Israel on Saturday described as "propaganda" a claim by Hamas that the militant group had wanted to release two more hostages on humanitarian grounds but that Israel declined to receive them.
That site blocks my country. So I can’t read the article.
But yes everything in Gaza has danger. But they could publicize the fact that they’re dropping off at the Red Cross, post a video, live stream it, whatever. It would show the willing and it’s not dependent on Israel
That site blocks my country. So I can’t read the article.
Here’s the first 2 sentences.
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) confirmed Wednesday that five staffers were killed in armed hostilities in Israel and the Gaza Strip.
“Today, in two different incidents, ambulances were hit killing four Palestine Red Crescent paramedics who were helping those in need,” IFRC said in a statement.
I understand it’s not the whole article but please try to extrapolate with the information given
Edit: Or like… you could def read enough from that URL that you could google it yourself if you actually cared…
Yes. I agree. It’s a war crime. It’s terrible. But it has nothing to do with Hamas releasing hostages. They could release them to the UN, or the Red Cross. The incumbent danger of the war zone doesn’t change. They could get the credit for releasing the hostages even if a bombing later destroys the Red Cross building.
Yes. I agree. It’s a war crime. It’s terrible. But it has nothing to do with Hamas releasing hostages.
What purpose does it serve to ignore all context around Hamas and the hostages, and focus only on them?
People on this thread have recounted so many examples to you.
Red Cross staff are bombed and killed. Ambulances are unsafe. The Rafah crosspoint is unsafe. Even if Hamas hands them over to the Red Cross or to anyone there is a big chance they will be killed by Israel “by mistake”. It’s Israel’s own citizens, plus the internationals, which it’s swearing to protect and bring back safe and yet they don’t even want to open any kind of channel to negotiate with Hamas.
Yes, Hamas is wrong to take non-military hostages, but none of that absolves Israel from its behavior.
So to reiterate
But it has nothing to do with Hamas releasing hostages.
It has a lot to do with Israel.
They could release them to the UN, or the Red Cross.
You can see numerous examples of why this is a bad idea and not easily done.
One of the belligerents released a statement that was demonstrably false in of itself. Pointing out that one of the belligerence is lying, is not taking a side
The other belligerent also has many issues. But pointing out their lying is also not taking a
We have to use our critical thinking skills at all times, and point out when either side lies to us, the documentation of the lies is useful for reconciliation after the war when the populations have to live together.
Getting stuck in a cycle saying what about what about what about, doesn’t change anything. If one side is lying to us we need to dispassionately, and critically point that out. I’ve done that to the best of my ability, I apologize if my logic wasn’t clear, if you would like to point out any of my logical fallacies I’m happy to work with you on that
The emotional reaction around the war is terrible, but I don’t want to get involved in emotions when we’re dissecting a clear and blatant lie by one of the parties.
Honestly resting your entire argument on, “why won’t hamas just release them themselves mmkay?” is the one that got people going into circles. Your question has been answered in numerous different ways and yet you seem stuck on it.
The emotional reaction around the war is terrible, but I don’t want to get involved in emotions when we’re dissecting a clear and blatant lie by one of the parties.
No problem, but no one is talking about that, they are instead addressing your single flawed talking point. Hope that makes it clearer.
B makes A difficult, even if Hamas uses C and D and even E, those hostages are still in danger because of Israeli bombing and constant deaths among people in C and D, as well as the constant bombing in E. Add to that the fact that Israel completely threw them under the bus and refuses to engage with Hamas to get them back is the biggest issue here.
So, here we go:
(1) not really, they cannot do it “directly” nor “easily” and yet they released 4 people already
(2) And two:
Hamas not releasing prisoners, but citing B means that they were lying about A.
How does citing B mean they are lying about A? They could be lying about A anyway, and B could be completely true (and given what is happening today I am starting to think B is true, and not unlike Israel anyway).
They could get the credit for releasing the hostages even if a bombing later destroys the Red Cross building.
You’re not giving an honest answer. How can you release a hostage to somewhere that isn’t safe? Why not just release them inside Gaza 2 minutes from the building where their being held? What if they get attacked on the way to release the hostage?
Your answer is cute and works for middle school dodgeball but doesn’t work in a world where governments actively engage in disinformation campaigns
They have the options of releasing hostages. They could live stream the entire thing. They could bring a reporter along. They could demonstrate their intention.
And yes there’s active bombings, but the probability is they would be able to make it to a UN compound, or the Red Cross.
The fact that they were able to release two hostages I believe it was yesterday, through the Red Cross, demonstrates they can.
I only take issue with the fact that they said they were unable to release hostages without Israeli support. Clearly that’s not true, as they demonstrated yesterday by the release of two hostages to the Red Cross
https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/five-red-cross-red-crescent-staffers-killed-in-armed-hostilities-in-israel-gaza/3016053
That site blocks my country. So I can’t read the article.
But yes everything in Gaza has danger. But they could publicize the fact that they’re dropping off at the Red Cross, post a video, live stream it, whatever. It would show the willing and it’s not dependent on Israel
Here’s the first 2 sentences.
I understand it’s not the whole article but please try to extrapolate with the information given
Edit: Or like… you could def read enough from that URL that you could google it yourself if you actually cared…
Yes. I agree. It’s a war crime. It’s terrible. But it has nothing to do with Hamas releasing hostages. They could release them to the UN, or the Red Cross. The incumbent danger of the war zone doesn’t change. They could get the credit for releasing the hostages even if a bombing later destroys the Red Cross building.
What purpose does it serve to ignore all context around Hamas and the hostages, and focus only on them?
People on this thread have recounted so many examples to you.
Red Cross staff are bombed and killed. Ambulances are unsafe. The Rafah crosspoint is unsafe. Even if Hamas hands them over to the Red Cross or to anyone there is a big chance they will be killed by Israel “by mistake”. It’s Israel’s own citizens, plus the internationals, which it’s swearing to protect and bring back safe and yet they don’t even want to open any kind of channel to negotiate with Hamas.
Yes, Hamas is wrong to take non-military hostages, but none of that absolves Israel from its behavior.
So to reiterate
It has a lot to do with Israel.
You can see numerous examples of why this is a bad idea and not easily done.
We seem to be stuck talking in circles.
One of the belligerents released a statement that was demonstrably false in of itself. Pointing out that one of the belligerence is lying, is not taking a side
The other belligerent also has many issues. But pointing out their lying is also not taking a
We have to use our critical thinking skills at all times, and point out when either side lies to us, the documentation of the lies is useful for reconciliation after the war when the populations have to live together.
Getting stuck in a cycle saying what about what about what about, doesn’t change anything. If one side is lying to us we need to dispassionately, and critically point that out. I’ve done that to the best of my ability, I apologize if my logic wasn’t clear, if you would like to point out any of my logical fallacies I’m happy to work with you on that
The emotional reaction around the war is terrible, but I don’t want to get involved in emotions when we’re dissecting a clear and blatant lie by one of the parties.
Honestly resting your entire argument on, “why won’t hamas just release them themselves mmkay?” is the one that got people going into circles. Your question has been answered in numerous different ways and yet you seem stuck on it.
No problem, but no one is talking about that, they are instead addressing your single flawed talking point. Hope that makes it clearer.
Okay maybe we should restart. And go through the logic. You can tell me where I’m making my mistake.
Assumptions:
A. Hamas said it wanted to release hostages no quid pro quo
B. Hamas states Israel isn’t cooperating so they can’t release the hostages
C. Inside of the Gaza strip, the Red Cross operates as a somewhat neutral party
D. Inside the Gaza strip The UN RW operates as a somewhat neutral party
E. At the Egyptian Rafah border crossing, Hamas has direct access to the border.
Logic:
If Hamas wants to release prisoners per A they could do it directly through C, D and potentially E.
Hamas not releasing prisoners, but citing B means that they were lying about A.
Where did I mess up?
B makes A difficult, even if Hamas uses C and D and even E, those hostages are still in danger because of Israeli bombing and constant deaths among people in C and D, as well as the constant bombing in E. Add to that the fact that Israel completely threw them under the bus and refuses to engage with Hamas to get them back is the biggest issue here.
So, here we go:
(1) not really, they cannot do it “directly” nor “easily” and yet they released 4 people already
(2) And two:
How does citing B mean they are lying about A? They could be lying about A anyway, and B could be completely true (and given what is happening today I am starting to think B is true, and not unlike Israel anyway).
You’re not giving an honest answer. How can you release a hostage to somewhere that isn’t safe? Why not just release them inside Gaza 2 minutes from the building where their being held? What if they get attacked on the way to release the hostage?
Your answer is cute and works for middle school dodgeball but doesn’t work in a world where governments actively engage in disinformation campaigns
They have the options of releasing hostages. They could live stream the entire thing. They could bring a reporter along. They could demonstrate their intention.
And yes there’s active bombings, but the probability is they would be able to make it to a UN compound, or the Red Cross.
The fact that they were able to release two hostages I believe it was yesterday, through the Red Cross, demonstrates they can.
I only take issue with the fact that they said they were unable to release hostages without Israeli support. Clearly that’s not true, as they demonstrated yesterday by the release of two hostages to the Red Cross