Such a weird way to report that news. The tag line doesn't tell you how many hostages were freed, but instead give you the number of hostage takers who died in trying to keep the hostages from being reunited with their families. It is like giving a review on Schindler's List saying the movie was about a hundred thousand German people dying in Poland near some hostages.
Seems like an odd spin on your part. The piece talked mostly about the high civilian casualties. I know footage I saw included many children, some with missing limbs. The first line in the write up stated how many hostages were freed. The article also included criticism of Hamas:
“The bloodshed on the ground prompted a rare venting of criticism at Hamas from people in Gaza.
Hassan Omar, 37, said he lamented the unnecessary loss of lives in Israeli strikes, telling the BBC: "For each Israeli hostage they could have freed 80 Palestinian prisoners and without any bloodshed - [that] is a million times better than losing 100 dead.
"My message to Hamas is stopping the loss is part of the gain, we should get rid of those who control us from Qatar hotels.”
In fact, the only mention I could find of the “hostage takers” at all:
“Defence Minister Yoav Gallant said special forces operated "under heavy fire" when rescuing the hostages. One special forces officer was wounded and later died in hospital”.
The descriptions in the article were almost entirely about casualties among the civilians, not casulties among the hostage takers of Hamas at all. The emphasis of the piece was the many non combatant deaths, women and children…..
So again, I find you interpretation far weirder than the article itself. I believe it’s human to care about both innocent Gazans and Israeli hostages.
www.mirror.co.uk
www.nbcnews.com
www.bbc.com
www.theguardian.com
