Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line

    • ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • ???@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      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)

        • ???@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything.

          This is why you need to read the rest of an article.

          • mwguy@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            • ???@lemmy.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              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.

              • mwguy@infosec.pub
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                I mean future articles covering it have said things like “Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected” for exactly this reason.

                • ???@lemmy.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there.

                  • mwguy@infosec.pub
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    “Ceasefire-for-hostages”

                    Would you assume that they’re asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory?