I can only find opinion pieces. But what I can find says that the administration is insisting (with an attempt to get the UN to assist) in an immediate unconditional ceasefire, including Israel allowing open borders, not closing the tunnels, and ending the arms embargo; and that it is thus opposed not only to Israel, but also Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi.
What's the real story?
"and that it is thus opposed not only to Israel, but also Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi."
I don't understand this part. Who is opposed to those countries doing what?
US admin, as I read it, is opposed to Israel's actions in Gaza, and Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi are supportive.
Saudi supports whatever the US says in the region.
As for Jordan and Israel, they have peace treaties with Israel and thus will support peace but not Israel per se. They also don't want their countries flooded with displaced Palestinian refugees as a result of an ongoing war and/or Israel completely annexing what's left of Gaza and the West Bank.
Anyway, gotta run but will simply say this: Any "insisting" that the US does is meaningless unless it realistically threatens to pull all the financial and military support it gives Israel. Until then, it's all posturing.
And the US is subsidizing terrorists murdering Arabs/Palestinians, displacing Bedouins, imprisoning African migrants, harassing and spitting on little girls in Jerusalem, etc.
There is bad on both sides.
What I'm reading is that the US is promising Hamas cash. I don't know what the pretext is, but I know what Hamas does with its resources: it kills Jews. Surely paying such people is more than posturing! if it's true that the administration has made such plans.
I see what you did there.
Wasnt the ceasefire over a few hours later since the Hamas kidnapped a israeli soldier?
However this time i fail to give a fuck about the whole conflict. We pretty much had the same situation a few years ago and it will repeat in a few years.
If it's a war, then it's not a kidnapping. It's the capture of an enemy combatant. This is an example of Israel and Israeli-influenced media changing the dialogue to suit their needs.
It´s very different. The risk of beeing killed or captured is in a soldiers job description, the same doesnt account for civilians. This is especially since beeing a POW is normaly preferable over beeing dead.
Killing and capturing hostile combatants goes hand in hand with beeing at war i cant see the moral limit here.
Still dont see the moral problem. Executions and interrorgation are games both sides play. And that POWs dont get always treated well isnt anything new nor something that just the Hamas does.
Setting aside that we dont know how and why he was captured
"All options are on the table" "We will do what needs to be done to protect our.." Yes!