We seem to be nearing yet another chance to free the remaining hostages and bring the war in Gaza to an end. This time, the government must seize that opportunity.
Yes, Avi. The war needs to end. And we need to end it. But the question of "how" is critical. If we end it simply by raising our hands and surrendering, or outsourcing our security to another country or countries (something which has *never* ended well for us), we're simply ensuring the next war.
The type of arguments display a naivete and a misplaced sense of blame. Whatever one thinks of the government, it acts in the manner it seems to be in the best interest of the country, including rescuing its captive citizens. Arm chair generals with limited knowledge should stop blaming it for the fact that it faces a duplicitous enemy with no morals or thinking they know better how to deal with them.
I read your article calling for an end to the war in Gaza with deep concern. While I share in the heartbreak over the loss of innocent lives — both Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians — I must respectfully and strongly disagree with the article’s central premise: that Hamas has been defeated and the war should now end.
This is a dangerously premature conclusion.
Hamas is not a conventional army that can be defeated by killing a fixed number of fighters or eliminating high-ranking commanders. It is a decentralized ideological movement embedded within Gaza’s political, social, and religious infrastructure. Even after suffering significant military losses, Hamas continues to enjoy deep-rooted support, particularly among younger segments of the population. In an environment where poverty, hatred, and radicalization persist, Hamas — or something worse — will regenerate, and likely with greater sophistication, rage, and resolve.
Israel has indeed accomplished major military objectives. But allowing Hamas to survive — to retain any foothold in Gaza, whether through local influence or in exile — is to ensure a future war. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by treating this as a winnable conflict through half-measures. The only meaningful victory is the complete dismantling of Hamas’s political and military power, and the establishment of an alternative order in Gaza that does not threaten Israel’s existence or security.
Ending the war now, while hostages remain in captivity and Hamas remains alive in spirit and structure, risks nothing less than a reprised October 7 — smarter, deadlier, and potentially even broader in scope.
Some may call this stance uncompromising. I call it realistic. Peace cannot be achieved through the survival of a genocidal terror group. And while I respect the emotional weight that drives calls for reconciliation and recovery, I believe those goals will only be realized when Hamas is gone — not just weakened.
History has taught us that a temporary ceasefire with an enemy committed to your destruction is not peace. It is merely an intermission.
Very eloquent, but I’m afraid a total victory is not possible. I highly recommend this podcast with Yossi Klein Halevy, who’s reached that conclusion with considerable anguish. I’d take Halevy, a clear-eyed hawk, as an indicator center-right opinion is shifting.
Weak positions like this is how we got in this jam in the first place. Concessions to an enemy who will have you destroyed. The bitter truth is that the defeat and destruction of Palestinianism is far far more important than any other goal.
It’s been painful to watch the erosion of support for Israel, its policies and its very existence, during this too-long war. When it should have ended is debatable, but it’s surely long overdue, for Israel’s sake.
You make a compelling case. Curious if you’re familiar with the work of noted urban war expert John Spencer, who sees Hamas as defeatable. Lays out the case in a couple of recent X pieces
Yes, Avi. The war needs to end. And we need to end it. But the question of "how" is critical. If we end it simply by raising our hands and surrendering, or outsourcing our security to another country or countries (something which has *never* ended well for us), we're simply ensuring the next war.
The war must end. But it must end the right way. https://lisaliel.substack.com/p/the-war-must-end
They are only offering to hand back 10 living hostages. How do you get back the rest and in those 2 months you think Hamas isn’t going to regroup?
The type of arguments display a naivete and a misplaced sense of blame. Whatever one thinks of the government, it acts in the manner it seems to be in the best interest of the country, including rescuing its captive citizens. Arm chair generals with limited knowledge should stop blaming it for the fact that it faces a duplicitous enemy with no morals or thinking they know better how to deal with them.
I read your article calling for an end to the war in Gaza with deep concern. While I share in the heartbreak over the loss of innocent lives — both Israeli hostages and Palestinian civilians — I must respectfully and strongly disagree with the article’s central premise: that Hamas has been defeated and the war should now end.
This is a dangerously premature conclusion.
Hamas is not a conventional army that can be defeated by killing a fixed number of fighters or eliminating high-ranking commanders. It is a decentralized ideological movement embedded within Gaza’s political, social, and religious infrastructure. Even after suffering significant military losses, Hamas continues to enjoy deep-rooted support, particularly among younger segments of the population. In an environment where poverty, hatred, and radicalization persist, Hamas — or something worse — will regenerate, and likely with greater sophistication, rage, and resolve.
Israel has indeed accomplished major military objectives. But allowing Hamas to survive — to retain any foothold in Gaza, whether through local influence or in exile — is to ensure a future war. We cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past by treating this as a winnable conflict through half-measures. The only meaningful victory is the complete dismantling of Hamas’s political and military power, and the establishment of an alternative order in Gaza that does not threaten Israel’s existence or security.
Ending the war now, while hostages remain in captivity and Hamas remains alive in spirit and structure, risks nothing less than a reprised October 7 — smarter, deadlier, and potentially even broader in scope.
Some may call this stance uncompromising. I call it realistic. Peace cannot be achieved through the survival of a genocidal terror group. And while I respect the emotional weight that drives calls for reconciliation and recovery, I believe those goals will only be realized when Hamas is gone — not just weakened.
History has taught us that a temporary ceasefire with an enemy committed to your destruction is not peace. It is merely an intermission.
Very eloquent, but I’m afraid a total victory is not possible. I highly recommend this podcast with Yossi Klein Halevy, who’s reached that conclusion with considerable anguish. I’d take Halevy, a clear-eyed hawk, as an indicator center-right opinion is shifting.
For Heaven’s Sake
“Gaza: The End”
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-heavens-sake/id1522222281?i=1000715377842
Weak positions like this is how we got in this jam in the first place. Concessions to an enemy who will have you destroyed. The bitter truth is that the defeat and destruction of Palestinianism is far far more important than any other goal.
It’s been painful to watch the erosion of support for Israel, its policies and its very existence, during this too-long war. When it should have ended is debatable, but it’s surely long overdue, for Israel’s sake.
You make a compelling case. Curious if you’re familiar with the work of noted urban war expert John Spencer, who sees Hamas as defeatable. Lays out the case in a couple of recent X pieces