Your point being? Or is that your defense to continue to defend Israel? Starve 2,2 million to save a few hundred (who are probably starving as well!)? If so, my point stands, go fuck yourself. — Benkei

Well done, Benkei. You need to take a break.

My point being that if you stick your thumb in someone's eye and he in turn takes you by the throat, it is only decent, if you're asking him to remove his hands from your throat, for you to take your thumb out of his eye. That the thumb is hostages makes everything very serious.

Were Hamas just a gang in Gaza I'd mostly agree with you. But Hamas is not just a gang in Gaza. Imo Hamas and their kind are a cancer that should have been removed a very long time ago, but that has been allowed to metastasize to where it will kill its host. By "kill" I mean I expect Gaza soon enough to be a very different place than it is now or has been.

go fuck yourself doubly for misrepresenting my position. — Benkei

How the hostages doin', Benkei?

As if stupid people don't have a right to their life. — Benkei

You need a pause and reset. The issue is not stupid people. The issue is murderers whose "right to life," both quality and quantity, is compromised by their own actions.

For so long as Hamas and the Ps hold hostages and protect Hamas, I consider Israeli actions to be simply a police action. But you tell me, what exactly do Hamas and the Ps think it is? What sense do the Ps make of all this - assuming Hamas has got and is getting exactly what they want.

And October 7th doesn’t happen but for decades of Israeli terrorism. — Mikie

What Israeli terrorism? I've been aware of middle-east news since the mid-fifties and I know of no Israeli terrorism. But I know of lots and lots and lots and lots of murderous Palestinian terrorism.

My understanding of recent history is that every time the Israelis have tried to be reasonable or to "lighten up," the Palestinians have stuck their thumb in the Israeli eye. In short, the Palestinians do not want peace, and when you're willing to fight to have war, then sooner or later you will it, reaping what you have sown. That is, they're in the position of people who wanted it, worked for it, earned it, and now they have it, so that they can wail, "Poor me!" to the gullible of the world. And if I am in Hamas, what is a few thousand or tens of thousands of my sucker countrymen to me: for so long as I can have my war let them live and die miserably, for that is nothing to me!

I love the line of “Hamas could end this war immediately,” as if every innocent child Israel murders, deliberately and intentionally, is really the fault of Hamas. Like a law of nature.
But saying something like the above is considered absurd.
No wonder the world is condemning Israel. Easy to see through such stupid propaganda. — Mikie

Have you even read the news of what happened on 7 Oct.? What do you think happened on that date?

And maybe so many Palestinian women and children would not be killed if those brave Arabs, those courageous Hamas, would stop hiding under skirts and behind children. As to ending the war, the Japanese and Germans and their allies in WWII chose unconditional surrender when war became to costly for their populations. I guess Hamas and the Palestinians are made of sterner stuff, and they don't need no stinkin' surrender. Every death since Oct. 7 on the heads of Hamas and the Palestinians and every one of them unnecessary!

Time to nail down at least for the moment what is meant by "rebellion." "Rebel" and "rebellion" are nouns, but "rebellious" is an adjective. My small point here being that one can be rebellious without being either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Further, that in usual usage, the one who is rebellious is not usually supposed to be either a rebel or engaged in a rebellion. Rebelliousness, then, being merely a behaviour that while it may stretch does not nor is intended to rend the social fabric.

Thus society while usually regarding rebelliousness with some tenderness, rightly holds rebellion a crime and rebels criminals - depending on what exactly they do. For US polity, this was settled for all time by both Daniel Webster in his "2d Reply to Hayne" speech of 1830 wherein he refuted the Southern argument of a so-called legal secession by showing that secession to be in fact an act of rebellion that had no legal protection. And by the US Civil War, 1861-65.

So the ambiguity here is between rebelliousness and rebellion - two different things.

This answers my question then. The population is expendable in the pursuit of Israel’s objectives. — Punshhh

A question: Are Hamas the Palestinians? Are the Palestinians Hamas? Imo they're different, but not entirely different. The Palestinians (therefore) have some culpability in 7 Oct., and certainly in their harboring Hamas and in keeping the hostages. Accessories at least, then, before and after the fact. So "expendable" not at all the right word.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.
You seem very one sided in these comments. What about the crimes committed by Israeli’s in the West Bank and Gaza? Or is it that carte blanche thing again? — Punshhh

What crimes? And what occupation?

The crimes of the Israelis, near as I can tell, are both to exist and be so arrogant as to suppose they might defend themselves from being murdered. The Arabs/Hamas/PLO&etc/Palestinians, of course, having manufactured for themselves their racist hatreds, are guilty of no crimes, theirs being a religious imperative to murder Jews whomever, wherever and whenever they can. And while Netanyahu may not be himself a nice guy, still I find no fault with his aggression for so long as the hostages are held and Hamas leadership is untouched. How do you think Golda Meir would have reacted to 7 Ocr.?
.

What about the reverse, until Israel stops occupying Palestinian territories, withdraw from Gaza and rebuild all the buildings they've knocked down and paid compensation to the families of all the dead, isn't that carte blanche for Hamas to hang on to the hostages? — bert1

Well, that's a proposal; what do you propose Hamas and the Palestinians do for their part? After all, none of this horror happens but for Hamas's attack on 7 Oct.

Personally I would want the hostages to be returned unharmed along with the Palestinian people being left unharmed. — Punshhh

That would be a start. But until the hostages are released/accounted for, their being kept seems to me a carte blanche for the Israelis and their IDF.

As well, there are the issues of crimes committed on Israeli territory, the perpetrators subject to Israeli law.

It all seems too simple: release the hostages, surrender criminals, try to move on to peace. Who could object to that, and why?

There is an easy solution here. Israel should provide refugee camps for Palestinian refugees in Israel. — Punshhh

Ambiguity. They should provide in Israel refugee camps? Or they should provide refugee camps for refugees that are themselves in Israel?

But perhaps more significant is that you seem to feel that the Israelis should do something - and there may be lots of reasons why they "should." But the Arab neighbors appear to be completely unwilling to touch the Palestinians with even the proverbial ten-foot pole. Why do you think the Israelis "should" do something and not the Arab neighbors; and by the way, is there anything you think the Palestinians or more to the point Hamas should do?

And I think you should make unequivocally clear your own view on the hostages. Do you agree with me that the hostages must be the first order of business? Or if not, then what?

So unless the hostages are returned, the whole population of Gaza is expendable? — Punshhh

"Expendable" is maybe not the right word, certainly - obviously - at risk.

"Expendable" seems to me to place power and responsibility in the wrong place, in the wrong people: the Israelis. As if the Palestinians and Hamas themselves had no choice. But imo opinion they do have choices and have made choices, and are responsible for consequences. And even now they have control - over the hostages. I have answered, now you answer: why do you think Hamas is keeping the hostages? What purpose does that serve?

Simple question, how many Palestinian deaths are too many?
At what point do the IDF say we’ve gone to far and stop? — Punshhh

One is too many. That limit being blown up on 7 Oct., let us hear no more of it.

To my way of thinking, all is or should be prioritized. Hostages first. Period. And perhaps you're green enough to believe the Israelis are in control, but I submit that Hamas is. Evidence? The hostages. But at least Hamas are keeping it simple for the moment; they have reduced their control to one switch, the hostages, and to keep that control they are willing to see destroyed the lives of the Palestinians.

Maybe Hamas believes that in some long game all will ultimately be better for them. Perhaps they dream that there will be some kind of Arab Marshall Plan to rebuild the destroyed buildings and infrastructure. But who replaces the dead, and why, exactly, did they die?

I think the truth is that the Palestinians chose, ended up with, a vicious government that did not and does not care even a little bit for the Palestinian people. With every Hamas the IDF kills, the Israelis are doing the Palestinians a favour, but of course the Palestinians themselves are paying the price of allowing Hamas and its predecessors and their ideologies to become ascendant in the first place.

If you think the Israelis have a choice, what choice is it that you think that they have?

11 March 2024. I think, subject to correction, that Hamas still holds more than one hundred Israeli hostages. If I'm Netanyahu or any other Israeli I keep it simple: no relief until and unless all hostages released/accounted for. And if they're murdered, then everything is off the table. Meanwhile I go after Hamas as hard as I can wherever found, and I make it clear to Palestinians that they do not have to die, but they will if they choose to be in the line of fire. Hostages first. If not that then nothing else makes sense.

10/7... Hamas was just trying to open the gates to hell and they did it.

Because of the intifadas Israel established these checkpoints....

I think what we're seeing here is the 3rd intifada and the gloves have come off.

Israel has given ceasefire offers to Hamas but Hamas rejects it.... Culture of life versus culture of death. — BitconnectCarlos

:100:

And where are the hostages?

(Oh no wait it’s the Palestinians that are terrorists…yada yada yada.) — Mikie

To my way of thinking, on 7 Oct. Hamas rendered history irrelevant. The same way Yassar Arafat and the PLO did, and Black September, and their predecessors. The Jew's crime is existing, and for that they are condemned, apparently. To my way of thinking the Jews/Israelis are cornered into acting in self-defense from necessity. But they compound their crime by not dying nor consenting to be annihilated.

Which absolves, apparently, Palestinians and their terrorist gov't of the moment, and the neighbors, of all, repeat all, responsibility. And again to my way of thinking the Israelis are justified by necessity for any action they take for so long as the hostages are an issue. They being safe and returned, then maybe some progress toward peace possible. But certainly not on the same model as before: Hamas blew that up!

How about the hostages, Mikie, you down with them being murdered, assuming they're still alive at the moment?
— tim wood

That’s up to Israel. — Mikie

Really? Exactly how do you figure that? Try making sense, or don't bother answering.

The terrorists should be eliminated. We can all agree. So let’s start with the ones who kill, injure, and starve the most people— in that case, the Israeli government. Maybe kill 10 or 20 thousand Israeli children as well, in pursuit of such ends. I’m sure the forum chickenhawks would be fine with this, given how consistent they are. — Mikie

Hey Mikie, why doesn't Hamas stop the fighting? I think they could do it. Do you think they could do it? It might have been nice if they didn't start the fighting, but that's just a fait accompli.

Of course it might involve them changing some of their fundamental beliefs, about the Jews being guilty of existing, punishment being annihilation. So while at the moment the Israelis are doing some things that look pretty ugly, I gotta figure Hamas wants it; wanted it, worked very hard for it, sacrificing generations of Palestinians - worked for it, earned it, and now they have it, and they still want it. How about the hostages, Mikie, you down with them being murdered, assuming they're still alive at the moment?

One question: are the hostages returned?

Or more simply the surface of a sphere. Without limit or boundary. certainly in the very ordinary sense, finite.

Imo the Israeli attack on Gaza is justified only by Hamas's attack on Oct. 7 and the hostages, but altogether and entirely justified thereby. The fellow in the video above has made a number of videos, all interesting and thought provoking (again imo). His message seems to be that if taking a critical look at the middle east, it is both necessary and wise to look at it "large-scale." For without such a view, one fails of understanding, of what has happened, is happening, and why; and without right perspective, nothing is the right "shape." And I think the fellow is sufficiently credible to allow what he says to have a good deal of weight.

another interesting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=giktOwxfK-M

The word “Influence” and its various synonyms are words I’m going to try and avoid from here on out, if such a feat is possible. Perhaps if we recognize their figurative and metaphorical upbringing, we can avoid the pitfalls, but otherwise we reduce ourselves to magical thinking by using them. — NOS4A2

Maybe the problem here is the failure to understand what "word" refers to in the context of persuasion. A quick image, so to speak: we stand on opposite sides of a still pond. I stir the water with a stick, and soon enough the ripples arrive at your side of the pond.

In this analogy, of course, the ripples are the words: real physical things. And again of course, spoken words are real physical things. (Writing a different matter.) Think this through and the connection of speaker and auditor is clear. In a quite literal sense, my speaking is putting a stick into your brain and stirring it around creating ripples. And in this sense words cannot be innocent, nor the speaker.

And gives a typical bullshit lie that "all their Palestinian leaders have said they want it all". It simply isn't true. — ssu

Educate! Counterexamples? And I am not as generous as the fellow in the video who calls for just one; rather I would prefer to see a representative voice. Do I correctly infer that you perceive no significant distinction between Israelis and their neighbors? That they are in moral terms no different than two crocodiles duking it out in a small pond?

And should I understand by "Jordania" the country of Jordan? Far as I know about Jordan is that Hussein of Jordan was not an enthusiastic jew-killer, and when politically able got his country as far as he could out of that business - more power to him.

To my way of thinking if a person wants to call himself a Palestinian, he can. But if he invokes a questionable history and wishes to claim certain real entitlements based on that history, then that is a problem. Bottom line for me is that the Israelis (so I think) would prefer to live in peace, and the Arabs, whatever called, wherever found, do not share that interest and work to confound it. And as to the current violence, are the hostages returned?

Another interesting video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-1wXx2-skM

Best she gives the matter some thought - enough thought so that she has some ground she feels secure on, and if it's still not clear, then she asks her instructor. Caveat: there's a chance that for a range of reasons she will not receive an adequate answer. Which, if she is feeling reasonably secure, she can press. And sometimes at her level, obscure questions are asked deliberately - the test may include how she takes ownership of the question. And of course sometimes the instructor is a moron, in which case tread lightly and get away as soon as possible.

At any rate, I’m open to any way of describing persuasion that does not evoke action at a distance and includes me as an agent of my own persuasion. Perhaps we can come up with one. — NOS4A2

We don't have to; it's been done many times over. Generally, geometry, logic, arithmetic are about matters that are this way and not that way, and are universally, necessarily, timelessly so. The task is to discover what that way is and to demonstrate it. Assent not required, voice not required. The character, good will, and judgment of a speaker not relevant.

Rhetoric, on the other hand, is the name given for the techniques of persuasion for matters that can be this way or that way or some other way, or contradictories, and that in some way are important now, and that call for a decision concerning an action of some kind. "Shall we attack at dawn?" "Shall we build ships or city walls?" Aristotle distinguishes three categories: 1) Forensic, concerned with past events and guilt or innocence. 2) Political, concerned with future events and expediency or inexpediency. 3) Epideictic, concerned with the present, and with praise or censure.

And with these the auditors are presumably interested parties, and the voice of the speaker matters inasmuch as it conveys good character, good will, and good judgment. Theoretically at least a bad man cannot make a good speech, although many tomes are dedicated to instructing the reader in how to fake it.

In sum, speaker and auditor are a kind of dance couple. The speaker leads, and the quality of his leading influences everything that follows.

You, it appears, allow the speaker to say anything at all without responsibility. And as noted above that is not how the world works or how the world understands.

Nonsense, Nos4: you clearly have no understanding of what rhetoric is or is about. And I take it you are not at all interested, being instead apparently satisfied in every respect by your own. You make your own claims about your own beliefs, even being contradictory in them. My personal axiom is that you are entitled to your beliefs - they do not have to make sense. But it is annoying when you try to pass them off as making sense and as more than just your private beliefs.

I don't argue for unconstrained speech — NOS4A2

He spoke. You don’t like what he says.
— NOS4A2
Not even disingenuous. Or maybe you think speech should be without any restraints whatsoever. Is that what you think? — tim wood

↪tim wood
I am absolutist in that regard. — NOS4A2

In my view — NOS4A2

Your view is wrong as a matter fact.

the words are wholly innocent — NOS4A2

Maybe. But their use isn't. Simple case: I hire someone to do something at my instruction. I so instruct; and he acts. The words qua words may be innocent - that a separate question - but my usage not. The acting agent then in no way an absolute insulator of the speaker from the act. Or in other words, your positions are categorical, reductive, and absolute. And that's not how this works. If you wish to make your case categorically and absolutely, then for you rhetoric won't do: you've crossed into logic. Good luck there!

With yours, you confuse cardinality with simple quantity or amount. Transfinite cardinals are a generalization of quantity or amount. Thus "counting" into the transfinite is just plain different from ordinary counting, and you might use ordinals instead, but transfinite ordinal arithmetic comes with its own rules, and they're neither intuitive nor simple.

Might it be the case that the listener has much more to say about his “true opinions” than the speaker ever could, and in the end, the listener is the agent of his own persuasion? — NOS4A2

You've said a lot. But I wonder to what end? And what exactly you mean? And no doubt whatever they are, some truth can be found in them.

Your topic is properly called rhetoric. And it is useful to recall the kind of subjects that rhetoric is concerned with, usually the choice between courses of action that themselves could be one way or another way. Which is to say that rhetoric considers contradictories - to be distinguished as separate from dialectic and demonstration which concern only what is the case and how to demonstrate it. Aristotle lays out rhetoric pretty well in his Rhetoric, but books on rhetoric could fill a bookstore.

And it was likely an even greater concern in pre-literate societies. Before writing and literacy the words of laws, customs, traditions, were stored in collective memory and spoken from time to time, often in ceremony with music and dance both to celebrate them and also to aid in remembering them. And when they were forgot, the society was imperiled.

Your argument and conclusion, then, seems to question whether the speaker or the auditor is responsible for being persuaded, and implicitly responsible for subsequent actions taken, concluding that it is the auditor at fault, or at least is the causative agent in subsequent action taken. Cause, blame, fault, responsibility are all words whose exact meanings depend on context, and the exact determination of which is often a lawyer's delight and living.

That is, you seem to have it as either-or, and your conclusion exculpatory for the speaker. And just this an extreme Procrustean view. The truth, as with most truths, is less simple: both bear responsibility, though likely in different measure for different aspects of the thing. E.g., we say the mob was incited to riot, but you would gut the sense and meaning of the incitement. Why would you do that?

And here we note that elsewhere in these threads you have stated explicitly that it is a core fundamental belief of yours that anyone should be able to say anything anywhere under any circumstance at any time without concern for penalty of any kind - yours the position of absolute "free" speech. It seems odd to me that you argue for unconstrained speech while depriving it of any causative force, or maybe that is why you argue.

Imo, it is enough to observe that yours is not how the world works, or has ever worked, or ever should work.

The angles in a true triangle add up to 180 degrees because that is the nature of Existence. It is not because someone said it or highlighted it. — Philosopher19

It's pretty clear you just make it up as you go along, and in retreat resort to the default tactic of, "That's just how I define it," insisting at the same time that how you define it is the way it is. You accomplish nothing in this but to build and reinforce your own redoubt of ignorance, which to remain within is the definition of stupidity.

As if in playing chess you changed the rules, yet at the same time insisted you were playing chess. And one can only wonder why anyone would bother to do that.

Sound principles are derived from the way that we "experience" reality. Principles consistent with experience are considered to be sound. — Metaphysician Undercover

You do get it that reality, like a feral black cat in the middle of a dark night, slipped by you here, yes?

Maybe it'sthe terminology. "Infinity" is just a very abstract term used usually informally and non-rigorously to refer to quantities either very large or larger than any specific quantity, or otherwise unlimited. As for technical definitions, I leave that to you to look up. And you can search transfinite cardinals.

There are many, many brief Youtube videos on this topic, and a lot of threads here you can search. And Banno's reference looks comprehensive. So much is available, and much of it so well-done, that there is no excuse for prolonged ignorance here. So, take flight and learn!

It's a hard choice - between a narcissist con man and a supporter and facilitator of genocide and ethnic cleansing. I think I prefer the nut-job myself, but it's your call, America. — unenlightened

Unusual confusion from you, I think. You give Hamas a pass? Keep in mind it's not the US that's bombing them. And maybe you forget the hostages and outrages of 7 Oct.? What exactly do you want the Israelis to have done on 8 Oct.? And the friends of Gaza, what help of substance are they providing? In my view, if you have friends like the Gazans' friends then you neither lack nor need enemies, and if they ever made real peace with the Israelis, they might just find them the best of friends. In any case, I think Hamas started this war and Hamas is not interested in stopping it - which imo they could do. So while it may be an Israeli bomb made in the US that falls on them, it is their own government that put it there and wants it there. And all the Palestinian dead for mere political/religious craziness.

And you honestly cannot tell enough difference between Biden and Trump to decide between them? If that's true, then shame on you! Nor can I grant you the excuse of ignorance and certainly not of stupidity.

What really have the Palestinians done wrong? And what kind of option is this Israeli administration giving them? — ssu

As usual your words have weight that at the least call for a considered response. Mine in these terms:
that while there is sense in yours, I cannot help observing what seems a common error. A kind of category error that arises from being imprecise with and about the use of abstract names. E.g., Finland did this, Finland did that, the Finns did this and they did that. But, that was then. And if, it seems to me, you are to make any case about Finns or Finland now based on them then, then you must make the connections explicit - because such connections as they are, are essentially abstract, and thus the argument to establish their force or value as causative in any sense must bridge the gap from abstract to concrete, from then till now.

An example from the US. There are folks who think reparations should be paid to black Americans for slavery. I think you are able to see the nonsense in this, part of which being that no slaves are alive to pay the money to. This simple fact making it clear that whatever any payments might be for, they cannot be for slavery.

So, that Palestine this or that, or that Palestinians this or that, then, is of abstract interest now. And a failure to rigorously account for any significance now allows for people now to claim benefit for an offense committed against someone else long ago, that might not even have been an offense, was not committed against them, and that they use and ground and warrant - their excuse - to murder without scruple or responsibility for their actions. This being in part what i call above a kind of professional victimhood.

When I reference the Axis powers I only mean that peoples bombed nearly back to the stone age and regarded as pariahs for crimes committed have largely recovered. If anyone says the Palestinians cannot accomplish the same, then the question I have is, why not?

If that's the only way... well, then Palestine's fucked. — flannel jesus

Maybe, but who f**ked them? Ans.: themselves first of all, and then their "friends," beliefs, and religion. And of course once a person or a people have well and thoroughly f**cked themselves, their last resort is professional victimhood, in which they disavow any responsibility whatsoever, being through-and-through nothing but poor victims.

But for sheer possibility, let's look at the post war history of the Axis powers of WWII. They had defeat forced upon them and then they undertook the honorable work of rebuilding and self-rehabilitation, with appropriate rewards at every step. And they have done pretty well. Not a possibility for the Palestinians? Who says?

What about: Give Palestinians equal rights. End the crimes against humanity. — Tzeentch

One state, equal rights, the only way: you and I have already agreed on this. (If only everyone else would - or could!)

But no, Israel is not 'the law'. — Tzeentch

If not them, then who? Always I have in mind Oct. 7th. And in case you did not notice the question, if not them, then who? In passing I note that Israeli "crimes against humanity" arise entirely from their desire - and right - not to be murdered and to take action to defend themselves.

For events prior to Oct. 7th. It appears to me the Palestinians' responsibility is by any standard not less than half, and by any reasonable standard nearly all. And one way of seeing it is to recognize that Palestinian actions always seem to be under some principle, whereas Israelis always seem to be reacting; and as to Israeli actions that might be objected to, they're more in the way of some Israelis and some actions. Except of course when they're at war. Which, after Oct. 7th, it seems reasonable to assume they are (and which arguably they have never not been).

But the hostages! And those murdered! On these, imo, justice must have its full say or there is no justice. And the war itself is not that saying but is instead only an establishing of ground on which justice can stand.

Near as I can tell, the Palestinians can have peace and life, or war and death, a choice under their control. And the Israelis do not have the luxury of such a choice.

Worse still, in their boundless arrogance Israel and the United States undermine the international rule of law, — Tzeentch

Boundless arrogance? Where is international law after 7 Oct.? A more honest and accurate appraisal is that Israel is the law, their authority derived from the simplest principle and ground there is, the right to self-defense.

You yourself appear to argue that current Israeli policy and practice will turn out to be counterproductive, to the point of arguing for different policy and practice - an argument of some cogency. But it fails where the offending party is intransigent.

It is an axiom of mine that any and every person should try to keep in mind what they can control and what they cannot control, what they can do and not do, what they can make happen and what they cannot make happen. A right assessment of these things can add much clarity to any situation.

I think it is clear the Israelis cannot control Hamas or the Palestinians or make them do anything. That leaves only that the Israelis can try to leave open more attractive options for them. But it seems clear to me that Hamas and the Palestinians simply are not interested, being instead explicitly committed to the elimination by any means of Israel and Jews, which policy they actively pursue. That in turn does not leave a lot of choices for the Israelis, which in turn leads us back around to the question of who is really in control. I think - putting it simply - that Hamas and the Palestinians are in control, and what they're getting and have is what they wanted, worked for, and got. In doing they have fashioned themselves a plague, one that must mutate to a more human standard or be otherwise cured or eliminated.

In simplest and barest terms. the Palestinians either want what they have right now, or they want something different. If something different, then they need to change how they act and what they do.

Addendum to.... — 180 Proof

1 Feb. 2024. Are all the hostages either returned or accounted for? Has Hamas surrendered them, or the Palestinians insisted their government return them? Have the people responsible for atrocities on 7 Oct. surrendered or been apprehended? The answers to these and like questions is just a string of nos. But you have tender feelings for the murderers and rapists of 7 Oct. and the people who support them. So tender in fact one is obliged to consider unsavory conclusions about you yourself. I'm thinking Hamas and the Palestinians can stop the war almost immediately - but it appears they do not want it to stop. And the Israelis cannot reasonably just stop it by themselves short of achieving at least some of their expressed goals, and certainly gaining the release and return of hostages.

And I am unaware of the neighbors telling Hamas to return the hostages and do whatever else it takes to stop the war. Have they?

In Henry V., Exeter presses Henry's claim to the French Crown to the King of France

"EXETER
Bloody constraint, for if you hide the crown
Even in your hearts, there will he rake for it."

And it seems to me the Israeli claim for the well-being and return of the hostages is even more valid, and they may very well "rake" for them.

Or in short, it seems both odd and suspicious that the Israelis having been outraged should be called upon to stop when the offence still stands.

He spoke. You don’t like what he says. — NOS4A2

Not even disingenuous. Or maybe you think speech should be without any restraints whatsoever. Is that what you think?