▲ 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
[–] 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