Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say
Netanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources say
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
Israeli PM said to have turned down proposal in early talks and continues to take tough line
You're viewing a single thread.
For some of the hostages. Not all of the hostages.
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.
Let's just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options.
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.
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.
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?
I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people.
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.
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
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)
The headline implies otherwise.
The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything.
This is why you need to read the rest of an article.
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.
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.
I mean future articles covering it have said things like "Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected" for exactly this reason.
Sure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there.
"Ceasefire-for-hostages"
Would you assume that they're asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory?