again you're oversimplifying things, with these black and white statements. extremely dangerous, extremely...
How are they not lying? If they want to release two hostages they have a variety of options that don't involve Israel. They could drop them off at the Egyptian border, they could drop them off at the Red Cross, they could drop them off at any of the UN compounds.
They're unwillingness to release two hostages is completely on them. For them to try to blame Israel is disingenuous, and clearly a lie.
But I'm open to being wrong, how is Hamas prevented from releasing two hostages right now? What prevents them from dropping them off at the Red Cross or any of the UN compounds right now today?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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).
Existing in a war zone is dangerous, capturing 200 hostages had danger. Not all of them survived. I think that's clear.
Releasing hostages also has danger, Israel absolutely could have mitigated that danger by negotiating. And the refusing to do so. That feels completely genuine, but I don't have evidence either way. They may or may not be lying
Because of point 1. Hamas has the ability to release prisoners, with a degree of danger, without the consent of Israel.
Moving people around in the Gaza strip, is within their capabilities, especially because they don't have to deliver to the border, they have a variety of UN and Red Cross compounds they could just drop anybody off at. And then make a press release
The issue in point 2 is not that Israel is or isn't cooperating, it's that it's immaterial to hamas's actions inside the Gaza strip. Israel not cooperating can enhance the danger and that's a fair thing to talk about. So Hamas could say Israel's not cooperating, putting hostages in danger, but we've released them to the UNRW compound at these coordinates. We did what we could. That at least would be an honest press release
So going back to 1, 2 because Hamas did not release prisoners, but issued a press releasing they couldn't release prisoners, that contradicts point 1. Of which they have full control over, not danger free, but they have full capabilities to do. This demonstrates they were lying about their intentions. At least at that time, for that reason.
I wanted to read this but I honestly have no idea what those numbers mean /:
what is this numbering supposed to refer to? I used 1 and 2 to respond to you. Is this a continuation of your response?
Anyway about number 8:
So going back to 1, 2 because Hamas did not release prisoners, but issued a press releasing they couldn’t release prisoners, that contradicts point 1.
I mentioned this several times but I feel like it's being ignored... Hamas did release 4 hostages through the channels you proposed. Do you need me to google this for you and get you the headlines? Because it's been all over the news for the past 3 days or so.
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
They could live stream the entire thing.
With what internet my guy? Gaza's sole power station ran out of fuel on the 11th. Any backups are being used for hospitals.
They could bring a reporter along. They could demonstrate their intention.
Alright and what happens with the reporter, the red cross workers and the hostages are murdered in a knife attack 45 minutes after being dropped off by Hamas? Who are you blaming? Who is the global theater blaming? Realistically there is no live streaming anymore so if no one uploads the footage later how are you even gonna know this happened?
The fact that they were able to release two hostages I believe it was yesterday, through the Red Cross, demonstrates they can.
can != should. Could yesterday != can today.
Clearly that’s not true, as they demonstrated yesterday by the release of two hostages to the Red Cross
How did they not have Israeli support?
They didn't indicate they had Israeli support, the news article didn't say it, and then Israeli government didn't
But that's immaterial, everything has risk. Everything. You might have a heart attack in the next 30 seconds. It's just part of life. We do what we can within our bounds.
Pointing out that hamas is lying about needing Israeli permission to release hostages shouldn't be a strong political take we have to debate forever.
They didn’t indicate they had Israeli support, the news article didn’t say it, and then Israeli government didn’t
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Hamas does not need Israeli cooperation to release people to third party organizations within the Gaza strip
Pointing out the hamas's lying when they say they're not getting Israeli cooperation and they can't do the thing they just demonstrated they can do, is a requirement of every critical thinker.
I think that trying to rationalize the behavior of two xenophobic, nationalist, religious fundamentalist far right parties it's just a sterile exercise, often practiced (can't rightly say if that's your will, too) to leave out of the discourse one of these two parties, to implicitly side with one of them. that's all I have to say. have a good day
Have a good day.
I think we've demonstrated conclusively hamas's lying at least about this.
Israel's lying about many things as well, but that's not what the articles about.
I welcome you to show me where my logic is incorrect any time in the future when you have the bandwidth.
That's great. I'm glad they released two hostages.
I can't read the article, I don't have an account on that site and I hit the paywall.
I'm genuinely happy to hostages were released.
https://archive.ph/ZJnM9
I was able to read the article. It looks like they dropped off the hostages at the Red Cross.
ok, long story short. two people were released, red cross helped. hamas got these points hit:
they shown that Netanyahu govt wouldn't help release the hostages
see? we collaborate with red cross, dear westerners, what do you have to say?
the narrative, all that matters is the narrative. hamas seem they started getting this concept...
so, did I show you why you and your deductions were wrong all the way? do you understand why hamas, Netanyahu govt and everyone else (you included?) is trying to push a narrative? do you understand now why it's a terrible attitude?
justify either party, and one might get some blood on themself.
No, this proves I was right The entire time.
Okay let's start over from the beginning
A. Hamas makes a statement, they want to release hostages no strings attached, Israel won't let them ao they can't.
B. Hamas is saying they have no ability to release hostages without Israeli assistance
C. The UN, and the Red Cross, operate inside of the Gaza strip
D. Hamas has access to the Egyptian border
Hamas statement is a lie, because point b contradicts point c and d.
Hamas statement is a lie because point a is contradicted by the contradiction and point b.
In war everybody lies, I fully acknowledge that, but here we have a statement that is self-contradictory in itself. Pointing out that this is a lie is not taking a side, it's pointing out that this is a lie.
If people wanted to say the initial release of two US hostages, had some consideration for Hamas, and they were trying to hint that they wanted the same consideration again to release two Israeli hostages. Fine. But their statement would still be a lie, when they said they didn't want anything to release these hostages for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that today, I guess yesterday now, they released hostages via the Red Cross is great. But it doesn't change the fact they were lying earlier. They don't need Israeli cooperation to release hostages as they've just demonstrated.
again you're oversimplifying things, with these black and white statements. extremely dangerous, extremely...
How are they not lying? If they want to release two hostages they have a variety of options that don't involve Israel. They could drop them off at the Egyptian border, they could drop them off at the Red Cross, they could drop them off at any of the UN compounds.
They're unwillingness to release two hostages is completely on them. For them to try to blame Israel is disingenuous, and clearly a lie.
But I'm open to being wrong, how is Hamas prevented from releasing two hostages right now? What prevents them from dropping them off at the Red Cross or any of the UN compounds right now today?
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).
Existing in a war zone is dangerous, capturing 200 hostages had danger. Not all of them survived. I think that's clear.
Releasing hostages also has danger, Israel absolutely could have mitigated that danger by negotiating. And the refusing to do so. That feels completely genuine, but I don't have evidence either way. They may or may not be lying
Because of point 1. Hamas has the ability to release prisoners, with a degree of danger, without the consent of Israel.
Moving people around in the Gaza strip, is within their capabilities, especially because they don't have to deliver to the border, they have a variety of UN and Red Cross compounds they could just drop anybody off at. And then make a press release
The issue in point 2 is not that Israel is or isn't cooperating, it's that it's immaterial to hamas's actions inside the Gaza strip. Israel not cooperating can enhance the danger and that's a fair thing to talk about. So Hamas could say Israel's not cooperating, putting hostages in danger, but we've released them to the UNRW compound at these coordinates. We did what we could. That at least would be an honest press release
So going back to 1, 2 because Hamas did not release prisoners, but issued a press releasing they couldn't release prisoners, that contradicts point 1. Of which they have full control over, not danger free, but they have full capabilities to do. This demonstrates they were lying about their intentions. At least at that time, for that reason.
I wanted to read this but I honestly have no idea what those numbers mean /: what is this numbering supposed to refer to? I used 1 and 2 to respond to you. Is this a continuation of your response?
Anyway about number 8:
I mentioned this several times but I feel like it's being ignored... Hamas did release 4 hostages through the channels you proposed. Do you need me to google this for you and get you the headlines? Because it's been all over the news for the past 3 days or so.
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
With what internet my guy? Gaza's sole power station ran out of fuel on the 11th. Any backups are being used for hospitals.
Alright and what happens with the reporter, the red cross workers and the hostages are murdered in a knife attack 45 minutes after being dropped off by Hamas? Who are you blaming? Who is the global theater blaming? Realistically there is no live streaming anymore so if no one uploads the footage later how are you even gonna know this happened?
can != should. Could yesterday != can today.
How did they not have Israeli support?
They didn't indicate they had Israeli support, the news article didn't say it, and then Israeli government didn't
But that's immaterial, everything has risk. Everything. You might have a heart attack in the next 30 seconds. It's just part of life. We do what we can within our bounds.
Pointing out that hamas is lying about needing Israeli permission to release hostages shouldn't be a strong political take we have to debate forever.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
Hamas does not need Israeli cooperation to release people to third party organizations within the Gaza strip
Pointing out the hamas's lying when they say they're not getting Israeli cooperation and they can't do the thing they just demonstrated they can do, is a requirement of every critical thinker.
I think that trying to rationalize the behavior of two xenophobic, nationalist, religious fundamentalist far right parties it's just a sterile exercise, often practiced (can't rightly say if that's your will, too) to leave out of the discourse one of these two parties, to implicitly side with one of them. that's all I have to say. have a good day
Have a good day.
I think we've demonstrated conclusively hamas's lying at least about this.
Israel's lying about many things as well, but that's not what the articles about.
I welcome you to show me where my logic is incorrect any time in the future when you have the bandwidth.
let's see if I'm going to regret this
https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-23/ty-article/.premium/two-elderly-israeli-women-released-from-hamas-captivity-after-17-days/0000018b-5e18-d307-adbb-7f387a240000
That's great. I'm glad they released two hostages.
I can't read the article, I don't have an account on that site and I hit the paywall.
I'm genuinely happy to hostages were released.
https://archive.ph/ZJnM9 I was able to read the article. It looks like they dropped off the hostages at the Red Cross.
ok, long story short. two people were released, red cross helped. hamas got these points hit:
the narrative, all that matters is the narrative. hamas seem they started getting this concept...
so, did I show you why you and your deductions were wrong all the way? do you understand why hamas, Netanyahu govt and everyone else (you included?) is trying to push a narrative? do you understand now why it's a terrible attitude?
justify either party, and one might get some blood on themself.
No, this proves I was right The entire time.
Okay let's start over from the beginning
A. Hamas makes a statement, they want to release hostages no strings attached, Israel won't let them ao they can't.
B. Hamas is saying they have no ability to release hostages without Israeli assistance
C. The UN, and the Red Cross, operate inside of the Gaza strip
D. Hamas has access to the Egyptian border
Hamas statement is a lie, because point b contradicts point c and d.
Hamas statement is a lie because point a is contradicted by the contradiction and point b.
In war everybody lies, I fully acknowledge that, but here we have a statement that is self-contradictory in itself. Pointing out that this is a lie is not taking a side, it's pointing out that this is a lie.
If people wanted to say the initial release of two US hostages, had some consideration for Hamas, and they were trying to hint that they wanted the same consideration again to release two Israeli hostages. Fine. But their statement would still be a lie, when they said they didn't want anything to release these hostages for humanitarian reasons.
The fact that today, I guess yesterday now, they released hostages via the Red Cross is great. But it doesn't change the fact they were lying earlier. They don't need Israeli cooperation to release hostages as they've just demonstrated.