The announcement by Hamas on Monday that it had accepted terms of a cease-fire added to the uncertainty that began over the weekend, when officials said that the armed group and Israel had reached an impasse after months of talks.
As if to underscore that the fighting would continue, Hamas militants on Sunday launched rockets from Rafah, their last stronghold in Gaza, killing four Israeli soldiers. The following morning, Israel announced a mass evacuation of areas in Rafah, escalating fears that the military would soon begin a long-anticipated invasion of the crowded city.
Hours later, Hamas suddenly announced that its leader, Ismail Haniyeh, had accepted a cease-fire proposal based on a plan proffered by Egypt and Qatar, which have been mediating the negotiations with Israel. The terms Hamas had agreed to were not immediately clear, but a senior Israeli official quickly said that the terms were not those that Israel had agreed to.
While Israel and its main ally, the United States, said they were reviewing the proposal Hamas had agreed to, the public statements by the two sides in the war suggest that they remain far apart on key issues needed to reach a truce. Here is a look at those differences.
Hamas wants a permanent cease-fire. Israel wants a temporary truce.
The two sides are stuck on a fundamental question: will this cease-fire be a temporary pause to allow an exchange of hostages for prisoners or a long-term end to the fighting that would leave Hamas in power?
Israel insists on a temporary cease-fire, saying it will keep fighting afterward with the eventual aim of toppling Hamas’s rule in Gaza. Hamas demands a permanent cease-fire and vows to remain in power there.
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.
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.
(motherfucker the Israelis are “militants” and “fighting”, too)
“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.
It literally is uncertain. Like, that’s what this development has created for those of us observing.
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.
“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.
Militant, in contemporary academic, activist, and journalistic interpretations, refers to an individual (as a noun) or to a party, a struggle or a state (as an adjective), engaged in aggressive forms of social and political resistance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.