Israel's Impossible Plight

The question before Israel is not just how to win a war, but how to do so without breaking the very moral fabric that defines the Jewish state.

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Since October 7, 2023, Israel has faced a dilemma so cruel, so morally excruciating, that it defies historical precedent.

It is a nation forced to choose between two imperatives that should never be in conflict: rescuing its kidnapped citizens and neutralizing a terror organization committed to its annihilation.

Hamas’ massacre of Israeli civilians, its systematic sexual violence, and its calculated abduction of more than 240 hostages — including children, the elderly, and the disabled — were not just acts of war. They were psychological weapons designed to place Israel in an impossible bind.

Hamas fully understands Israel’s fundamental ethic: A country built as a refuge for the persecuted will go to extraordinary lengths to protect its own. It leverages this moral commitment, knowing that Israel’s leaders must weigh every military action against the desperate hope of recovering those still held in Gaza.

Israel’s war effort has been constrained not just by the practical realities of urban warfare, but by the anguish of the families who wait for news, and by a world quick to condemn. The hostages are not merely bargaining chips; they are human shields in the most cynical sense.

Hamas has embedded them deep within civilian areas, likely within tunnels and military installations, so that any full-scale military operation risks their lives. At the same time, every day that Hamas remains operational prolongs the suffering of those captives and endangers every Israeli who might be the victim of the next attack.

The international community, eager to impose its own moral calculus, pressures Israel to prioritize hostage negotiations over military victory. But negotiations with a terrorist organization come with another threat: justifying the organization’s existence and setting a precedent for future attacks, and not just by Hamas. All terrorist organizations have been watching closely and taking notes.

Each moment that Israel delays, Hamas regroups, rearms, and solidifies its grip over Gaza. Calls for a permanent ceasefire, then, ignore the deeper reality: If Hamas is left intact, October 7th will not be an aberration, but a precedent.

This is the impossible position Israel faces. A government that fails to defeat Hamas risks the long-term security of its citizens. A government that presses forward risks the lives of the remaining hostages. Either choice will be met with agony, both within Israel and beyond.

The question before Israel is not just how to win a war, but how to do so without breaking the very moral fabric that defines the Jewish state. It is a struggle not just for security, but for the soul of a nation. Yet, however agonizing the choice, one truth remains: No country can accept a future in which its citizens live under perpetual threat, in which hostage-taking becomes an enduring strategy of war.

If Israel does not act decisively, then Hamas, and every future terrorist group that follows its model, will have learned a dangerous lesson: The moral conscience of democracies can be weaponized against them. If it does act decisively, it risks sacrificing the lives of those it so desperately seeks to save. This is not just an impossible position. It is the ultimate cruelty of terrorism itself.

Israel cannot simply save the hostages and then finish the job against Hamas in Gaza. The terror group will hold onto hostages until Israel agrees to permanently end the war and completely withdraw from the Strip, with international guarantees up the you-know-what.

Some will point to recent polls in Israel that suggest at least 60 percent of Israelis are willing to save the remaining hostages at the expense of permanently ending the war and completely withdrawing from Gaza. This poll is misleading, as many are.

First, we do not know exactly which “type” of Israelis it takes into account. There are the Israelis who live in “Israel proper” — meaning they are not settlers living in Judea and Samaria (also known as the West Bank) — many of whom are part of this 60 percent.

But then there are the Israeli settlers who disproportionately represent the number of fallen soldiers in Gaza. Their family members cannot fathom Israel walking away from Gaza while leaving Hamas intact, no matter how battered the terror group may be right now.

If you are asking Israelis to support the families of the hostages but not those of the fallen soldiers, that’s like telling a parent to love one kid but not the other.

Do the families of the hostages rank higher on the hierarchy of support than those of the fallen soldiers? I guess it depends on who you ask, and the answer is firmly philosophical.

There are also the politics of it all. Democratically elected Israeli members of Knesset¹ Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have taken a hardline approach to Gaza, and it’s hard not to understand why. As Israeli settlers, they and the communities they represent know better than most of us what it’s like to live side-by-side with Palestinians, many of whom seethe to see Jews dead as part of a culture that celebrates death amongst themselves as well (martyrdom).

Smotrich and Ben-Gvir also represent Israeli settlers who, again, disproportionately represent the number of fallen soldiers in Gaza. So these two and other such politicians are not just driven by ideology; they were elected to serve that part of the population.

And for those who think negatively about Israeli settlers, all I will say is this: Much of what’s said and depicted about Israeli settlers is uncontextualized lies. The West Bank is not occupied territory; it is disputed territory as a matter of fact. And the vast majority of Israeli settlers are harmless, law-abiding individuals.

Meanwhile, democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is obviously trying to keep his coalition intact by placating Smotrich and Ben-Gvir (more so Smotrich). Many in Israel claim Netanyahu is putting his own political interests above the dire situation of the hostages, and they are probably correct in this analysis. I would venture to say that most of us would do the same if we were in Netanyahu’s position. Politics is not a game of ethics; it is a game of survival. If you’re looking for a trace of ethics, go volunteer at a nonprofit organization.

There are also the politics of the Israeli Left, which has hijacked the plight of the hostages for their own sociopolitical agenda — a move I find utterly unforgivable. Rather than uniting the country around the shared goal of securing the hostages’ release, they have exploited the crisis as a political weapon, using the anguish of the hostages’ families to push for a ceasefire that would leave Hamas intact and embolden Israel’s enemies.

This is not about genuine concern for the hostages; it is about political opportunism. Their protests, media campaigns, and international lobbying efforts are not designed to strengthen Israel’s negotiating position. They have aligned themselves with voices that, just weeks ago, dismissed the massacre of October 7th as “resistance” or justified the atrocities as a response to the “occupation.”

In doing so, they have ignored the reality that Hamas is not a rational actor which can be swayed by concessions. Every previous ceasefire has only allowed Hamas to regroup, rearm, and plan the next attack. The Israeli Left’s call for a “diplomatic solution” amounts to nothing more than capitulation — one that prioritizes their ideological war against the Israeli Right over the lives and security of the Israeli people.

Truth be told, much of the Israeli Left lost the script well before October 7th. They deeply desire to undo Israel’s Jewish nature and make it just another democracy with increasingly Far-Left “liberalism” reigning supreme. How’s that working out for much of Europe, Canada, and Australia right now?

Speaking of Europe, a Qatari newspaper this week quoted Egyptian sources as saying that consultations are taking place between Cairo and representatives of the European Union on the formation of a joint supervision mechanism for a temporary committee to oversee post-war Gaza, formed by the Egyptians from independent Palestinian elements not affiliated with Fatah, Hamas, or the Palestinian Authority. According to the report, this committee is supposed to manage the Strip under direct Egyptian supervision and European monitoring.

Thanks but no thanks.

Most non-trembling-knee Jews know that we cannot afford to put our security in someone else’s basket, especially when we know that this “mechanism” — in practice — is simply Hamas trying to copy the pattern of conduct that has prevailed for years in Lebanon with Hezbollah: The organization will not have civilian control over the Strip and will not be required to care for the welfare and needs of the residents, and instead will be able to concentrate and invest all its money in the “resistance.” That is, preparing for war with Israel.

Since Hamas is still the strongest military force in the Strip, it will be the one who will dictate what happens — and under the Egyptian-European Union mechanism, civilian officials would do Hamas’ bidding.

The aforementioned sources told the newspaper that Cairo reached understandings with Hamas regarding its removal from all aspects of the Gaza Strip’s civil and security management, and made it clear that Hamas had demonstrated flexibility and cooperation. The same article quoted one of Hamas’ spokesmen who said, “We made concessions regarding the future of the government — but we have all the legitimacy to be present in the political scene.”

How stupid do they think Israelis are?

Palestinians, in general, cannot be trusted. Every hostage is not going to be released. Hamas would never do such a thing. They are their ultimate insurance policy — bargaining chips to be leveraged, human shields to be sacrificed, and symbols of Hamas’ unyielding grip on Islamist power.

At the same time, Hamas wants to demonstrate that Israeli lives are purely disposable, that they hold the power over life and death, and that no amount of negotiation or diplomacy can override their fundamental commitment to terror — which is why Hamas murdered the Bibas family (Shiri, Ariel, and the red-headed baby Kfir).

This was not just an act of cruelty; it was a calculated message — one meant to inflict maximum pain on Israel, demoralize the families of hostages, and remind the world that Hamas will always prioritize its own survival and ideology over human life, including the people they claim to represent.

This is why every diplomatic effort, every Israeli concession, every well-intentioned peace initiative has failed. It is not because of settlements, borders, or economic conditions; it is because the fundamental premise of Palestinian political and cultural life is that Zionists are evil and Israel has no right to exist.

Well, two can play that game. If they think we have no right to exist, right back at you. If this is a zero-sum game, where either I am killed or I kill, I am not a killer, but I am not going to let you slaughter me and my family and my friends.

Much of the world will bemoan me for having this mindset, but it was forced on me and other Israelis. Israeli culture celebrates life; Palestinian culture cherishes death. Between life and death, let me know what you find. In Israel, we have yet to discover a middle ground for compromise.

---

1. Israel’s parliament