinction that people here seem to overlook. If you give in to a terrorist's and hostage taker's demands you're inviting more terrorism and hostage-taking because it worked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let's just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, at this point there aren't any other options. Because the last major conflict in the region was 5 years ago in 2018, there was a real feeling around the world that Hamas/Gaza had "turned a corner" and was open to living in peace with its neighbors. That's why you had seen rising calls from the West, even the US, calling for a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. And there was a real hope that maybe covid had "reset" the expectations of both sides in the same way that the end of the Cold War seemingly had. But it looks like Hamas had no intention of that. Instead they unleashed an attack and had five years of rocket build up behind it instead of the normal two. At this point I don't know how many more times we need to Hamas the show that it's uninterested and even the ideal concept of peace. Even Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, a fellow terrorist organization; seems to have the ability to respect a border with Israel. So at this point yes tearing him off down even with the understanding that a new terrorist like organization might take its place is preferable to the status quo. Because there is a reasonable chance that even a new terrorist organization could respect a border, and not attack its neighbors. And honestly if a Taliban-esque group ends up taking over it probably be a better outcome for the day-to-day of Gazans. That's f***** up as that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn't help anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) And yet nowhere did anyone claim otherswise 😕 nor does it improve the situation or change how Bibi is viewed now (judging by how you phrased this comment) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline implies otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything. This is why you need to read the rest of an article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) The hostages are a group that's assumed to be complete. That's like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give "your tires" back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn't say otherwise. If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it's clear why you wouldn't do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) Which is a very important distinction that people here seem to overlook. If you give in to a terrorist's and hostage taker's demands you're inviting more terrorism and hostage-taking because it worked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let's just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, at this point there aren't any other options. Because the last major conflict in the region was 5 years ago in 2018, there was a real feeling around the world that Hamas/Gaza had "turned a corner" and was open to living in peace with its neighbors. That's why you had seen rising calls from the West, even the US, calling for a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. And there was a real hope that maybe covid had "reset" the expectations of both sides in the same way that the end of the Cold War seemingly had. But it looks like Hamas had no intention of that. Instead they unleashed an attack and had five years of rocket build up behind it instead of the normal two. At this point I don't know how many more times we need to Hamas the show that it's uninterested and even the ideal concept of peace. Even Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, a fellow terrorist organization; seems to have the ability to respect a border with Israel. So at this point yes tearing him off down even with the understanding that a new terrorist like organization might take its place is preferable to the status quo. Because there is a reasonable chance that even a new terrorist organization could respect a border, and not attack its neighbors. And honestly if a Taliban-esque group ends up taking over it probably be a better outcome for the day-to-day of Gazans. That's f***** up as that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn't help anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Let's just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, at this point there aren't any other options. Because the last major conflict in the region was 5 years ago in 2018, there was a real feeling around the world that Hamas/Gaza had "turned a corner" and was open to living in peace with its neighbors. That's why you had seen rising calls from the West, even the US, calling for a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. And there was a real hope that maybe covid had "reset" the expectations of both sides in the same way that the end of the Cold War seemingly had. But it looks like Hamas had no intention of that. Instead they unleashed an attack and had five years of rocket build up behind it instead of the normal two. At this point I don't know how many more times we need to Hamas the show that it's uninterested and even the ideal concept of peace. Even Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, a fellow terrorist organization; seems to have the ability to respect a border with Israel. So at this point yes tearing him off down even with the understanding that a new terrorist like organization might take its place is preferable to the status quo. Because there is a reasonable chance that even a new terrorist organization could respect a border, and not attack its neighbors. And honestly if a Taliban-esque group ends up taking over it probably be a better outcome for the day-to-day of Gazans. That's f***** up as that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn't help anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, at this point there aren't any other options. Because the last major conflict in the region was 5 years ago in 2018, there was a real feeling around the world that Hamas/Gaza had "turned a corner" and was open to living in peace with its neighbors. That's why you had seen rising calls from the West, even the US, calling for a freeze on new settlements in the West Bank. And there was a real hope that maybe covid had "reset" the expectations of both sides in the same way that the end of the Cold War seemingly had. But it looks like Hamas had no intention of that. Instead they unleashed an attack and had five years of rocket build up behind it instead of the normal two. At this point I don't know how many more times we need to Hamas the show that it's uninterested and even the ideal concept of peace. Even Hezbollah, in southern Lebanon, a fellow terrorist organization; seems to have the ability to respect a border with Israel. So at this point yes tearing him off down even with the understanding that a new terrorist like organization might take its place is preferable to the status quo. Because there is a reasonable chance that even a new terrorist organization could respect a border, and not attack its neighbors. And honestly if a Taliban-esque group ends up taking over it probably be a better outcome for the day-to-day of Gazans. That's f***** up as that is. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn't help anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly all this will do is infuriate more Gazans who may have lost everything, and will want vengeance. Continuity the cycle. I get Hamas is an issue but making Gazans suffer for it doesn't help anyone. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago (1 child) How much more angry can they get? Like they're angry enough to behead children, and cheer raped corpses through their streets. What more do they have to offer? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Hamas didn't cheer those corpses, common Palestinians did. There's extensive polling in the region and Hamas enjoys widespread support. It's believed that if elections happened today in the West Bank that Hamas would win. While Hamas might not represent the Palestinian diaspora, they definitely represent the Palestinians located in the Gaza Strip. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) Who did extensive polling? Who says hamas enjoys widespread support? Wide spread support in what? Do you believe that Hamas would allow a proper free election? The amount of children in Gaza, are they being represented here? How many Palestinians were out cheering in the street? When Israelis do it regarding bombs being dropped on gaza, does that make it ok? Does that represent enough Israelis to paint them with the same brush? E - for source https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/20/israelis-cheer-gaza-bombing permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) And yet nowhere did anyone claim otherswise 😕 nor does it improve the situation or change how Bibi is viewed now (judging by how you phrased this comment) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline implies otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything. This is why you need to read the rest of an article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) The hostages are a group that's assumed to be complete. That's like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give "your tires" back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn't say otherwise. If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it's clear why you wouldn't do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) The headline implies otherwise. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything. This is why you need to read the rest of an article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) The hostages are a group that's assumed to be complete. That's like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give "your tires" back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn't say otherwise. If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it's clear why you wouldn't do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything. This is why you need to read the rest of an article. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) The hostages are a group that's assumed to be complete. That's like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give "your tires" back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn't say otherwise. If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it's clear why you wouldn't do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) The hostages are a group that's assumed to be complete. That's like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give "your tires" back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn't say otherwise. If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it's clear why you wouldn't do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago* (1 child) I think this is dumb. The title didn't say all hostages. The article didn't say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (1 child) I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 2 years ago (2 children) "Ceasefire-for-hostages" Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] snek@lemmy.world [S] 1 point 2 years ago* [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I wouldn't assume anything. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) That's not the truth. When you hear the title: "Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say" Do you assume that it's 40% of the hostages for a ceasefire im 40% of the territory? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child) I did. That's why I pointed out the misleading headline as a comment. Had I not read the article I would have assumed that it was a ceasefire in 100% of the territory for 100% of the Hostages that Israel turned down. Just like you would have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] snek@lemmy.world [S] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child) Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 2 years ago If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out. permalink fedilink source parent