Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[Loren Pechtel]

I misspoke by calling Hamas a "government". It was only ever a group that was once elected to administer Gaza in 2006. But "popular"? What makes you think that Hamas is popular? Do you have polling data? They don't have popular elections anymore. Maybe you have psychic powers that allow you to know what is in the hearts and minds of people living in that concentrated population of stateless Palestinians.

I wouldn't trust any poll of Gazans about Hamas. Can you imagine what would happen to a Gazan who expressed to a pollster that Hamas should go and Hamas finds out about it?

I would have thought so but the polls are nowhere near 100% for Hamas. Look upthread, I posted a very recent one that contains one question where the majority expressed (although not by name) a sentiment that was negative towards Hamas.

There is also a standard technique for asking unpalatable questions, although they do not have appeared to have used it in this case:

Flip a coin where only you can see it. If it's heads answer "yes", if it's tails truthfully answer whether you have ever raped a woman. You then subtract 50% from the number of "yes" answers to determine the true number of rapists. This considerably increases the costs of doing a poll because half your answers are actually useless and you get an additional source of error due to the coins. (You need to more than double your sample size to get the same error margin.)

The few polls available might not look 100% for Hamas, but that doesn't contradict Zipr's point. People who sat down for such interviews would have to worry about speaking out freely against Hamas, yet some were brave enough to do so. The Gaza Strip is a concentration camp ghetto surrounded and cut off by a hostile nation and also ruled over by terrorist thugs. One thing the polls do seem to show is a spike in support for Hamas since Israel's murderous campaign of retaliation started after the brutal sneak attack by Hamas. That should not surprise anyone either. Hamas attacked Israel, not Palestinians living in Gaza. Israel has attacked and killed innocent Palestinians living in Gaza who were not participants in the October 7 rampage, allegedly because they had to do it to get at Hamas. So it would be surprising if Palestinians in general thought "Yeah, we deserved that."

Most likely by phone, not in person. And if they feared to speak freely why do we see a majority saying that aid distribution is political (that is, controlled by Hamas?)

However, look at that poll I posted. And note that the support for war is higher in the West Bank than in Gaza. Some of the people in Gaza don't see it as worthwhile given Israel's response but most do.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If history were different and Hindus had taken over Muslim land, Muslim partisans would be calling for death or exile to all Hindus, including those who never stole Muslim land. Correction: make that if history weren't different -- because that's exactly what happened in Pakistan in 1949. The dominant majority of Pakistani Muslims were just as bigoted as the dominant majority of Palestinian Muslims, and for the same reason: because not to be a bigot is an abnormal condition that seldom arises in a person except as an effect of one of two prior causes: either a multi-sigma degree of personal intelligence, wisdom and empathy, or else extensive exposure to liberalism.

Exactly. The India/Pakistan partition was far more bloody than what happened in Israel. And to this day there are extremists who slaughter Hindus and try to egg on a war between Pakistan and India despite it being quite apparent who would win. It's just the Pakistani militants don't have anything like the funding that the Palestinian ones have.

 

[laughing dog]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "Meh, shit happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

And you blindly accept the Hamas position as true.

And you continue to have some Hollywood fantasy about what war is like.

Psilocybin or peyote is possible explanation for these delusional straw men

 

[laughing dog]

The point is that sometimes there is no solution acceptable to both parties. That's what we have here: Hamas: the existence of Israel is unacceptable. Israel: the existence of Israel is mandatory. What would be a position both could agree to?

It is up to the involved parties to make the determination that a solution cannot be negotiated, not kibitzers from the peanut gallery . Certainly not based on opening demands.

It's not a matter of opening demands, but of the core of their positions.

And as for negotiation:

Hamas executes Gaza clan 'prince' in message to potential 'collaborators' - JNS.org

Israel has floated the idea of Gazan clans acting as partners in running the internal affairs of the Strip after Hamas's removal.

www.jns.org

Even look like you might actually talk peace, get executed by Hamas.

The point is that sometimes there is no solution acceptable to both parties. That's what we have here: Hamas: the existence of Israel is unacceptable. Israel: the existence of Israel is mandatory. What would be a position both could agree to?

It is up to the involved parties to make the determination that a solution cannot be negotiated, not kibitzers from the peanut gallery . Certainly not based on opening demands.

It's not a matter of opening demands, but of the core of their positions.

And as for negotiation:

Hamas executes Gaza clan 'prince' in message to potential 'collaborators' - JNS.org

Israel has floated the idea of Gazan clans acting as partners in running the internal affairs of the Strip after Hamas's removal.

www.jns.org

Even look like you might actually talk peace, get executed by Hamas.

Using a right wing nees source that uses a “ report” from Gaza (sources you routinely deride as untrustworthy) to jump to conclusions is pretty desperate.

 

[laughing dog]

How much of that "settler violence" is real?….

Your hand waved is evidence of your ideology and bigotry warping reason.

 

[Copernicus]

I misspoke by calling Hamas a "government". It was only ever a group that was once elected to administer Gaza in 2006. But "popular"? What makes you think that Hamas is popular? Do you have polling data? They don't have popular elections anymore. Maybe you have psychic powers that allow you to know what is in the hearts and minds of people living in that concentrated population of stateless Palestinians.

I wouldn't trust any poll of Gazans about Hamas. Can you imagine what would happen to a Gazan who expressed to a pollster that Hamas should go and Hamas finds out about it?

I would have thought so but the polls are nowhere near 100% for Hamas. Look upthread, I posted a very recent one that contains one question where the majority expressed (although not by name) a sentiment that was negative towards Hamas.

There is also a standard technique for asking unpalatable questions, although they do not have appeared to have used it in this case:

Flip a coin where only you can see it. If it's heads answer "yes", if it's tails truthfully answer whether you have ever raped a woman. You then subtract 50% from the number of "yes" answers to determine the true number of rapists. This considerably increases the costs of doing a poll because half your answers are actually useless and you get an additional source of error due to the coins. (You need to more than double your sample size to get the same error margin.)

The few polls available might not look 100% for Hamas, but that doesn't contradict Zipr's point. People who sat down for such interviews would have to worry about speaking out freely against Hamas, yet some were brave enough to do so. The Gaza Strip is a concentration camp ghetto surrounded and cut off by a hostile nation and also ruled over by terrorist thugs. One thing the polls do seem to show is a spike in support for Hamas since Israel's murderous campaign of retaliation started after the brutal sneak attack by Hamas. That should not surprise anyone either. Hamas attacked Israel, not Palestinians living in Gaza. Israel has attacked and killed innocent Palestinians living in Gaza who were not participants in the October 7 rampage, allegedly because they had to do it to get at Hamas. So it would be surprising if Palestinians in general thought "Yeah, we deserved that."

Most likely by phone, not in person. And if they feared to speak freely why do we see a majority saying that aid distribution is political (that is, controlled by Hamas?)

Given that cell service was not great after October 7, it is hard to imagine that polls taken there were anything like in North America and Europe. For one thing, you need power to keep a cell phone charged. How reliable were land lines when neighborhoods were being bombed? In any case, synopses of polls often leave out a lot of details about methods and conditions, but I think a number of the questions were done exclusively by interviews according to what I read. It is hard to imagine how interviews and phone calls can be arranged while people are fleeing their homes and looking for shelter. I've read that over half the population of the strip have fled their homes.

However, look at that poll I posted. And note that the support for war is higher in the West Bank than in Gaza. Some of the people in Gaza don't see it as worthwhile given Israel's response but most do.

Obviously, conditions in the West Bank are not quite as chaotic as in Gaza, but Palestinians there can be expected to harbor strong feelings about Israel. It would be easier to conduct a survey in the West Bank than Gaza. Support for Hamas has been growing since Israel began its brutal revenge in the aftermath of October 7, and that is understandable. There is enough hatred to go around on both sides of this ethnic warfare.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

 

[Copernicus]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

The hostages are, and always were, the plan by Hamas to get concessions from Israel. The problem is that, once they give them up, they have no leverage. At that point, Israel can then resume hostilities and take their revenge against Hamas at their leisure. A better strategy would be to cease the hostilities while the remaining hostages remain alive and open up negotiations while supplying Gaza with humanitarian aid. What would Israel lose by simply calling a temporary ceasefire and sitting down to negotiations? If it is willing to have a "substantial Hamas prisoner exchange" in return for the hostages, why does the agreement need to be made while so many people are dying? What normally happens in negotiations of this sort is that a solution is worked gradually, not all at once. Not all of the hostages need be released on the same day, and there needs to be confidence building exercises that help to calm down the urge for continued violence. That is extremely difficult while bombs and bullets are flying.

 

[laughing dog]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

This is much more a political message than anything else. The devil is always in the details. Releasing such news is usually done to 1) show outsiders that one side is being "reasonable", 2) pressure a particular party, and 3) increase support from supporters and interested parties. It rarely helps the actually negotiators. In fact, in my experience, negotiators prefer secrecy - secrecy makes it easier to get settle the morecontroversial issues.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

The hostages are, and always were, the plan by Hamas to get concessions from Israel. The problem is that, once they give them up, they have no leverage. At that point, Israel can then resume hostilities and take their revenge against Hamas at their leisure. A better strategy would be to cease the hostilities while the remaining hostages remain alive and open up negotiations while supplying Gaza with humanitarian aid. What would Israel lose by simply calling a temporary ceasefire and sitting down to negotiations? If it is willing to have a "substantial Hamas prisoner exchange" in return for the hostages, why does the agreement need to be made while so many people are dying? What normally happens in negotiations of this sort is that a solution is worked gradually, not all at once. Not all of the hostages need be released on the same day, and there needs to be confidence building exercises that help to calm down the urge for continued violence. That is extremely difficult while bombs and bullets are flying.

No one has the right to use civilian hostages as leverage to gain concessions.

 

[ZiprHead]

My guess is any remaining hostages are dead.

 

[Harry Bosch]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

This is much more a political message than anything else. The devil is always in the details. Releasing such news is usually done to 1) show outsiders that one side is being "reasonable", 2) pressure a particular party, and 3) increase support from supporters and interested parties. It rarely helps the actually negotiators. In fact, in my experience, negotiators prefer secrecy - secrecy makes it easier to get settle the morecontroversial issues.

I agree with you. But it does appear that Hamas won't give up until an acceptable number of prisoners are swapped for the civilians. Showing how unreasonable Hamas could help them in the court of world opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

This is much more a political message than anything else. The devil is always in the details. Releasing such news is usually done to 1) show outsiders that one side is being "reasonable", 2) pressure a particular party, and 3) increase support from supporters and interested parties. It rarely helps the actually negotiators. In fact, in my experience, negotiators prefer secrecy - secrecy makes it easier to get settle the morecontroversial issues.

I agree with you. But it does appear that Hamas won't give up until an acceptable number of prisoners are swapped for the civilians. Showing how unreasonable Hamas could help them in the court of world opinion.

Probably garner some sympathy.

I suspect for Hamas there is a trade off between the number of prisoners pee released hostage and the importance/ identities of the prisoners.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. What's your point? Did you see anyone argue that killing Palestinians is okay because Palestinians outside of Hamas committed crimes worthy of death? Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?

Outside of the choice to engage in tactics that kill at least 4 times as many civilians as terrorists? No. The attitude of "... happens in war" is a tacit endorsement of killing civilians.

Yes, yes, we're all familiar by now with your limitless ability to conflate collateral damage with the deliberate targeting of noncombatants. But the fact that the distinction is evidently completely immaterial in your mind does not make it at all reasonable for you to incessantly project your own brain malfunction onto your opponents. The distinction is not immaterial in the rest of our minds, and every time you make inferences about others by assuming it's just as unimportant to them as it is to you, you are reasoning fallaciously and thereby reaching idiotic conclusions. So no, the attitude of “It’s war and civilians get killed” is not evidence that the objects of your invective are targeting civilians, or are assuming the civilians deserve it, or are targeting civilians because they think they deserve it.

Nowhere did I mention targeting civilians. In fact, if you actually bothered to read the part of your response I was responding to, you'd notice there was not mention of targeting of civilians.

Of course there was.

If you bothered to read the actual words, there was not.

Dude, if you bothered to read the actual words, there was: you started this whole subthread by purporting to answer my question to AA, "Do you have evidence that Israelis think Palestinians outside Hamas deserve death and Israel is therefore targeting them for it?", and you even quoted it back to me. So in exactly which part of "Palestinians outside Hamas" do you feel there was not mention of civilians? And in exactly which part of "targeting them" do you feel there was not mention of targeting them?

IIDB is a discussion forum. If you're on the net just to endlessly repeat your proof-by-blatant-assertions and have no interest in offering evidence or thinking about opposing arguments, why are you here? Go to ex-Twitter.

ignoring the inept analogy with WW2, if the justification for death of civilians is “It’s war and civilians get killed”, then why the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war?

Because the Israeli civilians were not collateral damage. They were deliberately targeted. Duh! You are not stupid, so why do you write such drivel?

Dead is dead. Intent means nothing to the dead.

Thank you, Captain Obvious. No one doubts your infinite ability to rationalize your dismissal of intent. But you didn't ask "What reason for the outcry when Israeli citizens get killed in war would be satisfactory to a person who dismisses intent?". You asked why, after having been repeatedly told why.

I understand the response. Apparently you don't understand my responses. Intent does not matter to the dead nor to most families of the dead because the dead are still dead. The excuse that "they weren't targeted" is neither comfort to the families nor likely to ameliorate any feelings of hate towards Israel.

If the IDF literally killed every single Gazan civilian in their attempts to eliminate Hamas, according to your reasoning, that extirpation of Gazans is ok because it was "unintentional".

Epic logic fail. Where the bejesus do you imagine you saw me say anything about "ok"? You are not applying my reasoning; you are making up an incoherent chimera of my reasoning plus your own incorrect premises, and imputing the result to me. It is entirely possible, and consistent with all my posts, that Israel's response is so disproportionately over-the-top as to not be "ok". So what? That possibility doesn't magically convert all the illogical arguments I've been refuting into logical arguments.

Please, I know it is hard, but try thinking before you respond.

Please, I know it is hard, but save the snot for when you have a case.

I will rephrase my question in the fading hope of avoiding yet another of your dyspeptic bombastic irrational responses.

Do you realize that the justification of lack of targeting applies to situation of the the complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

Like the wife-beating question, your question assumes facts not in evidence: you are taking for granted that I was offering a justification for killing civilians. I was not, and I already corrected you on that point -- see above about your repeating yourself and refusing to think about opposing arguments. I was explaining the reason for the outcry, because that's what you'd asked for. If you wanted to debate justifications for killing civilians, you could have asked for one of those instead.

"Lack of targeting" is not a justification for killing; it's one element of such a justification. A whole complete justification will necessarily have several elements. "The complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas" would clearly satisfy the "lack of targeting" element, but it would just as clearly fail to satisfy one or more of the other elements. This is not rocket science.

We are talking about this because Israel has extirpated 1% of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating 20% of Hamas. In the pursuit of whatever it is you're trying to prove about that, you tried (clumsily) to apply my arguments to the counterfactual situation where it's 100% instead of 1%. Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, so let's turn your hypothetical around. Let's suppose it was 1 person instead of 1%. Are you of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable -- that Israel would not be justified even in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building?

 

[laughing dog]

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? A simple yes or no is sufficient.

Like the wife-beating question, your question assumes facts not in evidence: you are taking for granted that I was offering a justification for killing civilians. I was not, and I already corrected you on that point -- see above about your repeating yourself and refusing to think about opposing arguments. I was explaining the reason for the outcry, because that's what you'd asked for. If you wanted to debate justifications for killing civilians, you could have asked for one of those instead.

"Lack of targeting" is not a justification for killing; it's one element of such a justification. A whole complete justification will necessarily have several elements. "The complete extirpation of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating Hamas" would clearly satisfy the "lack of targeting" element, but it would just as clearly fail to satisfy one or more of the other elements. This is not rocket science.

We are talking about this because Israel has extirpated 1% of the civilian population of Gaza in the pursuit of eliminating 20% of Hamas. In the pursuit of whatever it is you're trying to prove about that, you tried (clumsily) to apply my arguments to the counterfactual situation where it's 100% instead of 1%. Well, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander, so let's turn your hypothetical around. Let's suppose it was 1 person instead of 1%. Are you of the opinion that no level of lethal collateral damage is ever acceptable -- that Israel would not be justified even in blowing up a building containing 20% of the Hamas terrorists who perpetrated the 10/7 massacre if those terrorists were trying to protect themselves from attack by holding one innocent Gazan human shield in the building?

I left enough of your response to show the literal great lengths you go to avoid actually addressing a question the second time. I apologize for upsetting you.

I see no point in engaging further.

 

[Bomb#20]

"Safer than other ethnic and religious communities" is a pretty low bar.

Where on Earth is the bar set higher?

The bar is set higher in literally every country in the world that didn't perpetrate three genocides against ethnic and religious communities.

And where is that? In places where only two massacres were committed? Can you name a place other than Antarctica that meets that criteria?

You appear to have accidentally read "genocides" with your eyes and "massacres" with your brain. You want to change the subject to massacres? Wikipedia can help you with that:

Category:Massacres in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pages in category "Massacres in the Ottoman Empire"
The following 43 pages are in this category, out of 43 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.

A
...​

 

[Arctish]

"Safer than other ethnic and religious communities" is a pretty low bar.

Where on Earth is the bar set higher?

The bar is set higher in literally every country in the world that didn't perpetrate three genocides against ethnic and religious communities.

And where is that? In places where only two massacres were committed? Can you name a place other than Antarctica that meets that criteria?

You appear to have accidentally read "genocides" with your eyes and "massacres" with your brain. You want to change the subject to massacres? Wikipedia can help you with that:

Category:Massacres in the Ottoman Empire - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Pages in category "Massacres in the Ottoman Empire"​

The following 43 pages are in this category, out of 43 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.​

​

A​

...​

That list includes "Attacks on Serbs During the Serbian-Ottoman Wars" and "Persecution of Muslims During the Ottoman Contraction". Would you please go through it and point out the incidents that involved Palestinian Jews in living Palestine after the Ottomans took over? I know of only two, which I already listed. If there were others, then please at least say where and when they happened.

I'll be frank. It looks like you're more interested in looking for reasons to ignore how well or poorly Jews fared under Ottoman Rule than you are in actually knowing. If you're not interested in discussing the history, then either say so or just drop it. Any one of us can find plenty to criticize about the Ottoman Empire, but we're talking about life for Palestinian Jews over 4 centuries of Ottoman rule, not that time when Dahije rebels decided to kill a bunch of Serbs in Bulgaria.

 

[Copernicus]

This thread has been 90% focused on what should Israel and American do in Gaza; not much on Hamas. It appears that Israel has presented a reasonable compromise to Hamas: release the hostages in exchange for cease in hostilities and substantial Hamas prisoner exchange:

MSN

The hostages are, and always were, the plan by Hamas to get concessions from Israel. The problem is that, once they give them up, they have no leverage. At that point, Israel can then resume hostilities and take their revenge against Hamas at their leisure. A better strategy would be to cease the hostilities while the remaining hostages remain alive and open up negotiations while supplying Gaza with humanitarian aid. What would Israel lose by simply calling a temporary ceasefire and sitting down to negotiations? If it is willing to have a "substantial Hamas prisoner exchange" in return for the hostages, why does the agreement need to be made while so many people are dying? What normally happens in negotiations of this sort is that a solution is worked gradually, not all at once. Not all of the hostages need be released on the same day, and there needs to be confidence building exercises that help to calm down the urge for continued violence. That is extremely difficult while bombs and bullets are flying.

No one has the right to use civilian hostages as leverage to gain concessions.

That's correct, and no one has said that anyone has that right. I certainly did not say that in my post, although you seem to have quoted it as if you were responding to someone who did say such a thing. Usually, when hostages are taken by criminals and terrorists, authorities do not drop bombs on hostages and hostage takers alike. In such cases, authorities call in negotiators to try to free the hostages, preferably without killing anyone. What does Israel have to lose by calling for a ceasefire and negotiations? Are there not enough dead and maimed children in the Gaza Strip to at least merit a temporary ceasefire?

 

[Swammerdami]

As Leader of the U.S. Senate, Chuck Schumer is the highest-ranking Jewish U.S. government official ever. What does he think of Netanyahu's atrocities?

Sen. Chuck Schumer made [a] fateful and agonizing choice when he stood up on the Senate floor to urge elections in Israel that he hopes will oust the Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu and his government.. . . It was a decision that Schumer, as a devoted advocate of the Jewish state, could only have made because he feels an unbearable burden of responsibility for the horrific death and destruction that Netanyahu is inflicting on Palestinian civilians. In the wake of the barbaric Hamas attack last Oct. 7, he supported military action to destroy the terror organization that controls Gaza -- and yet he knows that just purpose cannot justify the reckless and inhumane conduct of that campaign, which is now causing the mass starvation of innocents.

"I'm anguished that the Israeli war campaign has killed so many innocent Palestinians," Schumer said. "I know that my fellow Jewish Americans feel the same anguish when they see the images of dead and starving children -- and destroyed homes." No doubt he knows and laments the ruinous impact of this war on Israel's international standing, just when much of the Arab world has come to accept its existence.
. . . For many Americans, and indeed many American Jews, including me, the outrages perpetrated in this war are simply unacceptable. For some of us, however, this was no surprise but instead the inevitable result of American action, or inaction, that permitted Israeli right-wingers to thwart any progress toward an independent Palestinian state.

While official US policy supported the "two-state solution," in practice presidents of both parties did little or nothing to insist that either side enter negotiations in good faith. Instead, most American politicians either cheered on Israeli intransigence, and Jewish settlements on Palestinian land, or looked the other way.

Meanwhile, as we have learned in recent months, the Netanyahu government used its own authority to bolster and finance the Hamas extremists, who provided an excuse for their own intransigence. Beyond irresponsible, that shady alliance led directly to the blood-soaked horror of Oct. 7, the vilest atrocity against Jews since the Holocaust.

 

[Derec]

Biden continues to let himself be dragged to the left by the Bernie/AOC wing of the party. First he opposes the IDF operation in Rafah, which is necessary to defeating Hamas. Now, US has allowed the one-sided UNSC ceasefire resolution to pass by not vetoing it.

Truly pathetic!