???@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 months agoNetanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources saywww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square142fedilinkarrow-up1431arrow-down118file-text
arrow-up1413arrow-down1external-linkNetanyahu rejected ceasefire-for-hostages deal in Gaza, sources saywww.theguardian.com???@lemmy.world to World News@lemmy.worldEnglish · 10 months agomessage-square142fedilinkfile-text
minus-squaremwguy@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·10 months agoI mean future articles covering it have said things like “Ceasefire for $x hostages rejected” for exactly this reason.
minus-square???@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoSure but your case is still weak and honestly not even there.
minus-squaremwguy@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down2·10 months ago“Ceasefire-for-hostages” Would you assume that they’re asking for a ceasefire in a percentage of the territory or the full territory?
minus-square???@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoI wouldn’t assume anything.
minus-squaremwguy@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoThat’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?
minus-square???@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoI think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines.
minus-squaremwguy@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·edit-210 months agoI 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.
minus-square???@lemmy.worldOPlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months ago Just like you would have Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better.
minus-squaremwguy@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1arrow-down1·10 months agoIf you’d have thought a different amount, you’d have said it when i pointed it out.
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?
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t assume anything.
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?
I think if you want the truth then stop being lazy and read the whole article instead of getting your information from misinterpreting headlines.
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.
Nope. But whatever you need to say to make yourself feel better.
If you’d have thought a different amount, you’d have said it when i pointed it out.