The hostages are a group that’s assumed to be complete. That’s like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give “your tires” back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn’t say otherwise.
If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it’s clear why you wouldn’t do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid.
I think this is dumb. The title didn’t say all hostages. The article didn’t say all hostages. You invited this in your own head then decided to build an argument around it.
And yet nowhere did anyone claim otherswise 😕 nor does it improve the situation or change how Bibi is viewed now
(judging by how you phrased this comment)
The headline implies otherwise.
The headline says nothing about the number nor implies anything.
This is why you need to read the rest of an article.
The hostages are a group that’s assumed to be complete. That’s like if someone stole your tires off your car and offered to give “your tires” back to you but only 2 of the 4. People assume they offered all the tires if the headline doesn’t say otherwise.
If you include the partial hostage release, it essentially robs the story as it’s clear why you wouldn’t do a deal for some of the hostages. Making any deal for some of the hostages is stupid.
I think this is dumb. The title didn’t say all hostages. The article didn’t say all hostages. You invited 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.