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.
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.
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 total victory is beyond reach.
I highly recommend this podcast with two center/center-right commentators, Yossi Klein Halevy and Donniel Hartman, “Gaza: The End?”, who’ve reached that conclusion. Halevy, especially, with much anguish
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.
The podcast participants are detached from reality and operate on rumours, wild theories about Trump being a counterpart of Israel's rights, or pure anti-Israeli propaganda, including fully compromised sources, such as Haaretz. I wish I could be on the other side of such a debate.
Thanks for checking that out. I hope it wasn’t a waste of time.
Halevy is a very prominent center-right journalist - somewhere close to Bret Stephens on the political spectrum. I’ve been listening to him since Oct. 7 and, until recently, he backed the war unreservedly. If he’s citing Haaretz, you know something’s up. Something’s shifting. And I think his point that the war has become a “strategic liability” is worth considering.
I hear your concern, and I understand the emotional toll this war has taken on all of us. However, from a strategic perspective, halting now, when Hamas is weakened but not dismantled, would not only be a mistake; it would also be a cascading regional disaster.
First, it would embolden Hamas in Judea and Samaria, where their influence has been steadily rising. If they survive this war intact, militarily or politically, they’ll be celebrated as victors, and the Palestinian Authority will be further delegitimized. That will collapse the last vestiges of moderate leadership, leaving a radical power vacuum.
Second, Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others, are watching closely. A premature end to this war would send a dangerous message: that attacking Israeli civilians en masse is not only survivable but effective. It would mark war, not diplomacy, as the proven path to gain leverage over Israel.
Third, Israel already has momentum. Over 85% of Gaza is no longer under Hamas control. Hostages remain. Hamas's leadership infrastructure is fractured. To stop now would not be a restraint. It would be a reversal.
And perhaps most importantly, if we want any hope of lasting peace or coexistence, Gaza must undergo ideological denazification. That means dismantling not just Hamas’s military arm but the machinery of hatred, schools, mosques, and media that have radicalized generations. Without that, there’s no future, just a countdown to the next massacre.
So, no, I don’t believe “war fatigue” is reason enough to stop. I believe it’s precisely now, when we're close to completing a core objective, that we must see it through fully, decisively, and with an eye toward long-term regional stability.
You powerfully articulate the risks of allowing Hamas to survive the war intact.
But there are also risks to continuing the war to pursue total victory. The best analysis requires evaluating how risks and trade-offs of different courses of action stack up. No path is risk-free. (Here - risk of quagmire, societal strain/polarization, erosion of U.S support etc.)
I appreciated this exchange
More to listen to.
These podcasts are very informative.
Haviv Rettig Gur takes on the Haaretz report. Riveting - ends up in a place you might not expect.
He remains a hawk, but a troubled one. The 23 minute windup before he gives his conclusions is worth listening to.
Thanks again. I really do appreciate this exchange. It’s clear we both care deeply, even if we’re drawing different conclusions. But I think we’re circling around a core disagreement that deserves to be stated plainly.
I listened carefully to both podcasts you shared. In fact, I think they actually strengthen the point I’ve been making all along.
The second podcast, in particular, is not a call to end the war. It’s a cry of frustration about operational dysfunction: poor planning, tactical rigidity, and serious mistakes in aid distribution. I completely agree those are real issues that must be fixed. But even the host, despite his anger, says clearly:
“Leaving Hamas intact and in power would be the greatest disservice... crueler than finishing the war.”
That’s exactly my argument. Strategic errors, political exhaustion, or moral fatigue are not valid reasons to abandon the core objective. If Hamas survives, even underground or in exile, the war has failed, and worse bloodshed is inevitable.
Yes, every path carries risk. But we are beyond the point where war is a matter of balancing reputational optics or domestic polarization. This is about survival. And here’s where we differ: I don’t believe existential threats, like a resurgent Hamas or emboldened Iran-Hezbollah axis, can be weighed alongside political fallout or loss of U.S. patience. One is survivable. The other is not.
Fixing the chaos around aid? Absolutely. That’s a reason to recommit and finish the mission competently, not a reason to walk away at 90% completion and hope for the best.
I don’t believe “shifting sentiment” should guide national security. Existential threats don’t get softer because people get tired. They just get smarter and deadlier.
Hope, diplomacy, and rebuilding are essential. But only after the threat is removed. Not before.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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 total victory is beyond reach.
I highly recommend this podcast with two center/center-right commentators, Yossi Klein Halevy and Donniel Hartman, “Gaza: The End?”, who’ve reached that conclusion. Halevy, especially, with much anguish
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/for-heavens-sake/id1522222281?i=1000715377842
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
The podcast participants are detached from reality and operate on rumours, wild theories about Trump being a counterpart of Israel's rights, or pure anti-Israeli propaganda, including fully compromised sources, such as Haaretz. I wish I could be on the other side of such a debate.
Thanks for checking that out. I hope it wasn’t a waste of time.
Halevy is a very prominent center-right journalist - somewhere close to Bret Stephens on the political spectrum. I’ve been listening to him since Oct. 7 and, until recently, he backed the war unreservedly. If he’s citing Haaretz, you know something’s up. Something’s shifting. And I think his point that the war has become a “strategic liability” is worth considering.
I hear your concern, and I understand the emotional toll this war has taken on all of us. However, from a strategic perspective, halting now, when Hamas is weakened but not dismantled, would not only be a mistake; it would also be a cascading regional disaster.
First, it would embolden Hamas in Judea and Samaria, where their influence has been steadily rising. If they survive this war intact, militarily or politically, they’ll be celebrated as victors, and the Palestinian Authority will be further delegitimized. That will collapse the last vestiges of moderate leadership, leaving a radical power vacuum.
Second, Iran and its proxies, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and others, are watching closely. A premature end to this war would send a dangerous message: that attacking Israeli civilians en masse is not only survivable but effective. It would mark war, not diplomacy, as the proven path to gain leverage over Israel.
Third, Israel already has momentum. Over 85% of Gaza is no longer under Hamas control. Hostages remain. Hamas's leadership infrastructure is fractured. To stop now would not be a restraint. It would be a reversal.
And perhaps most importantly, if we want any hope of lasting peace or coexistence, Gaza must undergo ideological denazification. That means dismantling not just Hamas’s military arm but the machinery of hatred, schools, mosques, and media that have radicalized generations. Without that, there’s no future, just a countdown to the next massacre.
So, no, I don’t believe “war fatigue” is reason enough to stop. I believe it’s precisely now, when we're close to completing a core objective, that we must see it through fully, decisively, and with an eye toward long-term regional stability.
You powerfully articulate the risks of allowing Hamas to survive the war intact.
But there are also risks to continuing the war to pursue total victory. The best analysis requires evaluating how risks and trade-offs of different courses of action stack up. No path is risk-free. (Here - risk of quagmire, societal strain/polarization, erosion of U.S support etc.)
I appreciated this exchange
More to listen to.
These podcasts are very informative.
Haviv Rettig Gur takes on the Haaretz report. Riveting - ends up in a place you might not expect.
He remains a hawk, but a troubled one. The 23 minute windup before he gives his conclusions is worth listening to.
https://youtu.be/J59b2XWAVe0?si=eK9i3nxC8DLwax_1
Dan Senor’s podcast
Nadav Eyal of Yediot Ahronot - straight reporting on how opinion is shifting toward ending the war, the options being talked about.
Start at 14:15
https://youtu.be/AhYdHAPopDo?si=9ZOIRash6v_P2Jl.
Thanks again. I really do appreciate this exchange. It’s clear we both care deeply, even if we’re drawing different conclusions. But I think we’re circling around a core disagreement that deserves to be stated plainly.
I listened carefully to both podcasts you shared. In fact, I think they actually strengthen the point I’ve been making all along.
The second podcast, in particular, is not a call to end the war. It’s a cry of frustration about operational dysfunction: poor planning, tactical rigidity, and serious mistakes in aid distribution. I completely agree those are real issues that must be fixed. But even the host, despite his anger, says clearly:
“Leaving Hamas intact and in power would be the greatest disservice... crueler than finishing the war.”
That’s exactly my argument. Strategic errors, political exhaustion, or moral fatigue are not valid reasons to abandon the core objective. If Hamas survives, even underground or in exile, the war has failed, and worse bloodshed is inevitable.
Yes, every path carries risk. But we are beyond the point where war is a matter of balancing reputational optics or domestic polarization. This is about survival. And here’s where we differ: I don’t believe existential threats, like a resurgent Hamas or emboldened Iran-Hezbollah axis, can be weighed alongside political fallout or loss of U.S. patience. One is survivable. The other is not.
Fixing the chaos around aid? Absolutely. That’s a reason to recommit and finish the mission competently, not a reason to walk away at 90% completion and hope for the best.
I don’t believe “shifting sentiment” should guide national security. Existential threats don’t get softer because people get tired. They just get smarter and deadlier.
Hope, diplomacy, and rebuilding are essential. But only after the threat is removed. Not before.
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
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?
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.