• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    427 months ago

    Incredible the NYT talks about the major concessions that Israel has made with no mention of the obviously ludicrous terms that Israel has offered. Israel has made it clear the goal is a complete displacement and settlement of Gaza.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      307 months ago

      Paywalled, but I’m curious, did NYT mention Netanyahu literally saying there were still going to continue the operation at a later date regardless of the ceasefire? Because that’s an absolutely ridiculous grounds for a ceasefire and giving up your leverage.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        237 months ago

        Its a temporary cease fire. Even so, Israel has broken ceasefires hundreds of times since protective edge.

        Israel has said it will not compromise on its goal of toppling Hamas in Gaza, suggesting it will not agree to a long-term truce.

        Article: https://archive.is/dV2DT

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        17 months ago

        That’s . . . uhh

        That’s the entire reason it’s called a ceasefire; the assumption is that it’s temporary and fighting will resume.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          97 months ago

          No, a ceasefire can be a precursor to a peace deal or an extended ceasefire of indeterminate. Giving up leverage in the form of hostages when fighting is guaranteed to resume in a couple months is a shitty deal and the very least Netanyahu could’ve done if he had any interest whatsoever was to keep his mouth shut.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -137 months ago

            Me: Yeah, the term itself is generally understood to be a temporary pause of hostilities. You: wHaT AbOuT eDgE cAsEs

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              117 months ago

              Me: actual pros/cons based on reality of situation

              You: what about Webster’s dictionary?

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  67 months ago

                  The main purpose of words having meaning is to effectively communicate.

                  Ignoring the context that words are used and insisting on very narrow definitions is not only pedantic, but hinders the ideas being communicated.