"I mean, it's pretty amazing to see the states rally around Israel, and while cautioning and urging Israel to be careful with human lives, continue to provide ironclad support to Israel to root out Hamas. And Hamas made a major miscalculation. I think the fact is they're going to get exactly what they want, which is a lot of civilian casualties, but it's not going to save them. It's actually, you know, Hamas will be wiped off the face of the earth. I think that's the end state here. But the problem is that we're going to go through more civilian casualties because of the way this war was done by Hamas. And Israel is doing, I think, what it can to try to minimize those casualties. But this is dense urban settings in areas where Hamas is restricting the movement of the civilian population to prevent them from fleeing using human shields. You know, what people don't realize is that Israel is completely abiding by the law of armed conflict, completely within the rights to defend itself, to destroy Hamas. The law of armed conflict does not distinguish once Hamas is embedded into the civilian population and uses human shields, Israel is well within its right to destroy Hamas in spite of the human casualties. That's what the law of armed conflict said. That was what basically the states that signed up to this international agreement recognize that you have to, that war is the ugliest of human endeavors and that there will be human casualties. But I think the fact is that we want to hold Israel to a higher standard, international humanitarian law, and even beyond that, you know, continue to urge Israel to, in spite of the fact that it's well within its rights within the law of armed conflict, be even more careful to avoid civilian casualties. I think there's practical reasons for that. One of the practical reasons is simple, that these populations are going to have to live together in the future. Or we'll come to an end and the more human"