I think this is dumb. The title didn’t say all hostages. The article didn’t say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it.
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.
I think this is dumb. The title didn’t say all hostages. The article didn’t say all hostages. You invented this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it.
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.