There was a second part to that which is "and surrender".
But there's definitely been a large reduction in violence since the hostages were returned. Most or all of it in response to violations of the ceasefire by Hamas.
To save the people they claim to protect. Just like in WW2, had the Germans and the Japanese surrendered earlier, the Allies wouldn't have had to kill so many of them.
> Don’t forget the “all they have to do is return the hostages” line
So there's zero link whatsoever between Hamas executing 1200 civilians on Oct 7th, taking 200 hostages, and the following war (and war crimes) of Israel?
Israel literally unilaterally began a war and committed war crimes without any act of aggression?
And from the moment 200 hostages had been taken, many of whom died in captivity, everything was carved in stone and no matter what Hamas did, Israel was going anyway to war and to commit war crimes?
Or did something happen on Oct 7th that triggered all this?
Actually a large number of those 1200 were killed by Israeli incendiary rounds fired from helicopters due to Operation Hannibal. It’s why the estimates kept getting rounded down from an initial 1500, because many of the bodies were too badly incinerated to be counted accurately.
If they wanted to go after Hamas, why did they employ methods of combat that were guaranteed to affect civilians, like cutting off the entire strip from food supply?
Or the massacre that this thread is about for that matter?
It's really about motive and targeting. Were they trying to get the hostages back or just kill people randomly? Were they targeting Hamas or aid workers?
There was a second part to that which is "and surrender".
But there's definitely been a large reduction in violence since the hostages were returned. Most or all of it in response to violations of the ceasefire by Hamas.
> There was a second part to that which is "and surrender".
Honest question. Why should they surrender?
> Most or all of it in response to violations of the ceasefire by Hamas.
A complete and utter inversion of reality.
First page of Google results for: Israel ceasefire violations
“How many times has Israel violated the Gaza ceasefire? Here are the numbers: Since the ceasefire took effect, Israeli attacks have killed at least 615 Palestinians and injured 1,658.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/11/how-many-times-has...
“UN experts urge States to act as Israeli violations threaten fragile Gaza ceasefire” https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/un-experts-u...
“Israel has violated ceasefire 47 times and killed 38 Palestinians” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/18/israel-has-vio...
“Fact Sheet: Israel’s History of Breaking Ceasefires” https://imeu.org/resources/resources/fact-sheet-israels-hist...
> Honest question. Why should they surrender?
The full statement is something like "to end the war, Hamas only need to return the hostages and surrender".
Surrendering is typically what the losing side needs to do to end a war.
> Honest question. Why should they surrender?
To save the people they claim to protect. Just like in WW2, had the Germans and the Japanese surrendered earlier, the Allies wouldn't have had to kill so many of them.
2 replies →
[flagged]
2 replies →
> Don’t forget the “all they have to do is return the hostages” line
So there's zero link whatsoever between Hamas executing 1200 civilians on Oct 7th, taking 200 hostages, and the following war (and war crimes) of Israel?
Israel literally unilaterally began a war and committed war crimes without any act of aggression?
And from the moment 200 hostages had been taken, many of whom died in captivity, everything was carved in stone and no matter what Hamas did, Israel was going anyway to war and to commit war crimes?
Or did something happen on Oct 7th that triggered all this?
Actually a large number of those 1200 were killed by Israeli incendiary rounds fired from helicopters due to Operation Hannibal. It’s why the estimates kept getting rounded down from an initial 1500, because many of the bodies were too badly incinerated to be counted accurately.
This is a wild enough sounding claim it deserves a cite.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-07/israel-hannibal-direc...
The Hannibal directive or the more recent Dayiha Doctrine[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine
The investigation into this found 14 deaths from Hannibal Directive actions. Mostly firing on vehicles carrying hostages.
Report: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/coi-report-a-hrc-56-26-2...
1 reply →
If they wanted to go after Hamas, why did they employ methods of combat that were guaranteed to affect civilians, like cutting off the entire strip from food supply?
Or the massacre that this thread is about for that matter?
[flagged]
Cool, now justify the things happening in the west bank. Israel so peaceful, coexists with neighbors.
The issue isn't whether or not Israel started it. It's the genocide they did once it started.
It's really about motive and targeting. Were they trying to get the hostages back or just kill people randomly? Were they targeting Hamas or aid workers?
> Don’t forget the “all they have to do is return the hostages” line
Did the ceasefire not coincide with the return of the hostages? What am I missing?
Civilian deaths have continued https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-31/israel-strikes-gaza-h...
That article says 30 deaths of "people" not civilians and that the strikes targeted commanders.
4 replies →