Merged Gaza just launched an unprovoked attack on Israel

[DrZoidberg]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good. Any less than that would not be enough.

Its not question of comparing suffering. Its simply about removing a political player that cannot be trusted to wield power.

But you seem fine with Hamas being in power. How do you manage to justify that in your head?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good.

That level of force doesn't exist. So what next?

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

Its not question of comparing suffering. Its simply about removing a political player that cannot be trusted to wield power.

Eliminating Hamas is a political agreement, not a military victory. Stopping Hamas involves diplomacy with Iran not bombs. Israel has already flattened Gaza. We still have Hamas. Most of the leadership isn't even near Gaza.

But you seem fine with Hamas being in power. How do you manage to justify that in your head?

Have you become that radicalized, that you think an Oppenheimer like question is support of the enemy? Certainly, haven't bothered to read most or any of my posts in this thread.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good.

That level of force doesn't exist. So what next?

So we give up? Is that your solution? We give into violent bullys? Is that really a world you want to live in?

If the free world gives up on its ideals, democracy and civic rights will be gone. Don’t you think its worth fighting for?

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

Its not question of comparing suffering. Its simply about removing a political player that cannot be trusted to wield power.

Eliminating Hamas is a political agreement, not a military victory.

Well, that's delusional. Saying stuff like that ia make makes you come across like a stooge for Iran. There's no deal in the world that will make Iran let go of its stranglehold of the Gazan people.

If you haven’t noticed, Iran would rather let all Palestinians die rather than relinquish control.

Who are you hoping to negotiate with?

Stopping Hamas involves diplomacy with Iran not bombs. Israel has already flattened Gaza. We still have Hamas. Most of the leadership isn't even near Gaza.

Because Israel is moving slowly and cautiously, because Hamas has forced them to do that. Because they’re trying to kill as few Palestinians as possible

But you seem fine with Hamas being in power. How do you manage to justify that in your head?

Have you become that radicalized, that you think an Oppenheimer like question is support of the enemy? Certainly, haven't bothered to read most or any of my posts in this thread.

Lol... the guy for civil rights and opposed to an islamofascist regime is the radicalized one. You really are delusional

Yes, I have read your post. That's why I think you come across as a Hamas sympathizer.

 

[bilby]

The bombing must continue until the enemy loves us.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good.

That level of force doesn't exist. So what next?

So we give up? Is that your solution? We give into violent bullys? Is that really a world you want to live in?

Your response is ridiculously irrational.
Firstly, I asked what level of response to Hamas' atrocity on 10/7 would be too much. Because 10/7 is being used by some here to justify every action taken so far. So I asked what would be too much. And I can't get a response.

Secondly, how is 18 months of ground and pound "giving into a violent bully"? Israel has weakened Hamas notably.

Thirdly, if Hamas can't be "destroyed" with military attacks, your position of we need to continue attacking seems quite like madness as it'd be perpetual.

If the free world gives up on its ideals, democracy and civic rights will be gone. Don’t you think its worth fighting for?

'Don't you love America?' was a question asked of liberals in the run up to the invasion of Iraq too. You are unjustifiably equating ANY ACTION against Gaza as a moral action to embolden the ideals of democracy.

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

Not really, I see how twisted your ideology needs to be in order to come to that conclusion. You still have this absurd idea that military response ends Hamas. It hasn't in decades. I've been saying for a while, the solution is political (I said so in the last post), not military.

Its not question of comparing suffering. Its simply about removing a political player that cannot be trusted to wield power.

Eliminating Hamas is a political agreement, not a military victory.

Well, that's delusional. Saying stuff like that ia make makes you come across like a stooge for Iran. There's no deal in the world that will make Iran let go of its stranglehold of the Gazan people.

Firstly, I did not say it was easy. But that is the source of the conflict, therefore, it is the source of the solution.

Secondly, really? Nothing? Nothing at all? Because we managed to get Egypt and Jordan out of the anti-Israel action theater. I doubt that was considered possible in the 1960s as well.

If you haven’t noticed, Iran would rather let all Palestinians die rather than relinquish control.

Who are you hoping to negotiate with?

Me? Well, the Ayatollah stopped taking my calls when he realized I wasn't really representing Vanity Affair and he wasn't going to get a cover spread.

Stopping Hamas involves diplomacy with Iran not bombs. Israel has already flattened Gaza. We still have Hamas. Most of the leadership isn't even near Gaza.

Because Israel is moving slowly and cautiously,

...because Hamas has forced them to do that. Because they’re trying to kill as few Palestinians as possible

And Russia is winning in Ukraine. They are just taking it slowly.

But you seem fine with Hamas being in power. How do you manage to justify that in your head?

Have you become that radicalized, that you think an Oppenheimer like question is support of the enemy? Certainly, haven't bothered to read most or any of my posts in this thread.

Lol... the guy for civil rights and opposed to an islamofascist regime is the radicalized one. You really are delusional

How can you tell if I'm delusional, you don't bother to read my posts or understand my positions.

Yes, I have read your post. That's why I think you come across as a Hamas sympathizer.

You have to try real hard to spin my posts to come up with that ridiculous conclusion. But you know, in my defense, I don't find holocaust humor funny either. So maybe there is some delusion there.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good.

That level of force doesn't exist. So what next?

So we give up? Is that your solution? We give into violent bullys? Is that really a world you want to live in?

Your response is ridiculously irrational.
Firstly, I asked what level of response to Hamas' atrocity on 10/7 would be too much. Because 10/7 is being used by some here to justify every action taken so far. So I asked what would be too much. And I can't get a response.

What are you talking about? You sound like a psychopath making this kind of calculation on human value and dignity

All humans are worthy of human dignity. All humans. The moment we start letting that standard slide the world will turn to shit.

Secondly, how is 18 months of ground and pound "giving into a violent bully"? Israel has weakened Hamas notably.

Down, but clearly not out. Hamas are still fighting. The war isn't over until Hamas stops fighting

Thirdly, if Hamas can't be "destroyed" with military attacks, your position of we need to continue attacking seems quite like madness as it'd be perpetual.

What makes you think they can't?

Israel has cut off all routes open to Hamas with which to buy the Palestinians loyalty. When Hamas runs out of trinkets... that's when they're fucked imho

If the free world gives up on its ideals, democracy and civic rights will be gone. Don’t you think its worth fighting for?

'Don't you love America?' was a question asked of liberals in the run up to the invasion of Iraq too. You are unjustifiably equating ANY ACTION against Gaza as a moral action to embolden the ideals of democracy.

No, I'm not. I'm just blaming the perpetrator. Not the victim, like you are

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

Not really, I see how twisted your ideology needs to be in order to come to that conclusion. You still have this absurd idea that military response ends Hamas. It hasn't in decades. I've been saying for a while, the solution is political (I said so in the last post), not military.

I don't think its absurd.

The idea that this can be solved politically is so laughably dumb. But you seem to live in an ideological little media bubble where all your crazy notions get validated, so it might make sense in your head... somehow

Its not question of comparing suffering. Its simply about removing a political player that cannot be trusted to wield power.

Eliminating Hamas is a political agreement, not a military victory.

Well, that's delusional. Saying stuff like that ia make makes you come across like a stooge for Iran. There's no deal in the world that will make Iran let go of its stranglehold of the Gazan people.

Firstly, I did not say it was easy. But that is the source of the conflict, therefore, it is the source of the solution.

Secondly, really? Nothing? Nothing at all? Because we managed to get Egypt and Jordan out of the anti-Israel action theater. I doubt that was considered possible in the 1960s as well.

You clearly don't understand how Arabs think or Arab politics work. Arabs often say and do different things. Its not that they're lying. Its a culture were bullshit theatrical displays (for social Islamic unity) are made. So it might be confusing to those who don't understand the culture

The Arabs lost the 6 day war because they weren't really trying. They wanted to appear as supporting the Palestinians but didn't really. Nobody outside Gaza, Israel and the West Bank gives a fuck about the Palestinians. Certainly not Iran.

At most they're willing to make life hard for the upstart Jews daring to oppose the Muslims in the holy land. But they're not going to make much of an effort.

If you haven’t noticed, Iran would rather let all Palestinians die rather than relinquish control.

Who are you hoping to negotiate with?

Me? Well, the Ayatollah stopped taking my calls when he realized I wasn't really representing Vanity Affair and he wasn't going to get a cover spread.

What a surprise

Stopping Hamas involves diplomacy with Iran not bombs. Israel has already flattened Gaza. We still have Hamas. Most of the leadership isn't even near Gaza.

Because Israel is moving slowly and cautiously,

Yes, antisemites somehow struggle to see this. I assume its their blinding hatred of Jews confusing them

...because Hamas has forced them to do that. Because they’re trying to kill as few Palestinians as possible

And Russia is winning in Ukraine. They are just taking it slowly.

You really are a lunatic

But you seem fine with Hamas being in power. How do you manage to justify that in your head?

Have you become that radicalized, that you think an Oppenheimer like question is support of the enemy? Certainly, haven't bothered to read most or any of my posts in this thread.

Lol... the guy for civil rights and opposed to an islamofascist regime is the radicalized one. You really are delusional

How can you tell if I'm delusional, you don't bother to read my posts or understand my positions.

I understand it. I think its a horrific and morally devoid position. All the more tragic because it is shared by so many spineless tools in the west

Yes, I have read your post. That's why I think you come across as a Hamas sympathizer.

You have to try real hard to spin my posts to come up with that ridiculous conclusion. But you know, in my defense, I don't find holocaust humor funny either. So maybe there is some delusion there.

Not that hard

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Thirdly, if Hamas can't be "destroyed" with military attacks, your position of we need to continue attacking seems quite like madness as it'd be perpetual.

What makes you think they can't?

Because the actions of the enduring 18 month and growing response has made it too easy to recruit people to do bad things, and Iran is still giving them money.

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

Not really, I see how twisted your ideology needs to be in order to come to that conclusion. You still have this absurd idea that military response ends Hamas. It hasn't in decades. I've been saying for a while, the solution is political (I said so in the last post), not military.

I don't think its absurd.

The idea that this can be solved politically is so laughably dumb.

So the the accord between Egypt/Jordan and Israel was brought about by bombing the two... or through shrewd diplomacy?

Saying it is laughable seems out of touch because it has already happened before.

That you need to resort to so much name calling really indicates you don't have much rational material to defend your position, if we could even say you had one.

 

[pood]

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

You do come across as someone who loves to see Gazan babies starve to death. Can’t you see how that is what it looks like?

Only in your case, it is actually true.

 

[laughing dog]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good. Any less than that would not be enough.

That suggests if genocide was necessary to achieve the goal of eradicating Hamas from Gaza, then genocide is enough.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good. Any less than that would not be enough.

That suggests if genocide was necessary to achieve the goal of eradicating Hamas from Gaza, then genocide is enough.

It seems like you're still committed to beating your wife?

 

[laughing dog]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good. Any less than that would not be enough.

That suggests if genocide was necessary to achieve the goal of eradicating Hamas from Gaza, then genocide is enough.

It seems like you're still committed to beating your wife?

The point of such a dishonest response is…?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I know it was attempted genocide.

Right, a small band of terrorists has the ability to commit genocide.

Israel has managed to kill upwards of 20,000 of that "small band".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Jews for justice. Jews against genocide.

Was 10/7 "justice"?

No.

I know it was attempted genocide.

You may believe it was attempted genocide, but you cannot know that to be true because it obviously wasn’t. The scope and scale of that viscous attack on civilians was too small to be genocide.

But Hamas has stated their intent to do it over and over until all the Jews are dead. I see no need to "believe" it was attempted genocide when they proclaim it.

 

[laughing dog]

Jews for justice. Jews against genocide.

Was 10/7 "justice"?

No.

I know it was attempted genocide.

You may believe it was attempted genocide, but you cannot know that to be true because it obviously wasn’t. The scope and scale of that viscous attack on civilians was too small to be genocide.

But Hamas has stated their intent to do it over and over until all the Jews are dead. I see no need to "believe" it was attempted genocide when they proclaim it.

Intent is not outcome. Without the means to even come close to the your alleged outcome, it is not an actual attempt.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I've emphasized the question in bold to manage the "vagueness" of my explicit question.

But wait... TomC didn't say that... at least not yet. So, the question is, to TomC what level of Israeli retaliation would supercede the moral authority created by Hamas' massacre on October 7?

The problem here is that you think there should be an exchange rate in the first place.

Answer the damn question and stop poorly reading between lines.

At what point is Israel's reaction in Gaza too much? If they nuked Gaza, would that be too much? What if they carpet bombed Gaza? What is the limit?

No of course there is no specific math, but the problem I have is that using 10/7 as a justification any action, sounds very familiar to what the US and W Admin did in 2003.

Lol. Check mate. He's got a good point. The right amount of force would be the amount of force that eradicates Hamas from Gaza for good. Any less than that would not be enough.

That suggests if genocide was necessary to achieve the goal of eradicating Hamas from Gaza, then genocide is enough.

It seems like you're still committed to beating your wife?

The point of such a dishonest response is…?

Says the guy calling it genocide. You truly have no shame about your dishonesty

 

[Tigers!]

Thirdly, if Hamas can't be "destroyed" with military attacks, your position of we need to continue attacking seems quite like madness as it'd be perpetual.

What makes you think they can't?

Because the actions of the enduring 18 month and growing response has made it too easy to recruit people to do bad things, and Iran is still giving them money.

My post made it explicit what I was asking and why. But for some reason, you just need to turn me into another Hamas sympathizer so you don't need to stop and actually think... and support your position rationally.

You do come across as a Hamas sympathizer. Can't you see how that is what it looks like?

Not really, I see how twisted your ideology needs to be in order to come to that conclusion. You still have this absurd idea that military response ends Hamas. It hasn't in decades. I've been saying for a while, the solution is political (I said so in the last post), not military.

I don't think its absurd.

The idea that this can be solved politically is so laughably dumb.

So the the accord between Egypt/Jordan and Israel was brought about by bombing the two... or through shrewd diplomacy?

There ware a few wars in there that Jordan/Egypt did not do too well in.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So the the accord between Egypt/Jordan and Israel was brought about by bombing the two... or through shrewd diplomacy?

There ware a few wars in there that Jordan/Egypt did not do too well in.

Yes... and still... an armistice that has held for longer than half of Israel's existence.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Good ole Huckabee. The war is Hamas' fault. An argument like that sounds punitive, not defensive. This damage and suffering is Hamas' fault!

The Israeli response was supposed to be about the defense of Israel. Only supporters of Hamas would have had issue Israel's military responding after 10/7. Shore up lines, deal with inadequacies in security, cut off supply lines, critical tunnels, target caches. Also target those involved with the crimes committed on 10/7 and try to secure the hostages. Protect Israel... you know, better than Netanyahu did in being distracted from trying to take over Israel while Hamas was planning this whole thing out.

But 22 months later, the military actions are still taking place, and people are saying this is all Hamas' fault. There would be little question as far as to the blame in the initiation of the most recent conflict. What is in question is the indefinite status of military and later siege tactics against Gaza. Repeating 10/7 gets more hollow with time. Especially when the broad actions taken against Gaza is undoubtedly creating more risk for Israel than remediating risk. And that ignores the humanitarian cost to these actions, which has long since exceeded the toll taken on October 7th.

When the goal isn't possible via the means undertaken, and the means are destabilizing an area that will lead to more conflict against Israel, it isn't unreasonable to ask questions about what is the end game here, if the end game (Hamas destruction) isn't possible. The prolonged conflict benefits Netanyahu and the Iranian leadership. It doesn't benefit anyone else, certainly not the Gazans, but not the Israelis, and certainly not the unreleased hostages.

 

[ZiprHead]

Jews for justice. Jews against genocide.

Was 10/7 "justice"?

No.

I know it was attempted genocide.

You may believe it was attempted genocide, but you cannot know that to be true because it obviously wasn’t. The scope and scale of that viscous attack on civilians was too small to be genocide.

But Hamas has stated their intent to do it over and over until all the Jews are dead. I see no need to "believe" it was attempted genocide when they proclaim it.

The Israel issue is a derail. Stop it.

Loren, you of all the participants in the derail, should know better.

I will be moving the posts to the proper thread.

ETA: posts moved or copied.

 

[ZiprHead]

I know it was attempted genocide.

Right, a small band of terrorists has the ability to commit genocide.

Israel has managed to kill upwards of 20,000 of that "small band".

Is an endgame close?​

Maybe. Certainly, Israel’s military advantages are increasingly formidable. Attrition has eroded Hamas’s capacity to fight. Israeli officials claim that the Islamist group has lost 18-20,000 fighters – more than half of its force at the start of the war – and 80 per cent of its heavier weapons such as rockets. Such figures are impossible to verify, as Israel’s characterisation of a “Hamas operative” is very broad. Moreover, the fighters have been replaced because Hamas has managed to recruit thousands more. Israel estimates that the group now has 40,000 combatants, around the same number as at the war’s outset. But it remains diminished, as the new fighters are inferior in training and equipment.

Israel has "claimed". Yet they still make little progress towards the goal of eliminating Hamas.

But what they have done...

Airstrikes and evacuation orders are forcing Gaza’s 2.2 million residents into cramped patches of coastline, turning most of the strip into “no-go zones”. Palestinian casualties have soared, with over 1,600 killed, a third of them children, since hostilities resumed – a number equal to all the Israelis who have died in the war’s eighteen months. The reported Palestinian death toll since the war began in October 2023 has now risen well past 50,000; the vast majority of the dead – even by Israel’s count – are civilians. Thousands more remain buried under rubble, and still more thousands have died from indirect causes, such as lack of medical treatment. Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe is rapidly mounting, exacerbated by the total siege Israel has imposed on the strip since 1 March, blocking all aid trucks from entering for the first time since the war’s early days.

And as far as the hostages go...

Israel claims it restarted the war to speed the release of the remaining hostages captured in October 2023. But it is negotiation rather than armed force that has won most hostages their freedom. The number of Israeli captives has dropped from 251 at the war’s outset to just 59 at present (some 24 of them are believed to be alive; the rest are bodies held by Hamas). Hamas has released some 150 hostages by the terms of ceasefires negotiated in November 2023 and January 2025. Israeli military rescue attempts have freed just eight. Some 40 hostages have been killed while in captivity since the war began, some by Hamas, some by Israeli fire.

https://www.crisisgroup.org/middle-east-north-africa/east-mediterranean-mena/israelpalestine/gaza-war-approaching-its-endgame