• hydroxide@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    10 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.

    • fluxion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      10 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.

      • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 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.

        • fluxion@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          10 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.

          • Telodzrum@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

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

            • fluxion@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Me: actual pros/cons based on reality of situation

              You: what about Webster’s dictionary?

                • TheDoozer@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 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.