"What, after all, is Israel attempting to accomplish by escalating the war in Gaza now?"
To completely eradicate Hamas.
"Defeating the remnants of Hamas?"
Yes
"When, one wonders, would the last remnants actually cease to exist? How would we know?"
When all of Hamas is dead or imprisoned. When Iran's proxy is wiped off the face of the earth and the people of Israel are made safer because of it. So that we never experience another terrorist atrocity like Oct 7. When we make one more step toward eliminating all Islamic terrorism threats from the world.
The Isarel-hating, Palestinian sympathizers are themselves the most responsible for all the death of innocents in Palestine, because if they instead had previously supported Israel's right to exist, and condemned all terrorism against Israel, organizations like Hamas would never have been given the support they needed to continue their murderous agenda. Oct 7 would have never occurred, and Israel would have never gone to war in Gaza.
Andrew: Just seeing this Persuasion post now, but coincidentally earlier today I emailed in response to your similar piece from last Friday's Weekly Dish:
Below is the text of that email, which I think also applies well here ...
-----
Subject: my question for you about last Friday's Gaza piece
As background, I'm Jewish and live in California. I'm a long time J Street Supporter, who believes that Netanyahu and Israel's settlement policy on the West Bank has been abominable and likely the biggest barrier to peace over the last twenty years. In some ways, I'm even arguably to the "left" of J Street since I believe that the U.S. should cut all aid to Israel until the settlers are pulled out of all settlements on the wrong side of the eventual border (i.e. the Olmert/Al-Kidwas line). Here's the full description of the approach I think could actually lead eventually to a lasting peace that would be good for both peoples:
Having said that, I'm still hesitant to criticize Israel's overall policy toward Gaza. I do believe that the war against Hamas is both just and necessary. And while I have no doubt that some actions of the IDF are needlessly brutal and wrong (as is the case in virtually every war), I'm hesitant to make any blanket statements condemning the IDF. In particular, I don't want to criticize Israel for conducting the war in a way that prioritizes the lives of their own soldiers far above the lives of Palestinian children. Not because I think that their lives are worth more (I absolutely believe they are not) but because I have three kids between the ages of 18-22, and I know that if we were Israeli and they were serving in the iDF, I would want the IDF to conduct the war that way. So I don't want to demand from Israelis something I wouldn't demand of myself were I in their shoes.
Which leads to two observations and my question:
1. You mentioned in your piece how both the English and Germans tried to evacuate their kids, but you did in a way that contrasted it with the IDF. But of course both the English and Germans were evacuating their own kids, not the kids on the other side. The contrast here is not with Israel but with Hamas, which has deliberately put Gazan children in the line of fire as part of their strategy.
'“On a June evening at Chequers, Churchill viewed films of the bombing of German towns. “Are we beasts?,” he asked. “Are we taking this too far?’ In his heart he knew how far they must go. On receiving the Freedom of the City of London at the Guildhall he said: “We, the United Nations, demand from the Nazi, Fascist and Japanese tyrannies, unconditional surrender.” But, he insisted, this demand must not come from a “mere lust for vengeance.”'
So Churchill (and Roosevelt) decided in 1945 that the war would continue until Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered, and they ordered bombings at Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki that brutally killed far more German and Japanese women and children in a few hours than Israel has done in its entire 100 year conflict with the Palestinians.
So here is my question: Do you believe that the Allies were wrong to fight on in 1945 until they had received an unconditional surrender? And if not, why do you believe it is wrong for Israel to do so in their conflict with Hamas?
I think it is absurd to compare Britain’s fight against Nazi Germany with Israel’s fight with Hamas. The military superiority Israel has over Hamas is huge and dispositive. It is nowhere near as threatened as Britain was in 1940.
But even then, the moral cost of murdering so many civilians burdened Churchill’s conscience. I don’t think Dresden is morally defensible. But if you compare the damage to Coventry, say, to Dresden, there is some symmetry. There is no such symmetry between the horror of October 7 and the subsequent two years of the IDF’s blitz on Gaza. It’s Goliath destroying David.
The comparison is with 1945 Andrew. By that time, the Allis were in full control militarily. The could certainly have negotiated a surrender that would have withdrawn Germans and Japanese troops to their homelands (and saved hundreds of thousands of innocent German and Japanese lives). And, of course, the bombing of Coventry by that time had occurred more than four years earlier.
But Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman decided to insist on unconditional surrender. And then ordered the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, which were obviously meant to force this unconditional surrender without the kind of ground invasions that would have meant the death of many Allied troops (as well as many Germans and Japanese civilians).
Hamas is still in control in Gaza (as was made clear during the ceasefire). Isn't stopping the war now, the equivalent of stopping World War II with the Nazis still in control in Germany and the Imperial War Command still in control in Japan?
Well, the Israelis have been doing many Dresdens on Gaza for over eighteen months now - and no surrender is forthcoming because death cults don’t surrender. So more Dresdens? And yet more ad infinitum?
By your logic, the Israelis would also be within their rights to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, as we did in Japan. Is that your view? If not, why not? It’s the only military action that could achieve Israel’s current goals.
Fair questions. And I should add that I really appreciate you engaging Andrew. Anyway, a few thoughts:
First, I want to note that estimates are that 25k died in Dresden in the three days of bombing. So the entire 500+ day war in Gaza, as brutal as it has been, has resulted in the equivalent of a little more two Dresdens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/gaza-health-officials-say-55000-palestinians-have-died-in-israel-hamas-war) . And Gaza is far denser. Which doesn’t mean that what has happened there isn’t horrific, but it does disprove the notion that Israel has been conducting a Dresden like campaign. If the Israelis had wanted that kind of carnage, the number of deaths would literally be at least an order of magnitude greater.
Meanwhile, if you’re right that a “death cult will never surrender” and that Gaza is fated to always be led by Hamas, then I would reluctantly agree with the Israelis (and our own Dear Leader) who believes that the Palestinians should be expelled from Gaza. I simply don’t see how any Israeli government can leave Hamas in charge after October 7th. If the choice is between a second Nakba and leaving Hamas in control, then I would reluctantly support a second Nakba.
But is that really the choice? Are the Palestinians really more of a death cult than Nazi Germany? Is it not possible to end the war in Gaza with Israeli soldiers able to patrol the streets of Gaza (as they do in the West Bank) with little fear of being attacked in the same way that Allied soldiers were able to patrol the streets of Germany and Japan after World War 2? Is it not possible to release the hostages and bring everyone who planned October 7th to justice in the Hague in the same way that Allied prisoners of war were freed and Nazi and Japanese leaders tried? Is it not possible to find Palestinians who are not part of a death cult to lead Gaza?
I don’t understand why that isn’t possible and why you’re not calling for the world to join Israel in making that demand rather than making Hamas’ strategy of deliberately sacrificing its own people successful. Such a call should be coupled with demands from the United States, as well as the world, for Israel to pull the settlers out of most of the West Bank (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians) in order to prove they have no territorial ambitions and to lay the groundwork for a future Palestinian state. That, in my mind, would be ideal. But again, I don’t see how Israel can agree to a peace that leaves Hamas in charge any more than the Allies could agree to a peace that would have left the Nazis in charge.
Thanks again for engaging. Will leave you with the last word if you wish.
I did not know that all Palestinians were Hamas. I thought Hamas was one of Iran's proxy militant terrorism arms within Palestine. Are you saying that all Palestinians are Hamas... or Hezbollah?
I think any honest and thorough conclusion for how Israel needs to deal with the mostly self-imposed humanitarian challenges of the Palestinian people... a people with a history of being wandering refugees since before 1948, but then who demonstrated to all other surrounding Arab countries that might have supported them and assimilated them that they were a toxic and dangerous people that tended to foment social and political instability in all the countries that attempted to welcome them... is to occupy, make sure Iran influence is cut off, and then hold the peace and encourage investment and improve the country until the next generations of Palestinians can have their violent death cultural purged from their heads.
Intellectually honesty here requires that we all admit that Palestine is a shit place with shit people and that there is no magic bullet to fix it... it is at least a single generation project to transform it into something non-shit.
Palestinians are a people who have been hard done for by history: they had the misfortune to live in the ancestral home of a people who finally decided to return there after thousands of years because of events they had nothing to do with; their fellow neighbors decided to keep them as refugees as a cudgel to attack Israel rather than welcoming them; and they have had leaders whose ambitions far exceeded what they can deliver.
But they are a people like any other with a mix of good and bad. And certainly they have committed far fewer horrors than 1930s/1940s Germany and Japan. And yet within a generation, those countries had been transformed in positive ways. Such a transformation is possible in Palestine as well.
"It will be said that Hamas started this war, could still end it by disarming and surrendering the hostages, and cannot now complain that Israel is intent on finishing it off. All true. But if the gap between Hamas’ military capacities and Israel’s was huge but not impregnable on October 7, 2023, it is now overwhelming."
Do you understand what you just said? The odds are overwhelming, innocents are dying and yet they continue to fight? What does that say about Hamas? They don't give a shit about their own people. And remember that when this started they did not attack the military, they attacked innocent people and slaughtered them horrendously, on purpose. And they continue to hide in tunnels and under civilian structures. Bunch of asshole cowards.
Genocide may be the wrong word for the revenge massacre Israel's perpetrating, but come on, anyone who can look at what they've done to Gaza and still think that this is just about going after Hamas is kidding themselves. And anyone who's still under the delusion that Israel (or Jews in general) is too morally superior to deliberately slaughter and starve civilians is in need of a reality check.
Genocide is exactly the right word for what the IDF is doing in Gaza. Or you can call it ‘ethnic cleansing,’ just like Israelites ethnically cleansed the Canaanites. Same shift, different millennium.
"Thou shalt utterly destroy them." And their descendants feel entitled to get on a moral high horse about genocide. I believe that's called a double standard.
When millions died of COVID it was horrible, and the entire world did its best to stop the spread of this disease; when millions die of cholera or AIDS or other deadly infectious diseases it is horrible, and the world tries to coordinate to stop the spread of these diseases. Now thousands of people, including thousands of innocent children, are dying of Islamist Jihad; yet the world does not coordinate to stop the spread of this infectious lethal suicidal disease. Instead, because so many children are dying, the world demands Israels simply allows itself to be annihilated by this wildly infectious lethal disease. When children die it is horrible. Yes! Yes! Yes! When innocent people die it is horrible, but it is more horrible to allow a disease to spread like devilish fire without attempting to stop the disease itself. My heart breaks for every innocent of the millions and millions who have died of cancer, cholera, AIDS, malaria and Islamic Jihad. The only reasonable course of action is to cure the disease. Through bitter tears, we must coordinate to cure the disease: excise Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The world must coordinate; we must stop the super spreaders like UNWRA and Qatar and Iran and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The world must coordinate to save one of our greatest religions. Save Islam. Ibn Rusde and Ibn Sina were not Islamic Jihadists: These Great Muslim Scholars' ideas helped create modern science and modern medicine too. Save the children; stop the disease of Islamic Jihad. Excise Hamas entirely. We need the help of the entire world to do this. Instead they look only at the dead bodies ravaged by a disease and act like like hysterical mourners without stopping what is killing so so many children unnecessarily. Cure Islamic Jihad first and mourn the innocents next. There is no time for mourning when the disease is raging and must be cured if we are ever to staunch the dying.
This like listening to Piers Morgan. I'm tempted to invite Natasha Hausdorff so that Mr. Sullivan can alternately berate and ignore her. Maybe it's a British thing.
There are way too many assertions here from someone who is privy to neither Israeli planning nor the situation on the ground in Gaza. It simply isn't serious.
A key (arguably the most critical) goal Israel is trying to accomplish is freeing the hostages, of whom 53 remain to this day (616 and counting) in Gaza, held by Hamas and its allies.
Insofar as only military pressure has brought any of them home, either by forcing Hamas to the bargaining table or occasionally via rescues, how else would Israel realistically reclaim its people? Or is the argument that it would be worthwhile for their government to abandon them to their fate in order to spare the Gazans’ lives?
And part of the reason Israel gets away with this atrocity is because of douchebags who scream about wokeness rather than the oppression of vulnerable people.
"What, after all, is Israel attempting to accomplish by escalating the war in Gaza now?"
To completely eradicate Hamas.
"Defeating the remnants of Hamas?"
Yes
"When, one wonders, would the last remnants actually cease to exist? How would we know?"
When all of Hamas is dead or imprisoned. When Iran's proxy is wiped off the face of the earth and the people of Israel are made safer because of it. So that we never experience another terrorist atrocity like Oct 7. When we make one more step toward eliminating all Islamic terrorism threats from the world.
The Isarel-hating, Palestinian sympathizers are themselves the most responsible for all the death of innocents in Palestine, because if they instead had previously supported Israel's right to exist, and condemned all terrorism against Israel, organizations like Hamas would never have been given the support they needed to continue their murderous agenda. Oct 7 would have never occurred, and Israel would have never gone to war in Gaza.
Then Israel will have to occupy Gaza for ever and kill or expel almost all its citizens. Which is, of course, what they are obviously intending to do.
Andrew: Just seeing this Persuasion post now, but coincidentally earlier today I emailed in response to your similar piece from last Friday's Weekly Dish:
https://andrewsullivan.substack.com/p/the-infanticide-that-wont-end-afb
Below is the text of that email, which I think also applies well here ...
-----
Subject: my question for you about last Friday's Gaza piece
As background, I'm Jewish and live in California. I'm a long time J Street Supporter, who believes that Netanyahu and Israel's settlement policy on the West Bank has been abominable and likely the biggest barrier to peace over the last twenty years. In some ways, I'm even arguably to the "left" of J Street since I believe that the U.S. should cut all aid to Israel until the settlers are pulled out of all settlements on the wrong side of the eventual border (i.e. the Olmert/Al-Kidwas line). Here's the full description of the approach I think could actually lead eventually to a lasting peace that would be good for both peoples:
https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians
Having said that, I'm still hesitant to criticize Israel's overall policy toward Gaza. I do believe that the war against Hamas is both just and necessary. And while I have no doubt that some actions of the IDF are needlessly brutal and wrong (as is the case in virtually every war), I'm hesitant to make any blanket statements condemning the IDF. In particular, I don't want to criticize Israel for conducting the war in a way that prioritizes the lives of their own soldiers far above the lives of Palestinian children. Not because I think that their lives are worth more (I absolutely believe they are not) but because I have three kids between the ages of 18-22, and I know that if we were Israeli and they were serving in the iDF, I would want the IDF to conduct the war that way. So I don't want to demand from Israelis something I wouldn't demand of myself were I in their shoes.
Which leads to two observations and my question:
1. You mentioned in your piece how both the English and Germans tried to evacuate their kids, but you did in a way that contrasted it with the IDF. But of course both the English and Germans were evacuating their own kids, not the kids on the other side. The contrast here is not with Israel but with Hamas, which has deliberately put Gazan children in the line of fire as part of their strategy.
2. Here is the full, final paragraph of the site (https://winstonchurchill.org/the-life-of-churchill/war-leader/1943-1945/spring-1943-age-68/) you linked to where Churchill asks "Are we becoming beasts":
'“On a June evening at Chequers, Churchill viewed films of the bombing of German towns. “Are we beasts?,” he asked. “Are we taking this too far?’ In his heart he knew how far they must go. On receiving the Freedom of the City of London at the Guildhall he said: “We, the United Nations, demand from the Nazi, Fascist and Japanese tyrannies, unconditional surrender.” But, he insisted, this demand must not come from a “mere lust for vengeance.”'
So Churchill (and Roosevelt) decided in 1945 that the war would continue until Germany and Japan unconditionally surrendered, and they ordered bombings at Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki that brutally killed far more German and Japanese women and children in a few hours than Israel has done in its entire 100 year conflict with the Palestinians.
So here is my question: Do you believe that the Allies were wrong to fight on in 1945 until they had received an unconditional surrender? And if not, why do you believe it is wrong for Israel to do so in their conflict with Hamas?
I think it is absurd to compare Britain’s fight against Nazi Germany with Israel’s fight with Hamas. The military superiority Israel has over Hamas is huge and dispositive. It is nowhere near as threatened as Britain was in 1940.
But even then, the moral cost of murdering so many civilians burdened Churchill’s conscience. I don’t think Dresden is morally defensible. But if you compare the damage to Coventry, say, to Dresden, there is some symmetry. There is no such symmetry between the horror of October 7 and the subsequent two years of the IDF’s blitz on Gaza. It’s Goliath destroying David.
The comparison is with 1945 Andrew. By that time, the Allis were in full control militarily. The could certainly have negotiated a surrender that would have withdrawn Germans and Japanese troops to their homelands (and saved hundreds of thousands of innocent German and Japanese lives). And, of course, the bombing of Coventry by that time had occurred more than four years earlier.
But Churchill and Roosevelt/Truman decided to insist on unconditional surrender. And then ordered the bombings of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, which were obviously meant to force this unconditional surrender without the kind of ground invasions that would have meant the death of many Allied troops (as well as many Germans and Japanese civilians).
Hamas is still in control in Gaza (as was made clear during the ceasefire). Isn't stopping the war now, the equivalent of stopping World War II with the Nazis still in control in Germany and the Imperial War Command still in control in Japan?
Well, the Israelis have been doing many Dresdens on Gaza for over eighteen months now - and no surrender is forthcoming because death cults don’t surrender. So more Dresdens? And yet more ad infinitum?
By your logic, the Israelis would also be within their rights to drop a nuclear bomb on Gaza, as we did in Japan. Is that your view? If not, why not? It’s the only military action that could achieve Israel’s current goals.
Fair questions. And I should add that I really appreciate you engaging Andrew. Anyway, a few thoughts:
First, I want to note that estimates are that 25k died in Dresden in the three days of bombing. So the entire 500+ day war in Gaza, as brutal as it has been, has resulted in the equivalent of a little more two Dresdens (https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/gaza-health-officials-say-55000-palestinians-have-died-in-israel-hamas-war) . And Gaza is far denser. Which doesn’t mean that what has happened there isn’t horrific, but it does disprove the notion that Israel has been conducting a Dresden like campaign. If the Israelis had wanted that kind of carnage, the number of deaths would literally be at least an order of magnitude greater.
Meanwhile, if you’re right that a “death cult will never surrender” and that Gaza is fated to always be led by Hamas, then I would reluctantly agree with the Israelis (and our own Dear Leader) who believes that the Palestinians should be expelled from Gaza. I simply don’t see how any Israeli government can leave Hamas in charge after October 7th. If the choice is between a second Nakba and leaving Hamas in control, then I would reluctantly support a second Nakba.
But is that really the choice? Are the Palestinians really more of a death cult than Nazi Germany? Is it not possible to end the war in Gaza with Israeli soldiers able to patrol the streets of Gaza (as they do in the West Bank) with little fear of being attacked in the same way that Allied soldiers were able to patrol the streets of Germany and Japan after World War 2? Is it not possible to release the hostages and bring everyone who planned October 7th to justice in the Hague in the same way that Allied prisoners of war were freed and Nazi and Japanese leaders tried? Is it not possible to find Palestinians who are not part of a death cult to lead Gaza?
I don’t understand why that isn’t possible and why you’re not calling for the world to join Israel in making that demand rather than making Hamas’ strategy of deliberately sacrificing its own people successful. Such a call should be coupled with demands from the United States, as well as the world, for Israel to pull the settlers out of most of the West Bank (https://gordonstrause.substack.com/p/israel-and-the-palestinians) in order to prove they have no territorial ambitions and to lay the groundwork for a future Palestinian state. That, in my mind, would be ideal. But again, I don’t see how Israel can agree to a peace that leaves Hamas in charge any more than the Allies could agree to a peace that would have left the Nazis in charge.
Thanks again for engaging. Will leave you with the last word if you wish.
I did not know that all Palestinians were Hamas. I thought Hamas was one of Iran's proxy militant terrorism arms within Palestine. Are you saying that all Palestinians are Hamas... or Hezbollah?
I think any honest and thorough conclusion for how Israel needs to deal with the mostly self-imposed humanitarian challenges of the Palestinian people... a people with a history of being wandering refugees since before 1948, but then who demonstrated to all other surrounding Arab countries that might have supported them and assimilated them that they were a toxic and dangerous people that tended to foment social and political instability in all the countries that attempted to welcome them... is to occupy, make sure Iran influence is cut off, and then hold the peace and encourage investment and improve the country until the next generations of Palestinians can have their violent death cultural purged from their heads.
Intellectually honesty here requires that we all admit that Palestine is a shit place with shit people and that there is no magic bullet to fix it... it is at least a single generation project to transform it into something non-shit.
The last paragraph is ridiculous Frank.
Palestinians are a people who have been hard done for by history: they had the misfortune to live in the ancestral home of a people who finally decided to return there after thousands of years because of events they had nothing to do with; their fellow neighbors decided to keep them as refugees as a cudgel to attack Israel rather than welcoming them; and they have had leaders whose ambitions far exceeded what they can deliver.
But they are a people like any other with a mix of good and bad. And certainly they have committed far fewer horrors than 1930s/1940s Germany and Japan. And yet within a generation, those countries had been transformed in positive ways. Such a transformation is possible in Palestine as well.
You mean, it’s not Bibi N’s fault for funding Hamas in Gaza for a decade?
"It will be said that Hamas started this war, could still end it by disarming and surrendering the hostages, and cannot now complain that Israel is intent on finishing it off. All true. But if the gap between Hamas’ military capacities and Israel’s was huge but not impregnable on October 7, 2023, it is now overwhelming."
Do you understand what you just said? The odds are overwhelming, innocents are dying and yet they continue to fight? What does that say about Hamas? They don't give a shit about their own people. And remember that when this started they did not attack the military, they attacked innocent people and slaughtered them horrendously, on purpose. And they continue to hide in tunnels and under civilian structures. Bunch of asshole cowards.
Genocide may be the wrong word for the revenge massacre Israel's perpetrating, but come on, anyone who can look at what they've done to Gaza and still think that this is just about going after Hamas is kidding themselves. And anyone who's still under the delusion that Israel (or Jews in general) is too morally superior to deliberately slaughter and starve civilians is in need of a reality check.
Genocide is exactly the right word for what the IDF is doing in Gaza. Or you can call it ‘ethnic cleansing,’ just like Israelites ethnically cleansed the Canaanites. Same shift, different millennium.
"Thou shalt utterly destroy them." And their descendants feel entitled to get on a moral high horse about genocide. I believe that's called a double standard.
When millions died of COVID it was horrible, and the entire world did its best to stop the spread of this disease; when millions die of cholera or AIDS or other deadly infectious diseases it is horrible, and the world tries to coordinate to stop the spread of these diseases. Now thousands of people, including thousands of innocent children, are dying of Islamist Jihad; yet the world does not coordinate to stop the spread of this infectious lethal suicidal disease. Instead, because so many children are dying, the world demands Israels simply allows itself to be annihilated by this wildly infectious lethal disease. When children die it is horrible. Yes! Yes! Yes! When innocent people die it is horrible, but it is more horrible to allow a disease to spread like devilish fire without attempting to stop the disease itself. My heart breaks for every innocent of the millions and millions who have died of cancer, cholera, AIDS, malaria and Islamic Jihad. The only reasonable course of action is to cure the disease. Through bitter tears, we must coordinate to cure the disease: excise Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The world must coordinate; we must stop the super spreaders like UNWRA and Qatar and Iran and Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The world must coordinate to save one of our greatest religions. Save Islam. Ibn Rusde and Ibn Sina were not Islamic Jihadists: These Great Muslim Scholars' ideas helped create modern science and modern medicine too. Save the children; stop the disease of Islamic Jihad. Excise Hamas entirely. We need the help of the entire world to do this. Instead they look only at the dead bodies ravaged by a disease and act like like hysterical mourners without stopping what is killing so so many children unnecessarily. Cure Islamic Jihad first and mourn the innocents next. There is no time for mourning when the disease is raging and must be cured if we are ever to staunch the dying.
This like listening to Piers Morgan. I'm tempted to invite Natasha Hausdorff so that Mr. Sullivan can alternately berate and ignore her. Maybe it's a British thing.
There are way too many assertions here from someone who is privy to neither Israeli planning nor the situation on the ground in Gaza. It simply isn't serious.
A key (arguably the most critical) goal Israel is trying to accomplish is freeing the hostages, of whom 53 remain to this day (616 and counting) in Gaza, held by Hamas and its allies.
Insofar as only military pressure has brought any of them home, either by forcing Hamas to the bargaining table or occasionally via rescues, how else would Israel realistically reclaim its people? Or is the argument that it would be worthwhile for their government to abandon them to their fate in order to spare the Gazans’ lives?
Maybe Israel could have stopped settler violence on the West Bank, never started funding Hamas, etc.
And part of the reason Israel gets away with this atrocity is because of douchebags who scream about wokeness rather than the oppression of vulnerable people.