I wonder how many other innocent people being murdered justifies saving other innocent people.
Can you kill 100 to rescue 4. What about 1000 or 10000.
The fact is they could have accepted any number of ceasefire deals to release these hostages, but they chose to keep murdering more people and further creating the next generation of Hamas signups.
I don't think it matters how you call them. If you want to label a party bad by calling them terrorists - it's your choice.
I know that Israel is able to take care of their own people. Hamas is incapable of that and is willing to kill Palestinians in order to bring any damage to another party. It's understandable that Israel started the ground operation (maybe not how it goes now, but still). It's illogical to say that hamas did the right thing with the October 7 events, already because it was obviously useless for their cause.
How is anybody to take care of the Palestinian people when they essentially live in an apartheid state. They have been oppressed by the Israeli government you’re defending for decades now.
Go have a look at maps over the decades of how much land has been stolen. Regular bombing etc.
You could read some Finkelstein on the subject, you know the Jewish expert who has researched it most of his life.
Edit: Notice how I said both sides were terrorists and you only want to focus on one side. That’s called bias my friend.
If a cease-fire with a prisoner exchange was literally on the table but rejected by Israel, I'd pick the option where a bunch of innocent blood isn't spilled to secure a release.
So, the ideal solution for you is a return to the status quo, but with the Hamas getting away with it. Plus a bonus: multiple prisoners released just for returning the hostages to their homes, from where they should never have been kidnapped from in the first place. And, the cherry in top, the Hamas still having the capability of launching missiles whenever it pleases. What a great deal! (for the Hamas only, of course)
No, but I'm fully aware I'm a hypocrite there. I think most people are when it comes to their loved ones. If I was family of the hostages, I wouldn't care how many innocent people died to get them back. I'd support the IDF.
If I was the family of the nearby Palestinians, I wouldn't care about the hostages, and I'd let them die if it meant my family would be safe. I'd support Hamas.
This is why geopolitics can't be personal. The best decision is not one that you insert yourself into, because you have a much higher threshold for acceptable collateral if it's your own family on the line.
At the same time though, this is also a lesson in why a ceasefire is crucial. You put yourself into everyone's shoes, and you understand why this needs to end. Everyone's families and loved ones are dying or in captivity, and it's perpetuating a cycle of violence. It needs to end. Israel has the power to withdraw from Gaza and pursue purely diplomatic means, and it should.
In the end of the day, it's the law of the strongest. It's no accident that Israel hoard a lot of weapons of war and build defensive systems like the Iron Dome. It's a show of power for a very simple goal: deterrence. I don't think Israel really though of using all their weapons, but just having them makes every one the enemy nations that surround them to think twice before attacking them. Well, Hamas did not think twice. And they cannot say they didn't saw it coming.
Israel accepting a ceasefire deal would be nice for saving lives and all, but would leave them vulnerable for future missile attacks from Hamas. A nation will always think of its own citizens first. Maybe the Hamas already counted with this reaction of Israel, and though that other Arab countries would form a coalition to fight Israel simultaneously. Well, it didn't pan out. Deterrence worked after all.