[TrumpCard]

Quiet diplomacy with Israel might help prevent further spread of the conflict.  In my view, the U.S. should be, and is, standing shoulder to shoulder to Israel, rather than dictating to Israel what it is "permitted" to do in response to Hamas' attack.  Israel won't obey anyway due to its accurate perception that its own vital interests are at stake.  But the U.S. can convey the limits of the U.S.' own commitment to support Israel.  For example, the U.S. could explain that it is not going to get involved militarily if Hezbollah were to attack Israel's north, and therefore, Israel needs to make sure it leaves sufficient troops in that area to defend its own territory from attack.  If Israel were to leave a visible troop presence in the north, that would provide more credible deterrence than the U.S. could provide because potential aggressors might not believe U.S. professions that it will intervene militarily in Israel's defense.  Also, if Israel were to leave those troops in the north, Israel would have fewer troops to use in the south, potentially reducing its flexibility to expand the scope of its attack.  A narrower attack, and fewer casualties, would reduce the risk of a third party being sufficiently motivated to enter the conflict.

This is why I am inclined to believe that ultimately, Russia is behind the Hamas attack on Israel. Nobody benefits from this nonsense more than Putin, and it really hurts Zelensky's efforts to rally support to Ukraine, so the Occam's razor answer to what is behind it is Putin.
I've concluded I don't want any more U.S. support of Israel, and want Ukraine getting everything needed to prevail against Russia, but imagine I'm in a significant minority on that position.

I recognize that the statement above is not actually, "I think the U.S. should do everything possible to deter military aggression by Russia and its allies, unless the victims are Jews." But I honestly read it that way.

[TrumpCard]

Quiet diplomacy with Israel might help prevent further spread of the conflict.  In my view, the U.S. should be, and is, standing shoulder to shoulder to Israel, rather than dictating to Israel what it is "permitted" to do in response to Hamas' attack.  Israel won't obey anyway due to its accurate perception that its own vital interests are at stake.  But the U.S. can convey the limits of the U.S.' own commitment to support Israel.  For example, the U.S. could explain that it is not going to get involved militarily if Hezbollah were to attack Israel's north, and therefore, Israel needs to make sure it leaves sufficient troops in that area to defend its own territory from attack.  If Israel were to leave a visible troop presence in the north, that would provide more credible deterrence than the U.S. could provide because potential aggressors might not believe U.S. professions that it will intervene militarily in Israel's defense.  Also, if Israel were to leave those troops in the north, Israel would have fewer troops to use in the south, potentially reducing its flexibility to expand the scope of its attack.  A narrower attack, and fewer casualties, would reduce the risk of a third party being sufficiently motivated to enter the conflict.

This is why I am inclined to believe that ultimately, Russia is behind the Hamas attack on Israel. Nobody benefits from this nonsense more than Putin, and it really hurts Zelensky's efforts to rally support to Ukraine, so the Occam's razor answer to what is behind it is Putin.
I've concluded I don't want any more U.S. support of Israel, and want Ukraine getting everything needed to prevail against Russia, but imagine I'm in a significant minority on that position.

I recognize that the statement above is not actually, "I think the U.S. should do everything possible to deter military aggression by Russia and its allies, unless the victims are Jews." But I honestly read it that way.