Israel-Gaza war

[pppolitics]

U.S. Voter Support for Israeli Military Aid Reaches Wartime Low

Fewer voters than ever before support the provision of military assistance to Israel amid its war effort in Gaza, according to Morning Consult’s ongoing tracking of U.S. public sentiment following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack.

Support for Israeli military aid hits a new low

Shares of U.S. voters who said they support the following forms of assistance:



According to our latest monthly survey, 41% of voters said the United States should provide military aid to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s armed forces, down from 53% at the start of the conflict. Support fell the most among Democrats (from 52% to 34%), but it has also slipped among independents (46% to 35%) and Republicans (from 59% to 53%).

Roughly 3 in 5 voters said the United States should provide humanitarian aid to the Palestinians, in line with our previous findings.

Along with the decline in support for military assistance, our latest survey also clocked the electorate’s lowest level of predominant sympathy for the Israeli people since the conflict began.

Americans have lost sympathy for Israel amid Gaza war

Shares of U.S. voters who said they are more sympathetic toward each side in the latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict



Just 28% of voters are most sympathetic toward the Israelis, down from 41% in October. Over the same time period, the share of voters who are most sympathetic toward both sides equally has increased (from 26% to 36%), while sympathies toward the Palestinians ticked up to a smaller extent.  

The decline in primary sympathy toward Israel was driven by independent voters and Democrats, reflecting trends on the question of military assistance, though it’s also fallen among Republicans (from 55% to 47%). Notably, roughly 1 in 4 Democrats are most sympathetic toward the Palestinians, a divide within President Joe Biden’s party that has been evident in the news cycle, from policy debates in Washington to protests on college campuses nationwide.

The latest survey was conducted during Israel’s controversial offensive in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah, and as the Biden administration continues to try to rally support for a cease-fire. The American-backed plan to halt the fighting has proven divisive within Netanyahu’s government, as most Americans continue to express their general support for a cessation of hostilities.

3 in 5 voters support a cease-fire in Gaza

Shares of voters who said they support calls for a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war



Roughly 3 in 5 voters support a cease-fire in the Israel-Hamas war, in line with the previous few months, including 39% who do so strongly. At 61%, independent voters are more likely than ever to say they want the fighting to end, alongside 71% of Democrats and a 45% plurality of Republicans.

[...]

https://twitter.com/MorningConsult/status/1799117730404081860

I really do not see how the Dems can ever lose by being Pro-Palestinian when their support among indies has increased from 6% to a whopping 10%!

Foreign policy is probably the most thermostatic issue where opinions ebb and flow based on news events.

Well if by thermostatic you mean that most Americans know nothing about the issue but are influenced by w/e bias is in the mainstream news than sure.

And if we look at the quality of reporting on the issue, especially from NPR or the BBC, we see why support is going down. Also Americans are probably mostly tired of the massive media wave on the issue when they care more about things that actually impact them.

Consider the time we were giving massive aid to the Saudis who were bombing the hell out of Yemen and far more children were starving than they are now and for longer. But the news didn't care because Jews weren't involved. It was basically just Bernie Sanders pushing the issue, rightfully. Saudis are way worse than Israel. No one cares though because they are anti-Semites.

The US has probably the most pro-Israel media in the world after Israel itself.

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2024/feb/04/cnn-staff-pro-israel-bias

The fact that even the America public is turning against Israel despite having pro-Israel media says a lot.

[pppolitics]

Yeah, I've made clear my opinions on Israel in this conflict, but I really don't see how you can get too worked up over collateral damage in a successful effort to rescue hostages, especially since Hamas seems to have escalated the encounter and attacked the Israelis as they got the hostages. I'm more skeptical of the convenient timing of this whole operation.

If Hamas prior to October 7th had attacked across the border and killed hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians unjustly held in an Israeli prison would you consider that to be acceptable?

No, and out of context I wouldn't consider it acceptable from Israel either, but given October 7th as well as the likelihood that Hamas retaliated against the rescue attempt in an area filled with their own civilians I am finding it difficult to feel particularly outraged at Israel beyond my opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives in general.

So if given the context that the IDF has killed tens of thousands of innocents minimum and the countless accusations of torture and other war crimes since then would Hamas killing hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians right now be something you'd have a hard time feeling outraged about, or would you suddenly rediscover your outrage?

What’s missing from this is any agency at all on the part of Hamas. No mention of Hamas pursuing other options, like releasing the hostages or ceasing to fight a losing war. The argument takes for granted that Hamas is justified in doing whatever it wants to Israel while Israel is limited to passive inaction in the face of violent attack, because Israel is by definition the aggressor in any scenario.

One wonders whether pro-terrorist posters are aware that people who are not terrorists typically don't keep foreign nationals in prison located in large urban areas.

Who are these "pro-terrorist posters"?

[Horus]

Yeah, I've made clear my opinions on Israel in this conflict, but I really don't see how you can get too worked up over collateral damage in a successful effort to rescue hostages, especially since Hamas seems to have escalated the encounter and attacked the Israelis as they got the hostages. I'm more skeptical of the convenient timing of this whole operation.

If Hamas prior to October 7th had attacked across the border and killed hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians unjustly held in an Israeli prison would you consider that to be acceptable?

No, and out of context I wouldn't consider it acceptable from Israel either, but given October 7th as well as the likelihood that Hamas retaliated against the rescue attempt in an area filled with their own civilians I am finding it difficult to feel particularly outraged at Israel beyond my opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives in general.

So if given the context that the IDF has killed tens of thousands of innocents minimum and the countless accusations of torture and other war crimes since then would Hamas killing hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians right now be something you'd have a hard time feeling outraged about, or would you suddenly rediscover your outrage?

What’s missing from this is any agency at all on the part of Hamas. No mention of Hamas pursuing other options, like releasing the hostages or ceasing to fight a losing war. The argument takes for granted that Hamas is justified in doing whatever it wants to Israel while Israel is limited to passive inaction in the face of violent attack, because Israel is by definition the aggressor in any scenario.

One wonders whether pro-terrorist posters are aware that people who are not terrorists typically don't keep foreign nationals in prison located in large urban areas.

Who are these "pro-terrorist posters"?

I would certainly like to know as well. The only two pro Hamas posters we've had were both banned, one literally on 10/7.

[Dr. MB]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

[axiomsofdominion]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

Not only do we not know the total dead and wounded count but we also don't know the percentage of casualties who were Hamas militants. So you can't say it would be 6,000 Palestinians dead.

And it would be simple for them to live even if 6000 was an accurate estimate. They could refuse to stay in areas with suspicious Hamas activity, or Hamas could not stage hostages next to neighborhood markets, or Hamas could even if they are super lazy, simply not start giant firefights trying to kill hostages after they are in Israeli hands thus necessitating air strikes. All viable options.

In fact more morally culpable, in the case of hostage rescue missions specifically, are people who blame Israel rather than Hamas for casualties from Hamas actions. Those people, on this forum or twitter or Reddit or on college campuses, or asking, like morons, as reporters on the BBC whether Israel warned civilians of their upcoming hostage rescue, all have blood on their own hands.

[DaleCooper]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

This actually is one of those cases where Hamas is basically just killing its own people in an attempt to make Israel look worse. If the terrorist government is going to get 200 of its own people killed every time the Israelis try to rescue their hostages then that really is just Hamas's problem at this point. It's a bizarre form of blackmail that I'm not sure has even ever been tried before. It's also something that makes Islamic terrorism quite unique, in that they have no interest in preserving the lives of the people they claim to be fighting for. 

[Ⓐnarchy in the ☭☭☭P!]

Yeah, I've made clear my opinions on Israel in this conflict, but I really don't see how you can get too worked up over collateral damage in a successful effort to rescue hostages, especially since Hamas seems to have escalated the encounter and attacked the Israelis as they got the hostages. I'm more skeptical of the convenient timing of this whole operation.

If Hamas prior to October 7th had attacked across the border and killed hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians unjustly held in an Israeli prison would you consider that to be acceptable?

No, and out of context I wouldn't consider it acceptable from Israel either, but given October 7th as well as the likelihood that Hamas retaliated against the rescue attempt in an area filled with their own civilians I am finding it difficult to feel particularly outraged at Israel beyond my opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives in general.

So if given the context that the IDF has killed tens of thousands of innocents minimum and the countless accusations of torture and other war crimes since then would Hamas killing hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians right now be something you'd have a hard time feeling outraged about, or would you suddenly rediscover your outrage?

What’s missing from this is any agency at all on the part of Hamas. No mention of Hamas pursuing other options, like releasing the hostages or ceasing to fight a losing war. The argument takes for granted that Hamas is justified in doing whatever it wants to Israel while Israel is limited to passive inaction in the face of violent attack, because Israel is by definition the aggressor in any scenario.

On the contrary, I don't talk about Hamas's moral agency because there's no argument there: they're terrorists who are willing to kill or sacrifice as many innocents as necessary to achieve their political objectives. It might be better for people in Gaza if Hamas turned themselves in but they obviously aren't going to. "Solving" the conflict by proposing Hamas surrender is a bit like if someone's plan to solve crime was for all the criminals to spontaneously turn themselves in. Except the actual IDF strategy is more like destroying civilian infrastructure and killing random people and expecting that will somehow cause criminals to turn themselves in.

I was never arguing that Hamas is somehow justified or a righteous organization but that Israeli leadership is no different. There are really only two major differences between the two. The obvious one is power: Israel is the strongest military power in the Middle East (or at least that's how they were perceived before October 7th) whereas Hamas is the strongest prison gang in Gaza. The other is that Hamas is winning, probably because Israeli leaders like Netanyahu and Gantz are planning weeks and months ahead whereas Sinwar and Nasrallah are planning years and decades ahead. More on that in a bit.

However, they would still have got a massive response in that case, so maybe this attack wasn't the most sensible move they could have made. When your oppressor can destroy you without breaking too much of a sweat, the oppressed cannot engage in direct confrontation.

Just to segue from the last post, I'll start with the second point first: actually, Hamas pretty clearly made a calculated move because by American estimates after eight months of combat they're still in control of the vast majority of Gaza, the majority of their tunnels are intact, the majority of their fighters are still fighting and while they haven't moved an inch on their demands since the last ceasefire whereas the Israelis have conceded nearly everything at this point except agreeing to a permanent ceasefire. Hamas is more popular than it's ever been both in the West Bank, in Gaza and internationally by pretty much any measure and the prospect of normalization with Israel has been made politically impossible for Arab leaders. Israel is more isolated and unpopular than ever and their military has never looked weaker; Hezbollah is forcing the IDF to fight them defensively on their own territory through the use of precision missile and drone strikes.

Israel isn't winning any more than the Americans against the Viet Cong, the Soviets against the Mujahedeen or the French against the Algerians. Winning a war isn't a matter of just killing people but of achieving political objectives, and by that measure Hamas and Hezbollah are winning and Israel isn't.

If the Palestinians had targeted IDF and governmental facilities exclusively on October 7, then they'd be a lot more justified than what they actually did.

Sure, if they literally broke no laws of war whatsoever then there wouldn't have been room to complain.

But some amount of collateral damage is inevitable, so how much would have been "acceptable"? Imagine if the Hamas equivalent of Daniel Hagari gave a speech after October 7th that went something like

Today our highly trained, humanitarian Al-Qassam commandos launched a highly precise and targeted operation to capture high value Israeli terrorist leaders to rescue our civilians in a prisoner exchange. Unfortunately our terrorist enemy doesn't obey the laws of war: they hide legitimate military targets inside civilian towns, they attack our operatives when out of uniform and they use their own civilians as human shields. They intentionally put their people in harm's way so that they can appeal to the international community, and we call on Netanyahu's terrorists to put down their weapons and surrender so no more innocent people are hurt.

Also, while we have received reports of conduct on the battlefield unbecoming of an Al-Qassam commando we want to reassure you that we take allegations of war crimes very seriously and we have started an internal investigation. If any of our soldiers are found to have committed crimes we promise that they will be suitably punished by a Hamas court. In fact, we've already punished the mid level officers responsible for the latest atrocity by docking their pay.

(and yes, the IDF did use "human shields", in fact the only video from this war I've ever seen of fighters literally taking cover behind civilians is this video of the IDF using Israeli civilians in cars as cover in a firefight)

Would that speech be any more absurd than the countless times where the Israelis expect to be unconditionally granted the benefit of the doubt every time they say "we've investigated ourselves and found we did nothing wrong"? Would calling an operation where  around 800 Israeli civilians and 400 Israeli fighters were killed "precise" be any less absurd than describing a "rescue operation" that rescues four Israelis while slaughtering hundreds of Gazans (plus quite possibly other Israeli hostages) "precise"?

[Dr. MB]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

Not only do we not know the total dead and wounded count but we also don't know the percentage of casualties who were Hamas militants. So you can't say it would be 6,000 Palestinians dead.

And it would be simple for them to live even if 6000 was an accurate estimate. They could refuse to stay in areas with suspicious Hamas activity, or Hamas could not stage hostages next to neighborhood markets, or Hamas could even if they are super lazy, simply not start giant firefights trying to kill hostages after they are in Israeli hands thus necessitating air strikes. All viable options.

In fact more morally culpable, in the case of hostage rescue missions specifically, are people who blame Israel rather than Hamas for casualties from Hamas actions. Those people, on this forum or twitter or Reddit or on college campuses, or asking, like morons, as reporters on the BBC whether Israel warned civilians of their upcoming hostage rescue, all have blood on their own hands.

There aren't very many safe places in Gaza. Anywhere they go, there's a chance they'll be killed. The safe zones aren't safe. What should they do? You're blaming people being murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My question is what is the right place?

[Silent Hunter]

I would argue that if Israel isn't winning, Hamas isn't either. The IDF can conduct air strikes at will, they are still getting weapons from the US and I don't exactly see Hamas conducting open parades in Khan Younis. Just because you can fire weapons from somewhere doesn't mean you control it, because they have to run as soon as they've fired.

Also, in the cases of Afghanistan and Vietnam, they won devastated countries.

[Meclazine for Israel]

Just waiting for Al Jazeera to run a story on their reporter aiding the kidnapping and jailing of Isreali hostages within Gaza.

I will post up the link once Al Jazeera publish it.

Abdullah Al-Jamal was an Al Jazeera reporter and Hamas spokesperson.

https://www.israelhayom.com/2024/06/09/idf-confirms-al-jazeeras-al-jamal-held-3-of-rescued-captives/

"The IDF and Shin Bet confirmed on Sunday that the hostages Almog Meir Jan, Andrey Kozlov, and Shlomi Ziv, who were rescued Saturday from Nuseirat in the Gaza Strip, were the ones held in the house of an Al-Jazeera "journalist" Abdullah Al-Jamal."

Looks like Al Jazeera is a total chicken raffle now.

[Meclazine for Israel]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

This actually is one of those cases where Hamas is basically just killing its own people in an attempt to make Israel look worse. If the terrorist government is going to get 200 of its own people killed every time the Israelis try to rescue their hostages then that really is just Hamas's problem at this point. It's a bizarre form of blackmail that I'm not sure has even ever been tried before. It's also something that makes Islamic terrorism quite unique, in that they have no interest in preserving the lives of the people they claim to be fighting for.  

Precisely. Logical facts are logical facts.

Israel are saying they simply went there dressed for success to rescue the hostages. Nothing more.

But once word got out that a Hamas safe-house had been breached, only then did the gunfire start when the Israeli's were fired upon by everyone and everything from the surrounding (UN Hospital / UN Refugee Camp / UN School) neighbourhood.

If the locals were peaceful people, they would have left it, and no one would have been killed.

Hamas and the Al-Jazeera reporter had a choice between option A and option B. They chose option B.

Never choose option B.

R.I.P. to the Israeli Officer who gave his life to rescue four of his own.

[Citizen (The) Doctor]

I would argue that if Israel isn't winning, Hamas isn't either. The IDF can conduct air strikes at will, they are still getting weapons from the US and I don't exactly see Hamas conducting open parades in Khan Younis. Just because you can fire weapons from somewhere doesn't mean you control it, because they have to run as soon as they've fired.

Also, in the cases of Afghanistan and Vietnam, they won devastated countries.

If a people have imbibed nationalist fervour enough, winning a devastated country is still better than losing an intact one.

[axiomsofdominion]

BBC News suggested that Israel should have warned the Palestinians they were about to conduct a hostage rescue.

Lol what is this stupidity? I'm glad that Israel is telling the collective pro-Hamas International Community to f**k off. If they can do another 30 such operations to liberate the remaining hostages then I say, go ahead.

That's 6,000 more Palestinians killed

Not only do we not know the total dead and wounded count but we also don't know the percentage of casualties who were Hamas militants. So you can't say it would be 6,000 Palestinians dead.

And it would be simple for them to live even if 6000 was an accurate estimate. They could refuse to stay in areas with suspicious Hamas activity, or Hamas could not stage hostages next to neighborhood markets, or Hamas could even if they are super lazy, simply not start giant firefights trying to kill hostages after they are in Israeli hands thus necessitating air strikes. All viable options.

In fact more morally culpable, in the case of hostage rescue missions specifically, are people who blame Israel rather than Hamas for casualties from Hamas actions. Those people, on this forum or twitter or Reddit or on college campuses, or asking, like morons, as reporters on the BBC whether Israel warned civilians of their upcoming hostage rescue, all have blood on their own hands.

There aren't very many safe places in Gaza. Anywhere they go, there's a chance they'll be killed. The safe zones aren't safe. What should they do? You're blaming people being murdered for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. My question is what is the right place?

Well I'm blaming Hamas, as I say several times. Of the options to avoid the civilian deaths one of them was move if you see a lot of anomalous Hamas activity. This is about reasonable choices. Sure you could potentially die anywhere but some areas are riskier than others. But the other options are all about Hamas not committing war crimes and throwing civilians under the bus for PR.

Feel free to explain what other option Israel had once Hamas mobilized 100s of militants with military level weapons to kill the hostages and rescuers? Go ahead. I won't hold my breath though, because I don't want to die. And you people never have an answer.

You beelined right for the single part of the post where I said civilians should try to stay away from heavy Hamas activity and ignored all the other parts of the post. Boy I wonder why that is.

[GALeftist]

I am very, very glad those hostages are safe, but I do not think this was the right way to do it. Perfidy is dangerous precisely because it is sometimes useful to achieve noble ends, and yet it can still lead to erosion of a vital part of armed conflict. Instead, Netanyahu should agree to the deal on the table (though he won't, obviously).

[axiomsofdominion]

I am very, very glad those hostages are safe, but I do not think this was the right way to do it. Perfidy is dangerous precisely because it is sometimes useful to achieve noble ends, and yet it can still lead to erosion of a vital part of armed conflict. Instead, Netanyahu should agree to the deal on the table (though he won't, obviously).

There *is no deal on the table*. Hamas has not accepted a deal. They've specifically rejected any deals currently proposed. Which is fine. That's their right if they think the deal is bad. But to lie and say that these hostages would have been freed within any small amount of time is despicable.

(I want to clarify this. It is one thing to say that the, potential since we don't know who was or wasn't, civilian casualties are too high. It is another thing to say that hostages shouldn't be rescued at all. That is a monstrous take. It is inhuman. As far as perfidy, it is Hamas who uses medical and aid vehicles to smuggle militants around. Did Israel do it? They deny it. We'll see what the US gov says. But it is wildly hypocritical for anti-Semites to complain about Israel doing it to save hostages when Hamas does it all the time. And on top of that to objectively lie that these hostages would be freed by a deal, a deal which requires trust in a group that itself commits innumerous acts of perfidy and a dozen other other war crimes. Including housing hostages with "doctors and reporters".)

[Stand With Israel. Crush Hamas]

I am very, very glad those hostages are safe, but I do not think this was the right way to do it. Perfidy is dangerous precisely because it is sometimes useful to achieve noble ends, and yet it can still lead to erosion of a vital part of armed conflict. Instead, Netanyahu should agree to the deal on the table (though he won't, obviously).

There are definitely some rules of war that apply even when up against an enemy that respects no rules of law and doesn't represent a formal army, such as not killing surrendered opponents and not torturing. I don't think this is one of them, though.

As for the deal, neither Hamas nor Netanyahu has agreed to the others' terms. The key sticking points seem to be Netanyahu refusing to agree to a total unilateral end to the war, and Hamas refusing to agree that they won't shoot the hostages before returning them.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Yeah, I've made clear my opinions on Israel in this conflict, but I really don't see how you can get too worked up over collateral damage in a successful effort to rescue hostages, especially since Hamas seems to have escalated the encounter and attacked the Israelis as they got the hostages. I'm more skeptical of the convenient timing of this whole operation.

If Hamas prior to October 7th had attacked across the border and killed hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians unjustly held in an Israeli prison would you consider that to be acceptable?

No, and out of context I wouldn't consider it acceptable from Israel either, but given October 7th as well as the likelihood that Hamas retaliated against the rescue attempt in an area filled with their own civilians I am finding it difficult to feel particularly outraged at Israel beyond my opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives in general.

So if given the context that the IDF has killed tens of thousands of innocents minimum and the countless accusations of torture and other war crimes since then would Hamas killing hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians right now be something you'd have a hard time feeling outraged about, or would you suddenly rediscover your outrage?

What’s missing from this is any agency at all on the part of Hamas. No mention of Hamas pursuing other options, like releasing the hostages or ceasing to fight a losing war. The argument takes for granted that Hamas is justified in doing whatever it wants to Israel while Israel is limited to passive inaction in the face of violent attack, because Israel is by definition the aggressor in any scenario.

One wonders whether pro-terrorist posters are aware that people who are not terrorists typically don't keep foreign nationals in prison located in large urban areas.

Who are these "pro-terrorist posters"?

I would certainly like to know as well. The only two pro Hamas posters we've had were both banned, one literally on 10/7.

All of us who are opposed to Israel’s destruction of Gaza, apparently.

(Pay no attention to violent settlers in the West Bank who have been escalating in their aggression since well before October 7th!)

[pppolitics]

I hate to defend the Israelis, but they are probably on the right site of the international laws on this one.

Unlike, let's say, indiscriminate bombing and restricting humanitarian aids, which are clearly intended "to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group", a rescue operate clearly is not.

Maybe one can argue that the rescue operation is a crime because the number of civilian casualties exceed proportionality, but the Israelis could argue that they anticipated far lower civilian casualties and it would be incredibly difficult to prove.

[CumbrianLefty]

Also, in the cases of Afghanistan and Vietnam, they won devastated countries.

Though these days Vietnam isn't doing too badly.

Afghanistan, well.....

[GALeftist]

I am very, very glad those hostages are safe, but I do not think this was the right way to do it. Perfidy is dangerous precisely because it is sometimes useful to achieve noble ends, and yet it can still lead to erosion of a vital part of armed conflict. Instead, Netanyahu should agree to the deal on the table (though he won't, obviously).

There are definitely some rules of war that apply even when up against an enemy that respects no rules of law and doesn't represent a formal army, such as not killing surrendered opponents and not torturing. I don't think this is one of them, though.

As for the deal, neither Hamas nor Netanyahu has agreed to the others' terms. The key sticking points seem to be Netanyahu refusing to agree to a total unilateral end to the war, and Hamas refusing to agree that they won't shoot the hostages before returning them.

Do you have a source for the bolded? My impression was that the main sticking point was that Israel hasn't agreed to end the war without "destroying Hamas."

[axiomsofdominion]

Yeah, I've made clear my opinions on Israel in this conflict, but I really don't see how you can get too worked up over collateral damage in a successful effort to rescue hostages, especially since Hamas seems to have escalated the encounter and attacked the Israelis as they got the hostages. I'm more skeptical of the convenient timing of this whole operation.

If Hamas prior to October 7th had attacked across the border and killed hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians unjustly held in an Israeli prison would you consider that to be acceptable?

No, and out of context I wouldn't consider it acceptable from Israel either, but given October 7th as well as the likelihood that Hamas retaliated against the rescue attempt in an area filled with their own civilians I am finding it difficult to feel particularly outraged at Israel beyond my opposition to Netanyahu and Israeli conservatives in general.

So if given the context that the IDF has killed tens of thousands of innocents minimum and the countless accusations of torture and other war crimes since then would Hamas killing hundreds of Israelis including children to rescue 4 Palestinians right now be something you'd have a hard time feeling outraged about, or would you suddenly rediscover your outrage?

What’s missing from this is any agency at all on the part of Hamas. No mention of Hamas pursuing other options, like releasing the hostages or ceasing to fight a losing war. The argument takes for granted that Hamas is justified in doing whatever it wants to Israel while Israel is limited to passive inaction in the face of violent attack, because Israel is by definition the aggressor in any scenario.

One wonders whether pro-terrorist posters are aware that people who are not terrorists typically don't keep foreign nationals in prison located in large urban areas.

Who are these "pro-terrorist posters"?

I would certainly like to know as well. The only two pro Hamas posters we've had were both banned, one literally on 10/7.

All of us who are opposed to Israel’s destruction of Gaza, apparently.

(Pay no attention to violent settlers in the West Bank who have been escalating in their aggression since well before October 7th!)

Well except that I oppose the actions of the settlers in the West Bank. Many of them belong in prison, some probably for life. US sanctions on settlers should be maxed out. Ben-Gvir should be in prison certainly, and not just for his ostensibly political actions. He commits regular crimes constantly.

Accusations of being pro-Hamas or anti-Semitic, by me personally, can't speak for others, relate directly to the response to the hostage rescue.

Israel clearly is not employing appropriate consideration for civilians in a large minority of air strikes. Settler terrorists, and yes many settlers are terrorists by any reasonable definition, destroying food aid clearly require criminal proceedings to be levied against them.

But the reaction to casualties caused explicitly and directly by Hamas during the hostage rescue and the claim that Israel should not rescue hostages under any conditions are explicitly pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic.

I'm sure many of the posters saying these things would argue that they don't hate Jews. But then it is often the case that racists don't think they are racist either.

Many in the thread have called the invasion of Gaza a genocide when many of the people involved or in supporting it don't think it is. You can't have it both ways.

GALeftist, now safely on my ignore list for terrorists, is clearly well beyond the pale in saying any hostage rescue instead of agreeing to some non-existent nebulous deal is wrong. I stand by that 100%. Of course that no one has explicitly supported them is a positive, either in recommends or replies.

As a heuristic I also stand by the claim that people who put the civilian deaths in the hostage rescue on Israel rather than Hamas are also anti-Semitic and/or pro-terrorism. Could some number of them not be while supporting that position? Theoretically but as we can't read minds or meet people on the forum in person I think there's very little value in giving them the benefit of the doubt that they are just idiots. That's what heuristics are for.

There's plenty of cases where Israel has reacted wrongly in a pretty objective way so why defend the least defensible situations?

[VBM]

Question for the pro-Palestine crowd. Who is responsible for the collateral in this operation to free the 4 hostages, Israel or Hamas?

[axiomsofdominion]

Question for the pro-Palestine crowd. Who is responsible for the collateral in this operation to free the 4 hostages, Israel or Hamas?

Doesn't matter because they shouldn't have rescued the hostages anyways, don't you know? Insidious of them.

[GALeftist]

Question for the pro-Palestine crowd. Who is responsible for the collateral in this operation to free the 4 hostages, Israel or Hamas?

"Responsibility" is for when one of your kids breaks a vase. For adults, the answer is that both Israel and Hamas have repeatedly and intentionally failed to minimize Palestinian civilian deaths, which they both have an obligation to do. That's not an either/or question, and neither side need wait for the other to clean up its act before cleaning up theirs.

[VBM]

Question for the pro-Palestine crowd. Who is responsible for the collateral in this operation to free the 4 hostages, Israel or Hamas?

"Responsibility" is for when one of your kids breaks a vase. For adults, the answer is that both Israel and Hamas have repeatedly and intentionally failed to minimize Palestinian civilian deaths, which they both have an obligation to do. That's not an either/or question, and neither side need wait for the other to clean up its act before cleaning up theirs.

Which side was more at fault?

What do you think Israel should have done here? Just not even try to free these 4 to begin with? Let Hamas gun down the Israeli soldiers and hostages rather than conduct air strikes to let them get out of there?