Israel's government and Hamas agreed on Wednesday to a four-day pause in fighting to allow the release of 50 hostages held in Gaza in exchange for 150 Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, and the entry of humanitarian aid into the besieged enclave.
GAZA/TEL AVIV, Nov 22 (Reuters) - Israel's government and Hamas agreed on Wednesday to a four-day pause in fighting to allow the release of 50 hostages held in Gaza in exchange for 150 Palestinians imprisoned in Israel, and the entry of humanitarian aid into the besieged enclave.
“Therefore, we declare that any targeting of our defenceless civilians' homes without prior warnings will be met with the execution of an Israeli civilian hostage in our custody, and this event will be broadcast publicly“
Original comment:
Maybe I’m just confused, but doesn’t Hamas themselves use the same terminology?
Hard to say with translations, a lot is up to the translator.
*In response to your edit, I thought you were referring to what does Hamas call their people being held by Israel. What Hamas calls their hostages seems less relevant to me.
The concept of evaluating media for bias and conflating that with factuality is, frankly, terrifying. A site's political views is not necessarily representative of its factuality, but Media Bias Fact Check consistently penalizes sites that have "never failed a fact check" because they are not considered to be "least biased."
These sites bite off more than they can chew. They're extremely US-Western-centric (mostly because the authors of these sites tend to be American and thus have their own set of American biases) - claiming that America is somehow the paragon of journalistic freedoms and free speech is, in itself, an American bias. CBC, which hasn't failed a fact check, is only a "high" on the factual reporting scale, for example. Meanwhile Reuters, for which I can point to multiple instances where they got key details wrong, gets a "very high" for factual reporting.