There is a humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip. Whether or not one questions the reliability of the Gaza Health Ministry and the integrity of the press outlets that have been reporting on the conflict, what is undeniable is the fact that Palestinian civilians, including children, are suffering. Those who refuse to feel sympathy for hungry, displaced, and/or wounded innocents should look inward and re-evaluate their moral compass.
Prior to discussions about fault and culpability, we should all have the humanity to feel empathy for those in harm’s way, regardless of their creed, nationality or affiliation. If we become blind and hardened to suffering anywhere, then we will forfeit our ability to forge peace anywhere. First and foremost, then, let’s be clear that the crisis in Gaza is devastating for all people of conscience, and let’s attempt to explore potential solutions in a spirit of good faith and common cause.
In general, two approaches to concluding the war in Gaza can be identified: 1) ending the war; and 2) finishing the war. Ending the war—the approach that has been demanded by 28 nations this past week in a letter to the Israeli government—calls for an immediate ceasefire and a conclusion to all hostilities. Finishing the war, which is the approach currently pursued by the Israel Defense Forces and officially supported by its greatest ally, the United States, insists that the only way to stop the suffering on both sides of the Gaza border is to eradicate Hamas.
There are those, of course, who accuse Israel of war crimes and humanitarian atrocities, and insist that Netanyahu’s government has no interest in peace and no concern for the plight of Palestinians. From their perspective, any continuance of the war is cruel and inhumane. They firmly contend that the only way to alleviate the anguish in Gaza is to remove the IDF and grant the Palestinians their own state.
From Israel’s perspective, such a move would not only fail to halt the suffering of Gazans, but it would ensure that far more innocents will be maimed, starved, and/or killed in generations of continued conflict that will torment Palestinians and Israelis alike. If Hamas is left even partially intact and capable of regaining control of the Strip, then peace will be impossible and further rounds of fierce violence inevitable. Hamas has explicitly vowed to commit many more murderous days like Oct. 7 in the future, and Israel will therefore have no choice but to respond.
The reality, then, for anyone who has the foresight, sobriety and objectivity to assess the situation through a long-term lens, is that ending the war without finishing it is in no one’s best interest except those who initiated the conflict and are perpetuating it—i.e., Hamas. It is certainly understandable that there are many well-meaning observers who are appalled by the images of devastation and malnutrition in Gaza, and therefore call for an immediate solution. Yet such a reaction is shortsighted and will only result in greater affliction for those they purport to defend.
This type of visceral, knee-jerk response is precisely what Hamas and its apologists are trying to evoke through their dissemination of heart-rending imagery. Accusing Israel of perpetrating atrocities and war crimes that have generated the tragic scenes seen in the media, Hamas itself is intentionally creating the nightmarish conditions in Gaza by operating from civilian infrastructure like schools and hospitals, by hiding in tunnels beneath population centers, and by stealing and depriving civilians of the plentiful aid that has poured into the Strip throughout the conflict. The only thing more helpful to the Hamas cause than photos of maimed, emaciated or dead Palestinians is the outcry from the international community that swallows the lure hook, line and sinker, believing the lie that Israel is guilty of these ghastly crimes and therefore demanding an immediate ceasefire.
Some are ideologically biased and eager to consume the deception. But many with no preexisting agenda are simply so aghast at the suffering they are witnessing that they reflexively demand a halt to all military action, unconscious of the long-term repercussions of such action. It is normal to recoil from such atrocities; it is natural to react emotionally and immediately. Yet if we are genuinely concerned for the safety and well-being of those who are innocent, then we must step back and view the situation holistically and impassively in order to determine the most rational and beneficial path forward.
Perhaps an analogy can be drawn from the medical field and the treatment of cancer. Treatment—whether through radiation or chemotherapy—will wrack the body and devastate the systems that generally promote health. If assessing the ravaging side effects in the middle of the process without understanding the long-term goals and prognosis, an individual may demand an immediate end to the treatment. Yet this might ultimately condemn the patient to death.
Of course, this type of comparison can seem cold and clinical when applied to the suffering of real people in a war zone. Is it possible to suggest that the loss of thousands of innocent Gaza civilians is justifiable for the sake of the greater good? Is the implication that they are merely tumorous lesions that need to be excised in order for the rest of the “body” to survive? Absolutely not!
Yet the tragic reality is that people are dying. Hamas began a war nearly two years ago by murdering more than 1,200 men, women and children in southern Israel, and taking another 251 people captive. In its attempt to ensure that Hamas cannot repeat this type of barbarism, Jerusalem has conducted military operations that have sadly resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. To stop the “treatment” now would be leaving the cancer as is, with far more people consigned to misery and death.
After decades of allowing international pressure to hamstring the Jewish state from decisively dealing with the cancer in its midst, in the wake of Oct. 7, it has decided to no longer take “medical” advice from those who have allowed their own body politic to become diseased. In every previous round of fighting, Israel has caved to foreign coercion and stopped short of completing the necessary treatment. Downgraded, but not eradicated, the cancer will inevitably come back.
Ending the war without finishing the war would not be healthy for Israel, the Palestinian people, the Middle East or the world as a whole. To draw from historic precedent, consider the decisive actions that ended the last world war. The Nazis were defeated, in part, through relentless bombing in Dresden and other German cities that wiped out hundreds of thousands of civilians. The war was finally concluded through the dropping of nuclear bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, decimating hundreds of thousands of Japanese. The Allies certainly did not revel in such killing, though they knew that if the war didn’t end then, millions more would die later.
If World War II had been waged in the age of social media, how many would have been clamoring for a ceasefire and end the tragic suffering of innocents? Such a response would have been understandable, and few would want to be in the position of those who were forced to make the terrible decision to drop those bombs. Yet had they not, the war would have continued and spread, and many more soldiers and civilians would have perished.
What Israel comprehends—and what the 28 signatories to the ceasefire letter fail to recognize—is that finishing the war against Hamas will save countless Jewish and Palestinian lives, while ending it prematurely will cost the region and the world even more pain and suffering. Unlike the death cult of Hamas, Israel values all life and knows that the only way to protect future generations on both sides of the border is to do its job.
