Shifting Definitions of “Truce”?

I saw this headline pop up on Google News, and had to click through and read it. It’s from the English Al Jazeera:

Shaky truce holds in Gaza

So, from the headline, what can I infer?

  • There’s a truce, likely between Hamas and Israel, in Gaza.
  • That truce is holding, meaning that it’s not being broken.
  • While the truce is holding and not being broken, it might break at any time.

Sound reasonable? Paragraph five, though, reads this:

The Israeli military said three rockets were launched into southern Israel since the Hamas-led truce announcement.

Huh. That would sure indicate to met that the truce is not holding. I don’t see how three rockets being fired into Israel could mean anything but the truce is not holding. Rockets are not like bullets from an AK-47 or some rocks: they always involve groups like Hamas, and/or countries like Syria or Iran. In other words, they count.

This is the stuff that just annoys me and confuses me to no end. I’m honestly mystified: why would the media say the truce is holding at the beginning, and then say it’s not — in so many words — paragraphs later? How am I supposed to interpret this in anything but cynical ways?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s