this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
413 points (96.0% liked)

World News

38563 readers
2484 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 18 points 10 months ago (2 children)

For some of the hostages. Not all of the hostages.

[–] ahornsirup@sopuli.xyz 7 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Let's just keep bombing the shit outta Gaza then I guess. No other options.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I can't believe I have to say this, but hamas ≠ Palestinians, Just like Israel's government ≠ Jewish people.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] T00l_shed@lemmy.world -1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months 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

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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)

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The headline implies otherwise.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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 -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub -1 points 10 months 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?

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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?

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] snek@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Just like you would have

Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better.

[–] mwguy@infosec.pub 0 points 10 months ago

If you'd have thought a different amount, you'd have said it when i pointed it out.