Israeli strikes and gunfire kill at least 38 people in Gaza, report says
Israeli strikes and gunfire killed at least 38 people across Gaza as of Saturday morning, local health officials reported, with no ceasefire agreement evident on the horizon. The new toll underscores how fast devastation mounts when combat operations collide with densely populated areas. Officials said the dead included families and civilians who had been displaced inside Gaza’s crowded camps.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the U.N. General Assembly that Israel “must finish the job” in its campaign against Hamas, a line repeated by many on the government side as a blunt expression of national resolve. That phrase has become shorthand for an unforgiving approach to rooting out militant infrastructure and rescuing captives. Supporters argue the goal is to destroy the network that launched the initial attacks and to deter anyone considering similar strikes against Israel.
The reported deaths included nine members of one family in a home in the Nuseirat refugee camp and at least six people seeking aid in other areas who were hit by gunfire, according to hospital sources and field reports. Journalists and relief workers on the ground describe scenes of chaos and hospitals stretched beyond capacity. Medical teams keep raising alarms about supplies and safe access even as fighting pushes through urban neighborhoods.
Former President Trump commented that the U.S. is close to reaching an agreement in Gaza that “will get the hostages back” and “end the war,” a message meant to reassure families and voters that diplomatic pressure can produce results. From a Republican viewpoint, that line reinforces the dual track policy conservatives favor: press for concrete returns of captive citizens while enabling allies to dismantle terror networks. The political emphasis is on strong support for Israel paired with leverage to secure Americans and end open-ended conflict.
This moment forces a choice between two uncomfortable facts: Israel has a sovereign duty to defend itself after the October assault, and civilians continue to pay the price when combat takes place in densely settled areas. Republicans typically emphasize the first fact, arguing that failure to allow Israel to degrade Hamas would invite further mass-casualty attacks. But the human toll cannot be ignored and should shape tactics, not topple the mission.
Critics who call for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire miss the hard truth about how terror groups use pauses to regroup, rearm, and conceal hostages. A ceasefire without concrete mechanisms to disarm Hamas and return captives risks freezing a dangerous status quo. Lawmakers and foreign-policy officials with a conservative bent argue for conditional pauses tied to clear, verifiable steps: civilian aid corridors that operate under international supervision, the release of hostages, and demilitarization guarantees.
Humanitarian access is a real issue that must be treated seriously, not weaponized politically. Practical measures can expand aid flows while limiting the ability of Hamas to exploit those same routes; that requires intelligence-driven inspections and close cooperation with neutral agencies. Republicans who back Israel also support ramped-up humanitarian logistics — but they insist aid must not become cover for militants.
On the broader stage, regional actors will decide whether to enable a sustainable outcome or to fuel a new cycle of violence. Republican foreign-policy thinking tends to place the burden on regional governments to choose stability over chaos and to accept responsibility for militant proxies operating from their soil. The goal is to create a durable security environment that prevents the war from spilling across borders and dragging the United States into an open-ended ground role.
There is also a domestic political angle: conservative leaders emphasize deterrence and clarity about ends and means. Voters see the visceral images from Gaza and want decisive action to protect Israel and Americans, but they also want to see a plan to minimize civilian suffering and to bring hostages home. That’s why messaging that combines resolve with targeted humanitarian solutions resonates in Republican circles.
Accountability must be a two-way street: militant groups that embed operations in civilian neighborhoods bear responsibility for turning noncombatants into shields. That assertion does not negate independent investigations into civilian deaths, and it does not excuse preventable harm. A principled approach insists on investigating incidents transparently, holding perpetrators to account, and refining tactics to reduce collateral damage.
Policy choices now will determine whether the region moves toward a managed peace or another eruption of violence within months. From a conservative perspective, the correct path is to empower Israel to dismantle Hamas’s capacity while demanding enforceable protections for civilians and credible mechanisms to retrieve hostages. The alternative risks perpetual conflict and more innocent bloodshed across the same neighborhoods we are watching now.
What comes next
The immediate priorities are simple and urgent: stop further mass-casualty strikes on civilians, secure and expand humanitarian access under secure conditions, and press for the safe return of hostages through real leverage. At the same time, Israel must be allowed to pursue the militants who planned and executed the initial atrocities, or the cycle simply repeats. Republican policymakers will push for clarity of purpose, ironclad support for allies, and practical steps to protect civilians while achieving decisive results.
