Hacker News Reader

Comment by an0malous | Hacker News Reader

Don’t forget the “all they have to do is return the hostages” line

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.

> There was a second part to that which is "and surrender".

Honest question. Why should they surrender?

> Most or all of it in response to violations of the ceasefire by Hamas.

A complete and utter inversion of reality.

First page of Google results for: Israel ceasefire violations

“How many times has Israel violated the Gaza ceasefire? Here are the numbers: Since the ceasefire took effect, Israeli attacks have killed at least 615 Palestinians and injured 1,658.” https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/11/how-many-times-has...

“UN experts urge States to act as Israeli violations threaten fragile Gaza ceasefire” https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2025/11/un-experts-u...

“Israel has violated ceasefire 47 times and killed 38 Palestinians” https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/oct/18/israel-has-vio...

“Fact Sheet: Israel’s History of Breaking Ceasefires” https://imeu.org/resources/resources/fact-sheet-israels-hist...

> Honest question. Why should they surrender?

The full statement is something like "to end the war, Hamas only need to return the hostages and surrender".

Surrendering is typically what the losing side needs to do to end a war.

> Honest question. Why should they surrender?

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.

That same logic applies in reverse, though, so it can't be the answer.

If the Allies surrendered to the Axis, it would have also saved lives.

No? Hitler explicitly laid out a plan to expel and starve much of Eastern Europe.

> 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.

This is a wild enough sounding claim it deserves a cite.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-07/israel-hannibal-direc...

The Hannibal directive or the more recent Dayiha Doctrine[0]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahiya_doctrine

The investigation into this found 14 deaths from Hannibal Directive actions. Mostly firing on vehicles carrying hostages.

Report: https://www.un.org/unispal/document/coi-report-a-hrc-56-26-2...

Keep reading, you're missing the next sentences.

> 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.)

> Mostly firing on vehicles carrying hostages.

That is the Hannibal Directive; "the kidnapping must be stopped by all means, even at the price of striking and harming our own forces". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive

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?

Cool, now justify the things happening in the west bank. Israel so peaceful, coexists with neighbors.

The issue isn't whether or not Israel started it. It's the genocide they did once it started.

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?

> Don’t forget the “all they have to do is return the hostages” line

Did the ceasefire not coincide with the return of the hostages? What am I missing?

Civilian deaths have continued https://www.abc.net.au/news/2026-01-31/israel-strikes-gaza-h...

That article says 30 deaths of "people" not civilians and that the strikes targeted commanders.

if the ceasefire only applies when targeting civilians, was agreeing to a ceasefire in the first place thus an admission of targeting civilians?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com