Hamas has indicated it is currently unable to identify and track down 40 Israeli hostages needed for the first phase of a ceasefire deal, according to an Israeli official and a source familiar with the discussions, raising fears that more hostages may be dead than are publicly known.
Oh, it’s true alright:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/11/israel-opt-horrifying-cases-of-torture-and-degrading-treatment-of-palestinian-detainees-amid-spike-in-arbitrary-arrests/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-67600015
You only addressed half the statement. They are not saying that Israel doesn’t take civilian hostages. They are questioning the claim that Hamas doesn’t take civilian hostages. Follow the thread please.
Is there any evidence that Hamas has taken new hostages since October 7th? Because AFAIK there isn’t.
A temporal attribute has not been included in this statement:
But you have added a temporal qualifier:
I think maybe that’s where the disconnect is? I don’t know. I don’t know who or what you’re arguing against.
The temporal qualifier is inherent in the grammar of the statement. Perhaps you didn’t notice it?
In English, the present perfect continuous has/hasn’t been taking implies a frequent and repeated action since a fixed time in the past - in this case, presumably, the start of the current conflict until now.
Since Hamas only took civilian hostages on one occasion, i.e. October 7th, and not again since, it is not true to say that Hamas “has been taking hostages”. They took hostages. Once.
Israel, on the other hand, have been taking Palestinian civilians captive, repeatedly, since October 7th. That’s the difference.
You’re inferring the start point for the perfect continuous and assigning Oct 7; I’m assigning the start point to be the overall conflict in a broader context. I’m being charitable. I might be wrong, but I can’t read OPs mind so I’m being charitable.
In that case, they would have used the present simple, “Hamas don’t take hostages”, but they didn’t.
I think you simply misunderstood the original statement.
I could be wrong. I’m happy to take the L. Not a hill I want to die on.
No you are changing the statement yourself. The statement is
Israel is widely kidnapping mostly innocent civilians whereas Hamas very much targeted military for kidnapping.
This is as obvious as the lower than 2/3 civilian casualty rate for Hamas whereas israel has a far higher civilian casualty rate.
Sources? Do I even want your sources at this point…last time I asked for evidence you gave me a verbal statement by the prime minister and that was good enough in your book. You really don’t need much convincing when the evidence aligns with your bias, do you?
Last time you got a source you denied reality and pretended that “no that doesn’t count”. I’m not sure why you are bringing this up it only makes you look bad.
Israel social security data reveals true picture of Oct 7 deaths
I’m realizing that either your intentionally ignoring what I’m saying or English is not your first language.
Your standard of evidence was a quote by Benjamin Netanyahu
For honest people one off quotes do not constitute evidence.
So yes: I reject your standard for proof because it is very low