LinkerbaanJournalism
Franconian_NomadWell, what does the article say?
That the deal Hamas agreed to is a new version of the deal Israel hadnt yet seen.
So this Tameem is full of shit?
TrickDacyWtf is a “Tameem”?
A tall meme with a speech impediment? 🤷
This post is a screenshot of a social media post. The username of the OP is Tameem.
I noticed that afterwards, but I still prefer my explanation 😉
It’s certainly a good assumption!😆
PugJesusThe guy making the incorrect comment in the OP.
PotatoesFallthe weird thing is that Israel’s government is being confusing - the ceasefire is meant to be lasting but they have vowed to invade Rafah anyway until Hamas is toppled.
Sounds to me like Netanyahus government wants to trade hostages to appease protesters and voters, and then continue flattening Rafah anyway.
The deal has always been a temporary ceasefire in exchange of hostages.
I’m just going off what it said in the article
The deal Israel wants, anyway.
Yeah, because giving up your only leverage permanently in exchange for what basically amounts to pressing pause on the genocide is SUCH a good deal!
Hamas might be despicable terrorists, but presumably they’re not total idiots!
That’s the worst deal since the Dutch sold New Amsterdam (now New York) to the English for a bunch of nutmeg! Nutmeg was hella expensive back then 😛
Yeah, because giving up your only leverage permanently in exchange for what basically amounts to pressing pause on the genocide is SUCH a good deal!
It’s not very good leverage, considering that Israel is ready to finish up its genocide regardless.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
The fact that the Israeli government is acting in bad faith and doesn’t actually care about the hostages doesn’t mean that the Israeli people don’t care.
Okay, but leverage is typically supposed to be against the one you’re negotiating or dealing with, and Hamas is quite clearly up against the Israeli government at this point in time.
The fact that people who aren’t genocidal maniacs desperately want the hostages to be freed means that getting them back would be a huge get for the Israeli government, worth many times more than a temporary truce is.
I don’t see how that follows. The Israeli government is quite clear in its goals - it has killed hostages on its own initiative. It cares only insofar as it would look bad to not negotiate for hostage a release.
A ceasefire is far more important to Hamas than Israel. Israel wants to keep hammering Gaza. If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
If the negotiations fail, then the answer isn’t “Well, now we can use our leverage!”, it’s “Fuck, our only leverage has gotten us literally nothing”.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
Which is basically what Israel is offering. They’re asking for the political points from getting the hostages back and will invade and/or bomb the shit out of Rafah no matter what.
They’re offering a 40-day ceasefire, which would be more beneficial to Hamas than to Israel. It’s not inherently ridiculous for Hamas to accept in exchange for the hostages. The issue is that Israel isn’t serious, and will dance around with terms so they can claim Hamas rejected it again.
Or to simplify: giving everything in exchange for basically nothing is a bad deal. Hamas knows it, the Israeli government knows it and the NYT knows it.
But it’s not everything. The hostages are minor at most, and leverage unutilized is as worthless as not having leverage at all. Furthermore, all negotiations are done by the relative positions of the negotiators - if Hamas wants to hold out for a better deal, that’s certainly a valid strategic decision. But it must also be recognized that it is quite probably long odds since Israel is overwhelmingly in the better position at this point in time.
Once Rafah is taken, this whole miserable affair is going to wind up. And almost certainly not in a good way.
The latter two are just gaslighting people about it to pretend that the Israeli government is being anything approaching reasonable.
But neither the article nor the headline have the tone you’re talking about.
They’re offering a 40-day ceasefire, which would be more beneficial to Hamas than to Israel.
What are you basing that assumption on?
Edit: come to think of it, the opposite is very much the case: a 40 day pause will take the international pressure off Israel long enough that the media moves onto other things. Meanwhile, Palestinians are just as dead 40 days later but with a fraction of people still paying attention.
It’s not inherently ridiculous for Hamas to accept in exchange for the hostages
Yeah it is. It’s basically the equivalent of being broke and jobless and selling your house for $5000. Sure, you can pay rent for a while with the $5000, but it’s much less than the house is worth and when the money’s spent, you’re homeless AND just as penniless as you started out.
Only instead of a house, it’s tens if not hundreds of thousands in civilian lives.
The issue is that Israel isn’t serious, and will dance around with terms so they can claim Hamas rejected it again
It’s both: if they were serious, they wouldn’t make such a ridiculously bad offer.
Israel is overwhelmingly in the better position at this point in time.
I wouldn’t on that persisting, though, as public opinion both domestically and internationally is increasingly worsening for the Israeli government as sympathy for their victims grow and outrage at the many atrocities spreads.
Once Rafah is taken, this whole miserable affair is going to wind up
Nope. The Israeli government won’t stop at that.
But neither the article nor the headline have the tone you’re talking about.
Because the article and headline are muddling the waters after Israel has already (almost immediately) rejected the deal. Gaslighting isn’t always about tone.
What are you basing that assumption on?
Too many factors to count. If you really want to get into a discussion about why Hamas benefits from a ceasefire more than Israel, we can - but I would prefer to keep this conversation on the issue of the negotiations as a whole.
If nothing else - the fact that Hamas has been trying to get a ceasefire deal out of the hostages and signalled a conditional willingness to accept a temporary ceasefire (though not on terms Israel finds acceptable) suggests very strongly that Hamas sees a ceasefire as beneficial to them.
Yeah it is. It’s basically the equivalent of being broke and jobless and selling your house for $5000. Sure, you can pay rent for a while with the $5000, but it’s much less than the house is worth and when the money’s spent, you’re homeless AND just as penniless as you started out.
Only instead of a house, it’s tens if not hundreds of thousands in civilian lives.
Okay. So you don’t sell the house. The house is foreclosed on. You get nothing.
What is the benefit?
I wouldn’t on that persisting, though, as public opinion both domestically and internationally is increasingly worsening for the Israeli government as sympathy for their victims grow and outrage at the many atrocities spreads.
Take a look at the Israeli government. Not the concept of Israel as a rational (if amoral) world actor. Take a look at who is making the decisions right now, and how their grip on power is still firm both by legal means (the Knesset, short of snap elections, will not be replaced anytime soon) and by manipulation of Israeli popular opinion (the majority of Israelis still overwhelmingly get their news from Israeli sources, which have engaged in a monstrous amount of self-censorship regarding the genocide in Gaza after Oct 7).
With that in mind, what, in the next few months, do you expect public opinion in foreign countries to do to shift those decision-makers? Realistically speaking?
Nope. The Israeli government won’t stop at that.
You misunderstand. When I say “Wind up”, I don’t mean “The genocide stops”. I mean “The genocide rapidly reaches completion.” Once Rafah is taken, Israeli occupation of the Gaza strip is total once more, and they’ve already got massive ‘humanitarian’ camps to use as an excuse to starve and deport Palestinians.
Because the article and headline are muddling the waters after Israel has already (almost immediately) rejected the deal. Gaslighting isn’t always about tone.
Israel hasn’t formally rejected the terms yet. It could very well just be posturing, especially since Israel sent negotiators back to Egypt after the announcement of Hamas’s acceptance of the new deal. I think more likely it’s stalling for time, but it’s far from certain.
I mean yes and no. Have you seen the protests in Israel? Yeah those aren't because the Israeli public suddenly cares about human rights; they're equal parts because Netanyahu wants to get rid of democracy in Israel and because of his disregard for the hostages' lives in his assault on Gaza, so they are doing their job. And let's remember that their real role hasn't come yet; these hostages are there for after the "war" ends because without any hostages Israel will be turning Gaza into beachfront real estate.
And let’s remember that their real role hasn’t come yet; these hostages are there for after the “war” ends because without any hostages Israel will be turning Gaza into beachfront real estate.
How many hostages have the IDF killed already? Do you really think that if turning Gaza into beachfront real estate and the handful of hostages that are left will be enough to stay the Israeli far-right? Hamas already released 150 hostages once just to acquire a four-day ceasefire. You really think that the hostages are being held for when the “war” ends? Do you really think they’re that valuable? If you were in Israel’s position, with Israel’s goals and morality, would you stop for the hostages? When the “war” ends, the IDF will either have taken them or buried them under the rubble like every other civilian in the strip.
The hostages are not the trump card people here seem to think they are, and considering Hamas’s negotiating attitude towards them, they are far more aware of that than people here, who seem to want to think that the hostages are the major thing ‘keeping’ Israel from completing their genocide, when the fact is that they’re well on their way, as though the hostages were not an issue at all. The only concession that was realistic was the release of prisoners and a temporary ceasefire; the idea that Israel, which has yearned for this genocide for decades, will suddenly stop for hostages they’ve already shot and bombed to death, and an unknown amount of whom are already dead, is insane.
Hostages do not have the value people here are telling themselves they do. Certainly not less-than-half the hostages they had a few short months ago, God knows how many have died for lack of medical treatment or getting an Israeli bomb stoving their head in. These hundred-and-something (if that) hostages do not have that value in the context of a war that has already claimed thousands of Israeli lives and tens of thousands of Palestinian lives, in a conflict that has been at fever-pitch, at minimum, for 20 years, more realistically 30, and arguably the last 70 (though I would argue that the phases of the genocide are different enough to be counted as separate attempts at genocide over the full period of Israel’s existence).
I just don’t understand how people on here are coming to this conclusion. I can’t even say it’s wishful thinking, unless imaginations on here regarding what they wish for are severely limited. It reminds me of when my grandfather would read a news article, immediately come to an impulsive conclusion, and then refuse to change it for any reason. “Hostages are invaluable” is a gut reaction from people who live largely in the West, in lands at peace, by actors who make much more limited demands, and by governments which give more of a damn about PR than the fucking Israelis. And fuck, man, even then - after 9/11, how long did the US go with “No negotiations with terrorists”? Do you think Israeli resolve to finish up their genocide is less than the post-9/11 paranoia and rage in the US?
I really don’t know how the people on Lemmy are approaching this the way they are. It is utterly detached from reality. It’s like showing that you have two-of-a-kind and then going all-in. The hostages are a two-of-a-kind. If the hostages are the key point, Hamas is fucked; and, as much as I despise Hamas, at this moment in time that also means Palestine is fucked.
Okay attitudes towards the hostages can be unrealistic, but I think you're missing a few key points.
First of all, the hostages aren't meant to prevent Israel from completing its genocide. That's just not the reality on the ground. They're meant to pull the negotiations in Hamas's favor. What I meant by "to prevent Israel from turning Gaza into beachfront property" was "so the eventual ceasefire agreement doesn't have Gaza becoming beachfront property as part of it". Again, "as part of the ceasefire agreement". The only thing the hostages are doing now is losing Netanyahu face at home; I'm 100% aware that they're not holding back the IDF (Hannibal directive anyone?). That said, they have been a central part of negotiation between Hamas and Israel. They're not the end all be all of genocide enders, but they're very much valuable because the Israeli government can't sacrifice Israeli civilians' lives for a war half the population agrees doesn't have a clearly defined goal. Or, well, they can, but the protests a few days ago show why that's a bad idea.
Hamas already released 150 hostages once just to acquire a four-day ceasefire.
Correction: So technically it was a week but that aside, the idea was for a pause that would become "something more enduring" in Biden's words. It didn't work and that's why Hamas is now not accepting anything less than a permanent ceasefire. I doubt they went into the deal expecting that it'd end in a week with no progress.
Do you think Israeli resolve to finish up their genocide is less than the post-9/11 paranoia and rage in the US?
In a way, yes. Again, remember the protests from a few days ago. The Israeli public is pissed that the hostages aren't coming back home. This is half the reason they're opposing the war over there. Meanwhile the genocide, while definitely having their blessing, is a more top-down affair. Could be me misreading the situation, but it seems to me like Israelis are more invested in the hostages' safe return than in this particular genocide. At least enough of them are that people are calling on Netanyahu to accept the ceasefire deal.
They’re not the end all be all of genocide enders, but they’re very much valuable because the Israeli government can’t sacrifice Israeli civilians’ lives for a war half the population agrees doesn’t have a clearly defined goal. Or, well, they can, but the protests a few days ago show why that’s a bad idea.
The protests are out of frustration with the government not doing more to return the hostages - but negotiation isn’t the only way to return the hostages. Force is also an option - and judging both by Israel’s previous actions and the invasion of Rafah, seems to be the Israeli government’s chosen route. And, purely strategically, it would be hard to say it’s the wrong decision.
Correction: So technically it was a week but that aside, the idea was for a pause that would become “something more enduring” in Biden’s words. It didn’t work and that’s why Hamas is now not accepting anything less than a permanent ceasefire. I doubt they went into the deal expecting that it’d end in a week with no progress.
The idea that the pause would become more enduring was wishful thinking after it was agreed to, and by Biden, not the parties involved, who needed to seem like he was trying.
and it’s natural to think it will have more when Israel is more serious about trying to end the fighting (which will happen eventually; they can’t go on like this forever (hopefully)).
That’s the thing - they don’t need to go on forever. Gaza is almost entirely occupied now. Once Rafah is under Israeli control, where more in Gaza can offer serious resistance? Fuck, man, they’re already building massive camps to ‘move’ the population to. Where is Hamas going to operate, to keep these hostages when that happens? And if Israel kills half of the hostages in the process of rescuing them, do you think that will lose Netanyahu any supporters who aren’t already against him? On the contrary, they’ll spin it as “Look at what the terrorists made us do!”, and if the Israeli left doesn’t swallow it, the centre almot certainly will.
They’re not nearly valuable enough to call for a permanant ceasefire. Honestly, I’d say I’m surprised that a 40 day ceasefire is on the table for them - not now, with so little left to occupy - except that I don’t believe the Israeli offer is in good faith. Their value was never extremely high - half of it was spent earlier - and their value is reduced with every Hamas-controlled location that is overrun. Realistically, they’re not worth a permanant ceasefire to Israel, protests or not.
So you're making good points generally, but the protests I'm referring to clearly demanded a ceasefire so the hostages can return. They explicitly said that they wanted Netanyahu to make a ceasefire agreement and return the hostages.
Israeli society, already working on some 30+ (or 70+ depending on how you count it) years of dehumanization of Palestinians, has been rocked into a frenzy by the fear created by October 7, and by the abhorrent self-censorship of their own media on the subject of the attacks on Gaza. A large proportion of them would still be upset if it was a ‘permanent’ ceasefire, and very few would be upset if their relatives were retrieved by force rather than by negotiation. Most of them are desperate for their families back, and to feel safe from the prospect being held captive. As I said - there are more ways than negotiation to achieve this.
Thank you for being willing to discuss this. Oftentimes I’m frustrated by running up a brick wall of principles. It’s not that they’re bad principles, but I’m generally interested in… well, as Bismarck described politics, “the art of the possible, the attainable, the second-best”.
Israeli society, already working on some 30+ (or 70+ depending on how you count it) years of dehumanization of Palestinians,
Yeah make that a hundred.
A large proportion of them would still be upset if it was a ‘permanent’ ceasefire,
The protesters are actually calling for a ceasefire and have been for a while so at least it's not as one-sided as you seem to think. No idea about the ratios though.
As I said - there are more ways than negotiation to achieve this.
Yes, but none will actually work. How many hostages has Israel retrieved outside of negotiations? From a purely strategic point of view force is not working if your goal is to retrieve the hostages (which we know it's not). Israelis aren't upset because the IDF is attempting to retrieve the hostages using force; they're upset because force can't work without sacrificing a significant fraction of those hostages as both we and the Israeli public have learned in the past few months.
grrgyleThat’s the worst deal since the Dutch sold New Amsterdam (now New York) to the English for a bunch of nutmeg! Nutmeg was hella expensive back then 😛
I bet the person who got all the nutmeg thought it was a great deal
Yeah, William III, Prince of Orange was fucking STOKED about how much better his Ontbijtkoek became!
The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
Looks like the headline matches reality.
You keep spewing totalitarian cacophony, you crazy diamond.
Linkerbaan vs PugJesus. Linkerbaan ratio is 5, PugJesus ratio is 2. Draw is 1. Results at 10pm.
On the serious note: An accessible link would be appreciated.
Wayback machine cuts off early, but this is what it gives:
web.archive.org/…/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-tal…
The announcement by Hamas on Monday that it had accepted terms of a cease-fire added to the uncertainty that began over the weekend, when officials said that the armed group and Israel had reached an impasse after months of talks.
As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets from Rafah, their last stronghold in Gaza, killing four Israeli soldiers. The following morning, Israel announced a mass evacuation of areas in Rafah, escalating fears that the military would soon begin a long-anticipated invasion of the crowded city.
Hours later, Hamas suddenly announced that its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had accepted a cease-fire proposal based on a plan proffered by Egypt and Qatar, which have been mediating the negotiations with Israel. The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
While Israel and its main ally, the United States, said they were reviewing the proposal Hamas had agreed to, the public statements by the two sides in the war suggest that they remain far apart on key issues needed to reach a truce. Here is a look at those differences.
Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire. Israel wants a temporary truce. The two sides are stuck on a fundamental question: will this cease-fire be a temporary pause to allow an exchange of hostages for prisoners or a long-term end to the fighting that would leave Hamas in power?
Israel insists on a temporary cease-fire, saying it will keep fighting afterward with the eventual aim of toppling Hamas’s rule in Gaza. Hamas demands a permanent cease-fire and vows to remain in power there.
AP is saying the same thing.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.
mozzAl Jazeera: Here are all the details of what Hamas agreed to
Washington Post: Here's a quick overview of the plan, and details of what Israel doesn't like about it
BBC: Here's a quick overview and Israel's reaction
NYT: OMG who can even say what might be in this proposal. Like the flying dutchman, it is an elusive and mysterious beast, and we need to wait for the light of the full moon to even glimpse its outline. Plus you know, Hamas lies all the time.
Also NYT: the "armed group" (i.e. Hamas)
Also NYT: "As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets" (motherfucker the Israelis are "militants" and "fighting", too) ... "killing four Israeli soldiers" (oh, so they attacked the soldiers in Gaza attacking them? I see the problem -- they should have blown up an Israeli hospital or university; then apparently you'd be fine with it.)
I genuinely can't continue because I'm getting for real pissed off about it. But I think it's safe to assume the whole fucking article is written this way. I actually started paying again for a subscription to the NYT because I like journalism, but I think I may cancel it and send them a short note explaining why, like an angry middle-aged white woman storming out of a Starbucks.
NYT: OMG it’s so uncertain
It literally is uncertain. Like, that’s what this development has created for those of us observing.
(motherfucker the Israelis are “militants” and “fighting”, too)
“Militants” is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are ‘off the books’ of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it’s not unreasonable to call them militants.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that's what this development has created for those of us observing.
My point is that what Hamas agreed to isn't uncertain (at least at this point). IDK, maybe there's some timestamp issue where NYT published the OP article before it was clear... but as of last night (after the timestamp on the Al Jazeera article laying out everything in detail), the NYT wrote "Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages Includes Some Who Are Dead". I still haven't seen any NYT article that simply lays out what the basic agreement details are; they seem to have wanted, with the "dead hostages" article, to just seize on an I-guess-technically-accurate data point and present it to make Hamas sound duplicitous and deadly, and then call it a day, with their readers still uninformed on the broad factual details of what was happening with the cease-fire talks.
"Militants" is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are 'off the books' of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it's not unreasonable to call them militants.
From Wordnik:
from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.
- adjective Fighting or warring.
- adjective Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause.
- noun A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.
from The Century Dictionary.
- Fighting; warring; engaged in warfare; pertaining to warfare or conflict.
- Having a combative character or tendency; warlike.
from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
- adjective disposed to warfare or hard-line policies
- adjective engaged in war
- noun a militant reformer
- adjective showing a fighting disposition
From Encyclopedia.com:
Militant, in contemporary academic, activist, and journalistic interpretations, refers to an individual (as a noun) or to a party, a struggle or a state (as an adjective), engaged in aggressive forms of social and political resistance.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can't be "soldiers," but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
I get what you're saying -- it's not exactly a typical war. But I would argue that the IDF's conduct is also equally non-typical for a "normal" armed conflict between capable state actors. It's misleading to even call it a "war" -- it is, very literally, more of a terrorist operation by Israel, blowing up civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people to put pressure on the Gaza state apparatus (such as it even exists) to agree to political terms they otherwise would never accept, to stop the killing.
If we're calling Hamas "militants" out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors "terrorists"? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the "war"? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than "soldiers" and "war" for what's happening on the ground right now.
Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages in Cease-Fire Deal Includes Some Who Are Dead
It was not clear whether Hamas revealed in the cease-fire negotiations with Israel how many of the 33 who would be freed in the first phase of the proposed deal are still alive and how many are dead.
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can’t be “soldiers,” but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state’s military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
If we’re calling Hamas “militants” out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors “terrorists”? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the “war”? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than “soldiers” and “war” for what’s happening on the ground right now.
The category of ‘state terrorism’ is contentious, I wouldn’t reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state's military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the "good guys" and a different set of words for the "bad guys," as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).
The category of 'state terrorism' is contentious, I wouldn't reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time
Yeah fully agreed. I don't think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what's really going on.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can’t find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren’t backed up with news.
Edit: Thanks @[email protected] for the link below.
A ceasefire for you is when israel can keep committing Genocide and Hamas doesn’t fight back right?
A ceasefire is when both sides agree to cease firing. The article headline is quite clearly correct, but I know you aren’t interested in facts.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both sides very well know what is in the deal.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
And Israel says the deal Hamas agreed to isn’t the deal they agreed to. Did you even read the article? Jesus Christ.
Good job you got there!
Hamas accepts the deal.
Israel rejects the deal.
See that’s what the article title should be. Not “complicates things”.
Hamas accepts the deal. Israel’s final response is uncertain - they commented that it was not the deal they agreed to, and it is not simply a matter of “Hamas has agreed, the ceasefire can go into effect”. But neither is it a rejection on the Israeli side. It ‘complicates things’.
Keep trying. You’ll show those big bad Lamestream Media types what for eventually, right?
Is israel does not accept the ceasefire and invades Rafah after the proposal…
**Then israel rejects the deal. **
We’re not in a stalemate position. We’re talking about ignoring it and commencing a massively invasion to Genocide thousands of Palestinians
The mental Gymnastics you’re willing to do to defend israels Genocide is absolutely astounding.
The new deal was even brokered with massive American involvement:
The officials claimed CIA director Bill Burns and other Biden administration officials who are involved in the negotiations knew about the new proposal but didn’t tell Israel.
The mental Gymnastics you’re willing to do to defend israels Genocide is absolutely astounding.
lmao
“The article headline, that the agreement of Hamas creates uncertainty over the peace deal, is literally correct”
“YOU’RE DEFENDING GENOCIDE”
Absolute brainrot.
Libbing all over every place to denounce anything anti israel by pretending there is nuance in this situation that we must see from both sides at places where none is to be seen. Defending any and all propaganda as if it is justified where any person paying the slightest amount of attention can see the glaring double standards.
Libbing all over every place to denounce anything anti israel by pretending there is nuance in this situation that we must see from both sides at places where none is to be seen. Defending any and all propaganda as if it is justified where any person paying the slightest amount of attention can see the glaring double standards.
Keep making shit up, maybe some of it will stick, lmao.
Check how many times this dude has been banned for misinformation. It’s not even funny. He’s not got his fan club reporting people to have comments removed for disagreeing with him.
There it is once again. “If you disagree with me, you support genocide”
Does it ever get tiring, contorting every conversation into that exact same posture? Or is the pay enough to make it worth your while?
A tireless israel and literal Genocide defender in the less nuanced sense showing up to defend libs is not a great look. I’m arguing with libs right now they don’t need a Nazionist on their side to make them look bad.
Lol I just criticized you for doing this bullshit and your response was to go way harder.
anyone who dares to disagree with you is a Nazi who loves child murder.
You go through my entire post history to simp for israel. Slightly more unhinged than “disagreeing with me”.
Your obsession with the victim complex manifests well.
Yes thinking it’s weird that you’re so obsessed with getting trump elected means I looove Israel. Which is just a slight variation on “yoU lOvE gEnOcIdE”
A lot of people see what you’re doing. It’s not hard to understand
Strange I not once ever said “vote for Trump” nor have I ever endorsed Orange Man. Yet your mental gymnastics have a way to turn reality into fiction. Criticism of Genocide means people endorse Trump.
No surprise seeing this level of rhetoric from a Genocide defender that denies Genocide and supports israel.
That trademark “all my opponents are bloodthirsty psychopaths”. Fucking fascists gonna fascist.
So, your never once having said “vote for Trump” is to be taken as a clear indicator that you don’t support him- yet you spend all day on lemmy accusing people for supporting genocide even when none of them has ever said “I support genocide.”
You don’t get to have it both ways here. If you get to accuse them, they get to accuse you. Fair is fair.
You lost man. Just stop.