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.
Come on. Prompt it differently ("Have there been ceasefire violations in Gaza by the Israelis?") and you get this:
> As of February 24, 2026, there have been numerous and well-documented reports of ceasefire violations by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) in Gaza. While a ceasefire framework has been in place since October 2025, it remains extremely fragile, with both sides frequently accusing the other of breaching the terms.
> Israel has been accused of failing to allow the agreed-upon volume of aid. Reports suggest only 43% of the 600 promised daily aid trucks and about 15% of the required fuel are entering the Strip.
> In December 2025, the US reportedly rebuked Israel for a missile strike that assassinated a high-level Hamas commander, deeming it a violation of the "Comprehensive Plan" framework.
> 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.
> The Commission also verified information indicating that, in at least two other cases, ISF had likely applied the Hannibal Directive, resulting in the killing of up to 14 Israeli civilians. One woman was killed by ISF helicopter fire while being abducted from Nir Oz to Gaza by militants. In another case the Commission found that Israeli tank fire killed some or all of the 13 civilian hostages held in a house in Be’eri.
> The Commission found that Israeli authorities prioritised identifying victims, notifying families and allowing for burial rather than forensic investigation, leading to evidence of crimes, especially sexual crimes, not being collected and preserved. The Commission also notes the loss of potential evidence due to inadequately trained first responders.
(That I'm completely fine with. But it presents challenges for verifying incidents, which probably means it's an undercount.)
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?
