Why does the article call the people held by Israel "prisoners", but the people held by Palestine "hostages"?
I mean, having a hostage generally implies your intent is to hold that person captive in exchange for a demand being fulfilled, after which point you at least claim that you will release them. Presumably, Israel doesnt intend or claim that it will release those it has imprisoned even if it gets what it wants, so calling them hostages wouldnt really be accurate. One could call the people held by Hamas prisoners too I suppose, since that just implies them to be held against their will, but as they are explicitly being held in order to be used as a bargaining chip, calling them hostages adds more information about the situation than just calling them prisoners too would.
You make sense, and I sort of agree so I won't downvote and just add my bit. The "prisoners" are definitely being used as negotiation leverage in every discussion with Hamas.
Israel calls the system it uses to imprison people without trial or even charges "administrative detention". It's hostage taking under a sanitized name and in terms of #'s Israel is provably many times worse than already-terrible Hamas.
"Before October 7, the number of Palestinians held by Israel under administrative detention was already at a 20-year high. According to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem, there were 1,310 Palestinians imprisoned without charge or trial at the end of September, including at least 146 minors. Since then, Israel has dramatically increased its use of administrative detention, pushing the number of detainees to over 2,000 within the first four weeks of the war. (That’s out of a total of roughly 7,000 Palestinian prisoners.)"
People are often imprisoned for no other reason than Israelis don't like them. Sometimes it's social media posts. The average length of detention without trial or charge is a year. So if an Israeli soldier doesn't like you being free, you can lose a year of your life being abused in prison for no other reason. There is an appeals process, but a report showed appeals failed 98.8% of the time from 2015-17 and there were no successes at all in 2023. "The overall figure is outrageous,” Montell said. “This is a patently illegal practice. These people should be given a fair trial or released.”
To paint one side as legitimate and the other as not
"We.. reaffirm our adherence to our demands and the national demands of our people; with a permanent ceasefire, the withdrawal of the occupation army from the entire Gaza Strip, the return of the displaced to their areas and places of residence, intensification of the entry of relief and aid, and the start of reconstruction," the Islamist faction said.
Not a single one of those seems unreasonable in the slightest and I can't see why any of them should be withdrawn.
Because if they were serious about negotiating they would give on some points, the same goes for the Israeli government. Tbh to me it seems like neither Hamas nor the Israeli government has any interest in a ceasefire or pause or whatever you want to call it. This ongoing conflict serves their individual power agendas well.
What should they give?
Maybe they can accept a temporary ceasefire so Israel can continue later in the year?
Maybe they can let Israel stay in their land to continue to murder them?
Maybe they can let their people remain displaced and not allowed into their land?
Maybe they can let aid continue to be stifled so they starve?
Maybe they can postpone reconstruction and live in ruble to die of disease?
What should they give?
I don't know, I'm not a political or diplomatic expert. But they took a bunch of hostages, made demands that they know will never be met by the Israeli government and won't move away from them. On the other hand the Israeli government has been shitting on them for years, invaded their territory, makes impossible demands, and won't move away from them either. Neither of them is right. But from the outside it doesn't look like either party is really interested in a ceasefire.
Note my comment is not about which party is morally right. An issue I, by the way, don't really feel equipped to give a definite answer to either. But suffice to say I don't sympathise with the murder of civilians neither by the IDF nor by Hamas.
Neither is right? Your the kinda person who'd look at the Warsaw uprising and say they shouldn't of resorted to violence.
Which of those points should they have given up?
Ah right, the "how about we compromise and just have a little genocide" option
You're right, and the French should've just let Germany have the northern half of their country, compromise guys!
They gave on some points back in November, and Israel broke the ceasefire and killed unarmed Palestinians. They don’t trust Israel to uphold their end once again.
Handing them a surrender please note and calling it a cease fire. Their demands are reasonable. Israel and the US's demands are capitulation.
Here. I break into your house. Steal your shit and hold your wife at gunpoint and then tell you to accept things as they are, your stuff is mine and I continue holding your wife at gunpoint but promise not to pull the trigger. Do you agree to my ceasefire? Course you fucking dont.
But your not the one getting shot at so you can sit in your fucking chair and rip some liberal bullshit about ceasefire. They are using language to fuck with you and you don't have a moral backing to tell the difference. Just words.
Israel didn't offer a ceasefire. They offered a pause.
A pause in a war is called what exactly?
Oh, ceasefire. Huh.
There's a specific definition here though
A pause indicates a temporary stop to advancing with no obligation to stop shooting
While a ceasefire is they stop shooting.
If Israel broke a ceasefire it could be seen as worse than essentially unpausing the conflict.
It's all wording, semantics and ultimately drivel but that's politics and diplomacy.
I'm tired of arguing about what horrible group is less horrible than the other..
A community for discussing events around the World
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/