In a 65-foot-deep tunnel in Rafah, hostages found executed by captors
In a 65-foot-deep tunnel in Rafah, hostages found executed by captors
Forces had no direct confrontation with Hamas terrorists who killed hostages; 'The IDF and security forces are doing everything possible to bring all hostages home as quickly as possible. This news shakes us all,' says army spokesperson Hagari
Forces had no direct confrontation with Hamas terrorists who killed hostages; 'The IDF and security forces are doing everything possible to bring all hostages home as quickly as possible. This news shakes us all,' says army spokesperson Hagari
Israeli forces discovered the bodies of six hostages in a 65-foot-deep tunnel in Rafah, approximately a kilometer from where hostage Farhan Alkadi was recently freed. The IDF had no precise intelligence on the hostages' location in recent months but knew there were captives in the sector, leading to a gradual and cautious operation in Rafah since the ground offensive began.
You're viewing a single thread.
These people might have been alive if we had a ceasefire. But no, Netanyahu's political career is more important.
They could have had all the hostages back in October. Hamas just wanted back the hostages that Israel holds.
And again, they could have had all the hostages back in May.
Netanyahu seems committed to genocide and the hostages are collateral damage.
It's deranged and I am ashamed our western leaders are cheerleading this.
Hamas didn't just want hostages back in October, but let's not get derailed, yes it's true that the Israelis could have stopped the war at many occasions.
"Civilian" hostages. Israel has compulsory military service. And a reasonable chunk of those taken hostage were active or reservist military members.
So no, not all.
Without a military intervention it is implied Hamas wants to trade the IDF active duty military hostages for Palestinian hostages in a to be decided deal.
A "to be decided deal" isn't an offered deal.
I see you there making an effort to dehumanize the hostages. Shame on you.
I'm not dehumanizing the hostages. Hamas has literally clarified that when it agrees to release Civillian hostages it will not release any active or reservist hostage or military-aged males (even if they're not in the military currently).
During the temporary cease-fire, they were supposed to release all the elderly hostages. But they kept some of the males back who were veterans.
The headline given wasn't an offer by Hamas to return all the hostages as was claimed earlier in the thread. It was an offer to return some of the hostages and to keep the rest indefinitely.
How were they doing that? To me it seemed like their point was a distinction between all hostages and civilian ones being released. I don’t know if they are correct, but I cannot see how it in any way dehumanizes anyone.
And what's the point of bringing up that some of them may have done compulsory service at some point in their life under a story about Hamas killing six hostages?
There is a context to this, and there is a narrative being promoted that justifies Hamas taking hostages (which is a war crime) and justifies the killing of these unarmed hastages (which is also war crime) because they were at one time IDF (aeven if that were the case, it would also be a war crime to summary execution prisoners of war).
It's all about building a permission structure to make the war crimes of Hamas acceptable by attempting to classify the hostages as IDF.
To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone. They pointed out that they only said civilians and as not all hostages would be considered civilians not all hostages would have been freed as another commenter claimed.
I still see it as them pushing back against an “Hamas was good actually” sentiment, arguing that Hamas was not as good as implied due to a careful reading of the statement and an assessment of the hostages and whether all were civilian or would be considered civilian by Hamas.
There is a greater context, but the thread in which this was written the context was a push back against claims portraying Hamas favorably.
To me it sounded like they were specifically pushing against a claim that Hamas offered to free everyone.
You read it correctly.
Some Palestinian children and international aid workers are going to pay dearly for this.
I read this in this tone...
There's apparently a very rancorous debate in Israeli politics right now about accepting a ceasefire and a lot of people are angry that they're not making more concessions to get a ceasefire.
It's blatantly clear that Netanyahu has no desire to rescue the hostages.
Citizens often get angry about the policy of not negotiating with terrorists, especially victims families, but it's a sound policy though. Saves lives in the long run.
In the 70s the PLO was labelled terrorist and not negotiated with. Now sane Israelis(*) would dream having the PLO as their adversary.
(*) The right wing (Netanyahu et co) on the other hand funded and supported Hamas.
That was the publicly stated policy. The US did negotiate with the PLO and we did have non-official cover diplomats going in and out of Gaza every week.
Israel funding Hamas is another lie. I can do it, too. The UN funds Hamas because it provides food to Gaza, keeping Hamas in power by preventing the Gazan people from having to live with the consequences of their choices (having no food because they prefer to have terrorists in charge). I mean, that's technically true, but not really funding Hamas.
So you mean... "negotiating with terrorists" is actually necessary?
And I said funded and supported. Here is the Times of Israel, a well known antisemitic, anti-israel publication : https://www.timesofisrael.com/for-years-netanyahu-propped-up-hamas-now-its-blown-up-in-our-faces/
No negotiating with terrorists isn't necessary. Terrorists don't get to have a country. Real simple.
Letting Qatari cash into Gaza as well as issuing work permits to Gazan's is not "funding and supporting." Reread your article.
Terrorists don't get a country? Must be news to the Irgun crowd.
And sorry, I'm not going to re-litigate Netanyahu's propping up of Hamas here. This is known, Khaleesi.
So why did Israel get one considering those founders were terrorists?
These people might have been alive if they had never been kidnapped by palestinians.
Sure, but how far back do you want to take the causal chain?
I propose we take it as far back as it is possible to avoid future repetitions. So, a ceasefire for now. A just peace with dismantling of occupation and apartheid for next.
Way to victim blame
This is honestly the first time I've seen anyone cast Netanyahu as the victim.
You're taking blame off the people who literally slaughtered these prisoners, and throwing it back at them for being born in Israel. Don't be purposely obtuse to try and play some game.
I never blamed the hostages for anything. I am observing that Netanyahu has repeatedly shot down hostage deal after hostage deal for months now for narrow political gain. The Israelis on the streets are saying the same.
