Six young Israeli hostages murdered by Hamas

September 1, 2024 • 11:30 am

It’s unbelievable that the bulk of American progressive liberals and academics seems to sympathize with a group of terrorist thugs who not only invaded Israel and killed 1,139 people, many in gruesome ways, including killing women after raping them, but also took 250 hostages of various nationalities, including children, into Gaza to use as bargaining chips to temper Israel’s inevitable response.

Not only do people seem to have forgotten that the taking of civilian hostages is a war crime, but now that crime has been magnified by the discovery that six of those hostages were shot to death by Hama in Rafah. No, they didn’t die of old age or disease, which would be bad enough, but these were people in the prime of life, brutally murdered for reasons we can only guess at, but probably with some accuracy.

There are two stories below, the first from the Times of Israel and the second from the New York Times (click either to read, and the NYT story is archived here

You can read the NYT yourself; I’ll give the details from the ToI:

First, here are the hostages who were murdered:

From Times of Israel: This combination of six undated photos shows hostages, from top left, Hersh Goldberg-Polin, Ori Danino, Eden Yerushalmi; from bottom left, Almog Sarusi, Alexander Lubnov, and Carmel Gat (The Hostages Families Forum via AP)

An excerpt from the ToI:

The bodies of six hostages abducted alive by Hamas on October 7 were recovered from a tunnel in southern Gaza’s Rafah overnight, shortly after they were murdered by terrorists, the Israel Defense Forces announced Sunday.

The hostages were Hersh Goldberg-Polin, 23, Eden Yerushalmi, 24, Ori Danino, 25, Alex Lubnov, 32, Carmel Gat, 40, and Almog Sarusi, 27.

Goldberg-Polin, Yerushalmi, Lubnov, Sarusi and Danino (an off-duty noncommissioned officer) were abducted from the Nova music festival near Kibbutz Re’im, while Gat was taken from Kibbutz Be’eri.

IDF Spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari said the six were “brutally murdered” by Hamas shortly before troops arrived — possibly only a day or two before they were found.

“According to an initial assessment… they were brutally murdered by Hamas terrorists a short while before we reached them. They were abducted alive on the morning of October 7 by the Hamas terror group,” Hagari said in a press conference.

“Their bodies were found during the fighting in Rafah, in a tunnel, about a kilometer away from the tunnel from which we rescued Farhan al-Qadi a few days ago,” he said.

. . .US President Joe Biden said he was “devastated and outraged” by the deaths of the hostages, in particular that of dual Israeli-US citizen Goldberg-Polin, whose parents, Jon and Rachel, he and other Americans had kept in their prayers.

“I have worked tirelessly to bring their beloved Hersh safely to them and am heartbroken by the news of his death,” Biden said.

“It is as tragic as it is reprehensible. Make no mistake, Hamas leaders will pay for these crimes. And we will keep working around the clock for a deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages,” he said.

The rub here is the “deal to secure the release of the remaining hostages”, which can only mean acceding to Hamas’s demand that Israel agree to a permanent cease-fire and withdraw from Gaza. In other words, placing the responsibility solely on Israel to “bring them home” is asking for Israel to lose the war to Hamas. And Hamas has of course vowed, if it retains power, to repeat the atrocities of October 7 over and over and over again.

Why were the hostages shot when they could be possible bargaining chips for Hamas? (This isn’t the first time we have evidence that Israeli hostages were murdered.) I can think of three reasons. First, Israeli troops were on the trail of these hostages, and rather than engage in a firefight with the IDF (a losing proposition for Hamas guards), they decided to kill the hostages rather than run with them. After all, keeping hostages alive slows you down, and no Hamas soldier wants to engage in an open firefight with the IDF.

Second, the killing could also have involved a calculation, one that carries some water, that more dead hostages would put Western pressure on Israel to agree to a cease-fire, an agreement that could only endanger Israel in the long run since it would leave Hamas in power as well as secure the release of about 10,000 Palestinian prisoners from Israeli jails, a constant condition that Hamas has made for an end to the fighting, even if Israel completely withdrew from Gaza.

Finally, even with six hostages dead Hamas still holds 100 more, about two-thirds of them still alive.  We already know that Israel was willing in 2011 to release 1,027 prisoners—most of them Palestinians and other Arabs—in return for a single Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit. 280 of the prisoners were serving life sentences for terrorism, having been responsible for 569 Israelis. What happened? Dozens of the released prisoners became active in Hamas, responsible for killing at least six Israelis. One of the released prisoners was Yahya Sinwar, who helped plan the Oct. 7 massacre and is still on the loose. Was it a good deal, then, to release Sinwar and other murderous terrorists, who in toto killed well over a thousand Israelis, to save the life of one Israeli soldier. I’ll let readers ponder this ethical balance and decide how one should deal with the roughly 70 Israeli hostages left? (I’m acutely aware that this calculus may sound cold, but it’s really based on a concern about the value of human lives.)

Indeed, the ratcheting up calls for a ceasefire (i.e., calls for Israel to lose the war and be subject to Hamas terrorism forever), does seem to have increased pressure on Israel, and on Netanyahu in particular. The NYT article emphasizes the Netanyahu aspect:

An excerpt from the NYT:

Outrage mixed with grief in Israel on Sunday, with many Israelis directing their anger at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over the news that six bodies found in Gaza were dead hostages.

Advocates for hostages and members of Mr. Netanyahu’s political opposition swiftly accused the Israeli leader of torpedoing monthslong efforts to broker a deal with Hamas for a cease-fire in Gaza and the release of hostages, further imperiling them.

“For eleven months, the government of Israel led by Netanyahu failed to do what is expected of a government — to bring its sons and daughters home,” a group representing the families of the hostages said in a statement. “Netanyahu: Enough of the excuses. Enough of the spin. Enough of the abandonment.”

The responses to the hostages’ deaths put into focus the stark divisions within Israel over the war. While many hostage families and their supporters have called for a deal with Hamas, even if it leaves the group intact, Mr. Netanyahu and his allies have said a bad deal with Hamas could put Israel’s long-term security at risk.

Much as I dislike Netanyahu and wish for his eventual deposition, I think he’s right here. If you follow the logic of those who blame Netanyahu for failure of Hamas to release the hostages, the only way to get them released is for Israel to let Hamas win (guaranteeing more episodes like October 7) as well as to release thousands of jailed Palestinian terrorists (guaranteeing more people to engage in episodes like October 7). It is beyond me how people imagine that a ceasefire that gets the hostages home can, in the long run, have net beneficial effects. It’s almost as they can’t see what this kind of deal would eventually entail.

I am not saying that Israel should abandon the hostages. Yes, of course their families are desperate and afraid; one needs only to hear them talk (and weep) to realize that.  But a short-term solution that continues the death and terrorism is no way to act: it is an emotionally-driven movement that in the end will surely result in even more grief. Remember that paying exorbitant ransoms for hostages, or losing a war so you can get hostages back, are actions that will only prompt Hamas to take more hostages in the future.

But is there a way to get the hostages released without forcing Israel to lose and continuing terrorism that will result in the taking of even more hostages? I’ve discussed this with Malgorzata at length, and she has suggested that pressuring Qatar, which is where many Hamas millionaires and billionaires live, might be a good strategy. If the U.S. said that it would remove its military base from Qatar (something that Qatar needs far more than the U.S.) unless Qatar kicked out its resident Hamas members and confiscated their money (Qatar itself is a source of funds for Hamas), then that kind of pressure just might produce what all right-thinking people want: an unconditional surrender of Hamas, its removal from power, and the release of the hostages. Malgorzata added, “It would be even better to arrest Hamas leaders in Qatar for terrorism and threaten them with extradition to Israel for trial, though I’ve never seen anybody suggesting that.”

(As for what happens to Gaza after Hamas surrenders, there are a number of possibilities that I won’t go into here. But one of them is not the immediate creation of a Palestinian state.)

I don’t know how any person with a moral compass can support a group that kidnaps hostages and then kills them in cold blood. (Remember, most Palestinians support Hamas more than the Palestinian Authority, even in the West Bank.). But what people (including Biden and Harris) should be demanding now is the unconditional surrender of Hamas and release of the hostages, not demanding a cease-fire that just prolongs terrorism. (See this article arguing that those who blame Netanyahu for the hostage situation are actually playing roles envisioned by Hamas.)

The proper call at the moment, then, is not, “Bring them home,” but “Let them go!”

Here’s the IDF spokesman, Daniel Hagari, announcing the ineffably sad murder of the six hostages:

55 thoughts on “Six young Israeli hostages murdered by Hamas”

  1. Terrible, absolutely terrible. They should never have been kidnapped.

    There is talk this may end the three day ceasefire for polio vaccinations.

  2. I’m completely disgusted by the coverage I’ve been reading. Much of the press seems to blame Prime Minister Netanyahu for these deaths when, in fact, the hostages were murdered by Hamas after Hamas terrorists took them hostage on October 7. Hamas is very aware of the heartfelt pleas of Israelis to bring the hostages home—evidenced by widespread demonstrations and calls for Netanyahu to bargain with the terrorists. This is why they killed these innocent hostages now—with bullets to the head—according at at least one report.* Hamas cynically wants to elicit a public response in Israel that will put more pressure on Netanyahu to capitulate. Hamas did exactly what terrorist organizations do with hostages—use them as bargaining chips. In this case, the six dead are being used to force a ceasefire.

    I grieve for the hostages. Read their biographies. They are innocents. I feel for Netanyahu and his colleagues, and understand that he and Gallant may order the priorities differently. Which is more important? The state of the hostages or the survival of the State of Israel? Can both be saved? This is the dilemma that the leadership is facing. The press has so demonized Netanyahu and is so eager to see him fall that they can’t even think straight.

    This act of murder deserves nothing less than universal condemnation.

    * https://worldisraelnews.com/report-6-slain-hostages-were-shot-in-the-head-execution-style-two-days-ago/

    1. Agree. It was a horrible thing for Hamas that do but we already know they’re heartless killers.

  3. I heard about this overnight and had nightmares about the horrors these 6 endured till this morning. Those God awful tunnels.,. this God awful war… I agree with the article that everyone is playing right into Sinwar’s hands. It’s a mess and my heart breaks for the families of these latest casualties. A senseless waste. There are no good answers here. I, along with Malgorzata, think the US should take this straight to Qatar. We should not be supporting them and treating them as though their hands are clean. Very sad news.

  4. I was recently at a party in Forest Gate, a suburb of east London. Forest Gate has a high Muslim population; the more affluent parts are inhabited by white middle-class progressives. It’s an area where Palestinian flags hanging from windows are a common sight. Anyway, at the party, the talk turned to Gaza and a number of people confidently voiced the view that Israel must agree to a ceasefire forthwith. I said that the war would end immediately if Hamas surrendered and released the hostages. And that, since they started the war, and they must know they can’t win the war, and that by prolonging it they endanger the lives of their compatriots, it’s their moral duty to surrender and release the hostages.

    I don’t know if readers here are familiar with ‘The Man Who…’ cartoons of the British artist H.E. Bateman? Suffice it to say that this was a Bateman moment. I think it’s fair to say I left that party less popular than when I arrived.

    2. You tried, Brandon. The reluctance of the party-goers to agree with you is based in large part on a kind of misunderstanding. They see Hamas members as having no agency, responding only to circumstances and history in a way the party-goers have decided is totally understandable. OTOH they see Israelis as having full autonomy to choose between two options: prosecute what the party-goers consider to be a genocidal war of aggression, or accept a cease-fire (on Hamas’ terms including the release of thousands of its militants from Israeli jails) that the party-goers assume will lead milk and honey to flow in the streets.

      From their pov, it makes sense then to oppose Israel because obviously Israelis are the ones making the morally wrong choice.

      [Edit to add: of course some part of this view is just based on hatred of Jews – though IDK whether that might be true of any of the party-goers. I hope they are just misled and not bigoted.]

    4. Thanks for speaking out. There’s so much disinformation out there, including that Hamas are actually a type of victim.

    5. Nice job. If more people stood up to this nonsense like you did in front of people perhaps the Left would abandon its confused support for Hamas.

  5. Horror and heartache. No words.

    The MSM is corrupt beyond redemption, the coverage of the US election, the coverage of the Israel/Gaza war, the coverage of elite universities – driven by collusive activism, not the truth. The press’ relationship with government should -always- be adversarial, this is no longer the case with legacy media.

    Legacy media is devolving into ideologically driven platforms and platforms (like X/Twitter, the Free Press and similar outlets) are evolving – albeit slowly and with significant growing pains – into legitimate/interesting publishing outlets. I believe this trend will continue, and MSM/legacy will eventually die.

  6. I’m gutted heartbroken by this news. Reporting it to my wife I choked.

    How can someone promise that Hamas will “pay dearly” for the crimes of murdering an American citizen plus five other Israeli hostages and then in the next breath talk about working tirelessly to make a deal for the remainder? The mixed messaging here is infuriating. Any deal that Hamas would agree to would promise amnesty for the killers, not punishment, and their exfiltration back to Qatar as part of a cease-fire.

    That Hamashites will murder all they have of value in order to flee tells me that they no longer have the cynical discipline that could make them a trustworthy deal partner anyway. Time to seal off Gaza*, cut the water and electricity, flood the tunnels, and oppress them till they squeak. Or decapitate the snake in Qatar.

    1. Yes, Leslie. You describe the situation as it actually is – not what NBC/NYTimes et al would like it to be.
      The latter – unlike Israel – have the luxury of a non-existential issue.

      For Israelis this is not a coffee klatch debate but rather a life or death struggle.

      D.A.
      NYC

      1. Agree. Politicians don’t hear or respond to each and every person who comes up to them. Now that all of us have a smart phone we can record everything. it is disingenuous to portray this exchange as if it were a reporter at a news conference.

      2. How do you know that he wasn’t listening or didn’t hear the question? This is why I brought up the editing issue.

        That clip has been seen millions of times on social media. Shouldn’t by now the Harris/Walz campaign issued a clarification?

        Perhaps they will, or perhaps won’t as a way of ingratiating with sectors of protestors returning to college campuses and their supporters. We shall see.

  8. People who don’t “get” Islam have no idea how antisemitic the religion – by its very holy books – is.
    So…NOT a “religion of peace”. Combine that with 3rd world socialism, revolutionary nonsense and the western media.. you have an intractable enemy.

    This enemy isn’t beholden to silly western/enlightenment notions of reciprocity, secularity, or “just wanting what everybody else wants.” This results in a limiting factor: the assassin’s/Israel-annihilating veto the Pal movement has over peace and co-existence.
    If enough Pals want Israel destroyed completely (as every single piece of data suggest)… this isn’t a “Western type” war.

    The Israelis show admirable, some would say naive, restraint.
    Hamas MUST be destroyed and there must never – never EVER – be a “two state solution” or it is lights out for Israel. Secular westerners don’t get that this is exactly what nearly all Pals want – Hamas had a conference about it in 2022.

    Westerners paint their own presumptions on a wildly different system to our own.

    D.A.
    NYC

    2. I agree. The values of humanism are universal, but only if certain basic facts are agreed upon. Blood feuds in an honor culture are antithetical to cultures of reason. You can’t reason with people who see themselves embedded in a moral melodrama of hierarchies where only they can be the victors.

      I’m not sure which is worse — ProPalestine supporters who refuse to see exactly what they’re supporting, or ProPalestine supporters who know exactly what they’re supporting. Probably the latter, though the first is more frustrating.

    3. David, i’m in agreement with you (as usual) about Islam, but has the West (Christianity) been any better in its behavior towards Jews throughout history? I’d say no, it’s been even worse.

  9. Tragically, there is no solution as long as Hamas vows to wipe out Israel and is willing to pay any price to achieve that goal. Israel is in a no-win situation, the pursuit of Hamas is impossible without massive civilian casualties, but to not pursue them hands Hamas the victory they sought. And Israel’s attacks just generate more recruits to Hamas, while also generating bad press. To eradicate Hamas would require eradicating the entire Palestinian population, which would bring worldwide condemnation.

    It is only fair to point out the ways that Israel contributed to the situation, which in no way justifies what Hamas did, but they are not completely innocent: the settlements, the harassment and discrimination of West Bank arabs, pretty much everything that Netanyahu has done to make matters worse including the actual support of Hamas. But here we are, and I see no good outcome.

    1. I’m no fan of Netanyahu (I’m an Israeli Labor voter), but with respect, have you ever been to the West Bank?
      Do you know the history from ‘67 (and even before, under Transjordan), how things looked like before the second intifada (hint: no checkpoints) and the compositions of Jewish and Arab populations (some hints: lots of Bedouin with no national affiliation, not all “settlers” are extreme right wingers – there are Kibbutzim and Moshavim as well as commuter cities)?
      Please please, and again, with respect, refrain from parroting main stream media talking points you know nothing about.

    2. As a thought experiment in your sentences below, let’s just replace “Hamas” with “Nazis”:

      “Israel’s attacks just generate more recruits to Nazis, while also generating bad press. To eradicate Nazis would require eradicating the entire German population, which would bring worldwide condemnation.”

      And:

      “It is only fair to point out the ways that Jews contributed to the situation, which in no way justifies what Nazis did, but they are not completely innocent.”

      As Hamas venerates Hitler and is a chapter of Muslim Brotherhood (built in 1930 with the help of Nazi Germany), and openly announces that their goal is to first eliminate the State of Israel and then rid the whole world from Jews, such comparison is not too far-fetched.

  10. As you read this there are protests in the streets of Tel Aviv. I understand that people are desperate to bring the hostages home. At the same time, this is exactly what Sinwar wants—Israelis taking to the streets and destabilizing the country. Please keep the protests peaceful! Don’t give the police an excuse to charge the crowd on horseback or to use their water cannons. By protesting peacefully, the Israeli people can continue to show to the world that Israel is a force for good in the world. Hamas cannot be allowed to tear Israel apart.

    1. I keep trying to understand the motivations of the various factions there and here. The Islamists are fairly transparent. They think God wants them to kill all the Jews in the world.
      The anti-Zionist Orthodox Jews are sort of puzzling to me. Without a deeper understanding of their philosophy, I generally think of them as the Westboro Baptist Church of Judaism.
      I think most of the progressive anti-Zionists are Marxist or Marxist-adjacent. These days, Marxists tend to prioritize their political views above all other considerations.
      Or, they don’t spend a lot of time thinking about the details. Netanyahu is on the list of people we are all currently supposed to hate, so everyone marches and shouts for him to bring the hostages home.
      As if the IDF is not out risking their lives every day to do just that.

      1. The anti-Zionist “hats” (a friendly NYC word for the orthodox) like Neturi Karta, are very, very small in number: I’m remembering s/t like a few hundred in the USA? Don’t quote me. I’ll look it up.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neturei_Karta
        1-2,000 worldwide. I’m surprised it is that much but they’re quite fecund. Old Testament and all that.

        They’re simply very bonkers. haaha. Talk to them, if you can, they have a LOT of strange ideas. Yes, as strange as Westboro.

        B/c they’re so …um.. counter… they get huge media exposure for their size. We can safely ignore them like scientists ignore flat-earthers. Be polite, but don’t feed them. 🙂

        D.A.
        NYC

  11. Has the western world not agreed that nations must not negotiate with terrorists? Yet i it were my family held hostage, I would want them back alive. The war is escalating in the West Bank. My assumption is that Hamas will continue to torture and then murder hostages as it conveniences them. What is best for Israel’s security in the long run? That is the question in my view. As the professor points out, there will be death and destruction no matter what decision is made. How to secure Israel with the least loss of life? It is a terrible thing to make such choices.p

  12. “what people (including Biden and Harris) should be demanding now is the unconditional surrender of Hamas and release of the hostages”

    Well said.

  13. I know that if a loved one of mine has been taken hostage, I’d want authorities to get him released, even by negotiations with and concessions to terrorists.
    But I agree with Prof. Coyne that this is a bad strategy. In addition, I think that those hostages that Hamas was inclined to release, it has already released months ago. Now, the way to release some more is by IDF turning every stone in Gaza. But this way, more hostages will be retrieved dead than alive.
    Shame to “progressive” students and all those Hamas-fawning Westerners!

  15. I’m cognizant that times have changed, but there is something to be said for T. Roosevelt’s “Gunboat Diplomacy.” We should not tolerate the kidnapping of US citizens by Hamas, but then Russia does the same thing with impunity. I agree that the hostages should be considered as dead, & that the war shouldn’t be their rescue, but dealing a critical blow to Hamas. I don’t believe they can be eradicated, as with each assault Israel adds new recruits to Hamas. However, Israel cannot sign a one-sided cease fire just to appease the mob. Too many Israeli citizens forget the earlier wars, when the nation had to fight for survival. If it were up to these people, the country should simply surrender. These people need to experience the hardships of the past, when giving in to the Arabs was a death sentence.

  16. Tne whole world should support Israel and the destruction of Hamas, and
    Ukraine to the max. Russia and Hamas are global evils and no compromise is possible. They will only conceal their future plans of aggression and violence. No negotiations are possible with the devil.The civilized world should not allow itself to be swayed or deceived, the only two policies of Hamas and Russia.

  18. I do generally agree with the utilitarian thinking in the article, and applaud its moral thoughtfulness. The only thing I do not agree with is some of the language of the article, for example, the sentence, “The proper call at the moment, then, is not, “Bring them home,” but “Let them go!”. The word “go” here presumably means be murdered, and this is not something I believe for which there should be a clarion call, even if declining a hostage deal is the correct decision. It may be a correct decision to allow some innocent people to be killed, in the interests of protecting an even larger group of innocent people, but just because the decision is correct, does not mean it should be embraced with enthusiasm, but rather with regretful resignation.

    1. No, “let them go” means the same thing as in the “let my people go” phrase Did you not read the post itself? Good Lord, if you were thinking I should call for the murder of the hostages, then you completely missed the point of the article.

      1. I did read your post in its entirety and mostly agree with it. I assumed that you were offering a choice between a negotiation where the hostages were released from captivity or where there would be no such (direct) negotiation and the hostages would (presumably) end up being murdered by their captors. I think the idea of pressuring Qatar is great, but realistically is unlikely to happen (after all, it has already been on the menu of options), and so will not result in the release of the hostages. One must also not forget the role of Turkey and Iran in sheltering and supporting Hamas, and who knows, by extension, Russia and China. It’s difficult to see how all these powerful actors can be successfully pressured.

        I don’t think you were explicitly calling for the hostages to be murdered, and I apologise if it looked as if I was accusing you of that. I was simply surmising what would happen if the hostages were not to be released – being negatively utilitarian. I understand that the expression you used, “let them go!” (I was quite bothered by the exclamation mark), derives from the phrase, “let my people go”, but that phrase refers to people’s liberation, and I cannot see how leaving the hostages in captivity (whilst vainly hoping for a speedy surrender of Hamas via Qatar) could possibly result in their liberation. If actually by using the expression, “let them go” you actually mean the same as “Bring them home”, then I do not see why the expression should be changed.

        1. You seem deeply confused about all this, and I’m baffled about why you were “quite bothered” by the exclamation mark. Nor did I say that leaving the hostages in captivity could result in their liberation. Qatar was merely a suggestion. If you have a better one you should have offered it, but I suggest that yu don’t comment further here until your thinking is clearer.

          2. As someone who has been attending Jewish community rallies in Toronto since the beginning, I think I can say with authority that “Bring them home!” does not mean, to any Jews who utter it, “Make a deal, whatever it takes.” The call has always meant, in my hearing, to apply whatever military pressure on Hamas it takes to get them to surrender them, or lose their grip on them by virtue of the captors’ being shot or blown up. I don’t think there has ever been much hope that more than a handful will be recovered alive. A blessing to those so lucky.

            At events I’ve attended, the most muted applause goes to speakers who say such things as “Israel’s over-riding priority must be the safe return of the hostages.” Putting this as Number One must mean that destroying Hamas to ensure Israel’s survival gets demoted to Job Number Two. People who attend rallies aren’t having it. Even family members of hostages don’t phrase it that way.

            A cease-fire deal with voluntary hostage release suits only the political interests of Western politicians who are nervous about their Muslim vote (or worse). Israel will have to fight on, whatever the cost may be. I think all Jews get this, except a few “not in our name” types who are sore about the West Bank or something. Some of these among my acquaintance think the greatest threat to Jews (and Muslims!) come from the nebulous “far right.”

            The only deficiency of “Let them go!” is that it puts the expectation on Hamas to release the hostages as a voluntary act of humanity or of fear of what might come, (as with Pharaoh in the Exodus story.) Which it won’t. “Bring them home” puts the agency in the hands of the IDF and the civilian leadership where I think everyone knows where it belongs.

        2. It’s quite obvious to me.

          “Bring them home”: implies that this is Israel’s responsibility and they should do whatever it takes to secure the release of the hostages including military force. This statement is aimed at Israeli leadership.
          “Let them go”: implies that Hamas is at fault and that they need to release the hostages, full stop. This statement is aimed at Hamas.

          RE: they mean the same: you can’t tell Hamas to “Bring them home”, nor can you tell Israel to “Let them go”.

          The exclamation mark adds emphasis to the point.

  19. In my opinion, the cold-blooded murder of six hostages was a miscalculation on Hamas’s part. The entire world (including the Biden administration) got a refresher course in how evil Hamas really is. A refresher course should not have been needed, but it was.

  20. Obviously playing to the audience, but it’s a bit rich to condemn — rightly — the inconsistencies and hypocrisies of student protestors when this blog, on this issue, has the same problems, in spades.

    Condemning — again rightly — the tragic deaths of 6 Israeli hostages without even mentioning the dozens of West Bank Palestinian killings by illegal settlers, not to mention the tens of thousands of Gaza civilian deaths at the hands of the Israeli military, is not an exercise in balance. Indeed, it’s the same sort of blinkered thinking that has so characterised American foreign policy for over a century, undermining, sometimes fatally, its promotion of democracy and liberalism.

    1. Sorry, but I’m not obligated to give the “balance” you want, which apparently is to show that to some extent Israel brought the October 7 attack upon itself. Further, you blame the deaths of Palestinian civilians in Gaza on the Israeli military instead of laying the blame where it belongs: on Hamas. Hamas facilitated and WANTED the deaths of these civilians to bring world opprobrium down on Israel.

      If there’s blinkered thinking here, it’s yours, not to mention the incivility of your response. You clearly need a lesson on how to address comments without 1. being rude and 2. addressing the facts.

      And no, I am not “playing to the audience”, but giving my opinion.

    2. “tens of thousands of Gaza civilian deaths”

      Curious…how many of those are Hamas soldiers? How do you know and from where do those numbers come?

      1. Coker doesn’t know; he/she is just accepting Hamas’s figures, which even the UN thinks are inflated. Regarding the “too many civilians killed” point, estimates by John Spencer (a US professor of civilian warfare at West Point, published in Foreign Affairs on August 21 (archived link here: https://archive.is/XjDtH) says this about the ratio of civilians killed to Hamas combatants killed:

        No previous example is exactly like Israel’s operation today in terms of the number of Hamas combatants embedded in populated urban areas, the tactics Hamas uses, or the vast bunker and tunnel complexes at its disposal. In the 2016-2017 Battle of Mosul, more than 10,000 civilians died in a campaign by U.S. and Iraqi forces to liberate the city from around 4,000 Islamic State fighters, a civilian-to-combatant death ratio of roughly 2.5 to 1. In the 1945 Battle of Manila, the U.S. military operation led to the death of 100,000 civilians to rout 17,000 Japanese defenders, for a ratio of nearly 6 to 1. Figures are less reliable in other battles, such as the 1950 Second Battle of Seoul, urban fighting during the 1999–2009 Second Chechen War, or Russia’s more recent attack of Mariupol. But the civilian-to-combatant death ratio for Israel’s operation in Gaza today, typically estimated between 1 and 3 to 1, is at the lower end of the historical range.

    3. I don’t speak for Mr. Coyne (obviously), but I don’t think he supports West Bank settlers killing anyone. As for Gaza civilian deaths. They are real and inevitable. When the US bombed Germany and Japan were only soldiers killed? Of course, not. Were that attacks necessary anyway? I would say so. War is a grim business and civilians die.

  21. I was assigned to the US Consulate General in Jerusalem 1986-1989. My family and a consular officer and his family lived in a duplex house in Beit Jala, with wonderful Palestinian neighbors. Two quotes from the consular officer were memorable and were allegedly the thoughts of the entire consular section: “These are two people who deserve each other,” and “The Palestinians are their own worst enemy.”

Comments are closed.