this post was submitted on 07 May 2024
528 points (91.8% liked)
Political Memes
5232 readers
2271 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Looks like the headline matches reality.
You keep spewing totalitarian cacophony, you crazy diamond.
Linkerbaan vs PugJesus. Linkerbaan ratio is 5, PugJesus ratio is 2. Draw is 1. Results at 10pm.
On the serious note: An accessible link would be appreciated.
Wayback machine cuts off early, but this is what it gives:
https://web.archive.org/web/20240506193731/https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/world/middleeast/israel-hamas-gaza-ceasefire-talks.html
AP is saying the same thing.
https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-war-humanitarian-aid-8659eae6e0a7362504f0aa4aa4be53e0
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. Can't find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren't backed up with news.
Al Jazeera: Here are all the details of what Hamas agreed to
Washington Post: Here's a quick overview of the plan, and details of what Israel doesn't like about it
BBC: Here's a quick overview and Israel's reaction
NYT: OMG who can even say what might be in this proposal. Like the flying dutchman, it is an elusive and mysterious beast, and we need to wait for the light of the full moon to even glimpse its outline. Plus you know, Hamas lies all the time.
Also NYT: the "armed group" (i.e. Hamas)
Also NYT: "As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets" (motherfucker the Israelis are "militants" and "fighting", too) ... "killing four Israeli soldiers" (oh, so they attacked the soldiers in Gaza attacking them? I see the problem -- they should have blown up an Israeli hospital or university; then apparently you'd be fine with it.)
I genuinely can't continue because I'm getting for real pissed off about it. But I think it's safe to assume the whole fucking article is written this way. I actually started paying again for a subscription to the NYT because I like journalism, but I think I may cancel it and send them a short note explaining why, like an angry middle-aged white woman storming out of a Starbucks.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that's what this development has created for those of us observing.
"Militants" is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are 'off the books' of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it's not unreasonable to call them militants.
My point is that what Hamas agreed to isn't uncertain (at least at this point). IDK, maybe there's some timestamp issue where NYT published the OP article before it was clear... but as of last night (after the timestamp on the Al Jazeera article laying out everything in detail), the NYT wrote "Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages Includes Some Who Are Dead". I still haven't seen any NYT article that simply lays out what the basic agreement details are; they seem to have wanted, with the "dead hostages" article, to just seize on an I-guess-technically-accurate data point and present it to make Hamas sound duplicitous and deadly, and then call it a day, with their readers still uninformed on the broad factual details of what was happening with the cease-fire talks.
From Wordnik:
From Encyclopedia.com:
My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can't be "soldiers," but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.
I get what you're saying -- it's not exactly a typical war. But I would argue that the IDF's conduct is also equally non-typical for a "normal" armed conflict between capable state actors. It's misleading to even call it a "war" -- it is, very literally, more of a terrorist operation by Israel, blowing up civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people to put pressure on the Gaza state apparatus (such as it even exists) to agree to political terms they otherwise would never accept, to stop the killing.
If we're calling Hamas "militants" out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors "terrorists"? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the "war"? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than "soldiers" and "war" for what's happening on the ground right now.
Let me put it this way - it was Nazi soldiers which rampaged across Europe during WW2.
Soldier is not a designation of morality or legitimacy. It is a designation of association - namely, association with a state's military apparatus. Excluding paramilitaries, which are generally (though not always) referred to with other terms.
The category of 'state terrorism' is contentious, I wouldn't reasonably expect it to be used in a reputable news source at this point in time (though I would be thrilled if it was used in one). But I agree that the description is absolutely apt.
Yeah, I get that. My point is that this is part of a consistent pattern where the NYT uses one set of words for the "good guys" and a different set of words for the "bad guys," as part of a (fairly successful) effort to get their readers to look at the conflict within their chosen parameters (which diverge quite a bit from the reality).
Yeah fully agreed. I don't think anyone should be obligated to describe Israel as a terrorist state in their news coverage. Just saying that, if the pro-Israel writers want to be super specific about reporting every action with the exactly correct chosen words, then okay sure I think it becomes fair to start exploring the exactly correct words that actually do describe better what's really going on.
Thank you. It kinda sounds like there is a lack of information on what Hamas agreed to, for which I saw a post saying release of 33 hostages for 40 days of ceasefire. ~~Can't find it atm tho, the post may have vanished if it weren't backed up with news.~~
Edit: Thanks @mozz@mbin.grits.dev for the link below.
A ceasefire for you is when israel can keep committing Genocide and Hamas doesn't fight back right?
A ceasefire is when both sides agree to cease firing. The article headline is quite clearly correct, but I know you aren't interested in facts.
Conveniently ignore that Hamas accepted the ceasefire deal proposed by Egypt and Qatar, which means that both israel and Hamas very well know what is in the deal.
A cease fire is when both sides stop firing. Then you need the word deal to get there. Which Hamas has accepted and israel has not.
And Israel says the deal Hamas agreed to isn't the deal they agreed to. Did you even read the article? Jesus Christ.
Four downvotes inside of a minute, lmao.
Good job you got there!
Hamas accepts the deal.
Israel rejects the deal.
See that's what the article title should be. Not "complicates things".
I accept the deal in which you hand deliver me all of your money.
When should I be expecting you?
(For the record, I'm 100% in favour of Israel immediately stopping all offensive action and immediately withdrawing from Gaza and being forced to immediately let aid in)
But this particular sticking point is kinda nonsense. If both parties aren't involved in the development of the terms, then it's just a political stunt to announce you've accepted them.
Israel could JUST as easily draft their own terms, and announce they've agreed to them.
Which funny enough they did iirc
Linkerbaan thinks October 7th was legitimate resistance and the most precise irregular operation in modern military history. I guess all those civilians were Secret Zionist Spies. You're not going to get through to them.
Hamas accepts the deal. Israel's final response is uncertain - they commented that it was not the deal they agreed to, and it is not simply a matter of "Hamas has agreed, the ceasefire can go into effect". But neither is it a rejection on the Israeli side. It 'complicates things'.
Keep trying. You'll show those big bad Lamestream Media types what for eventually, right?
I have accepted a deal Negotiated by Qatar where @PugJesus gives me all of his money indefinitely, this will go into effect immediately.
Joke's on you, I'm mostly made of debt!
Is israel does not accept the ceasefire and invades Rafah after the proposal...
Then israel rejects the deal.
We're not in a stalemate position. We're talking about ignoring it and commencing a massively invasion to Genocide thousands of Palestinians
The mental Gymnastics you're willing to do to defend israels Genocide is absolutely astounding.
The new deal accepted by Hamas was even brokered with massive American involvement:
lmao
"The article headline, that the agreement of Hamas creates uncertainty over the ceasefire deal, is literally correct"
"YOU'RE DEFENDING GENOCIDE"
Absolute brainrot.
Libbing all over every place to denounce anything anti israel by pretending there is nuance in this situation that we must see from both sides at places where none is to be seen. Defending any and all propaganda as if it is justified where any person paying the slightest amount of attention can see the glaring double standards.
MLK wrote a letter for you
Keep making shit up about a longtime Israel critic who has been calling this a genocide since before Oct 7, maybe some of it will stick, lmao.
There it is once again. "If you disagree with me, you support genocide"
Does it ever get tiring, contorting every conversation into that exact same posture? Or is the pay enough to make it worth your while?
A tireless israel and literal Genocide defender in the less nuanced sense showing up to defend libs is not a great look. I'm arguing with libs right now they don't need a Nazionist on their side to make them look bad.
Lol I just criticized you for doing this bullshit and your response was to go way harder.
anyone who dares to disagree with you is a Nazi who loves child murder.
You go through my entire post history to simp for israel. Slightly more unhinged than "disagreeing with me".
Your obsession with the victim complex manifests well.
Yes thinking it's weird that you're so obsessed with getting trump elected means I looove Israel. Which is just a slight variation on "yoU lOvE gEnOcIdE"
A lot of people see what you're doing. It's not hard to understand
Strange I not once ever said "vote for Trump" nor have I ever endorsed Orange Man. Yet your mental gymnastics have a way to turn reality into fiction. Criticism of Genocide means people endorse Trump.
No surprise seeing this level of rhetoric from a Genocide defender that denies Genocide and supports israel.
That trademark "all my opponents are bloodthirsty psychopaths". Fucking fascists gonna fascist.
By this logic since I never mentioned Israel it would be impossible for me to have an opinion on Israel. Not that you would give a shit because, since I oppose you, I eat Palestinian babies