For too many around the world, Israel’s war with Hamas is viewed through a lens of moral simplicity: Enough. End the fighting. Bring relief to the people of Gaza. Accept a ceasefire — any ceasefire. Do the “right” thing.
Forget that
50 hostages remain in Gaza. Forget that Hamas vows to repeat October 7. Forget that this week
marks one year since six hostages were murdered in captivity — killed in cold blood after yet another round of failed negotiations.
Israel is navigating a maze of impossible decisions with no clean exits, only devastating trade-offs. Consider the latest ceasefire proposal. After months of failed talks — and with Israel poised to capture Gaza City — Hamas
now says it’s
open to a deal brokered by Egypt, Qatar, and the United States. The terms: a 60-day pause in fighting, partial Israeli withdrawal, and the release of only half the surviving hostages?
Israel is being told that unless it allows some of its citizens to remain underground, and unless it leaves a terrorist organization standing, it will be punished with a unilateral move that grants that very group global legitimacy. Nevertheless, several Western governments, including Canada, have threatened to recognize a Palestinian state if Israel refuses the deal.
What other Western democracy-ish would accept such terms? Hamas has been given numerous chances to end the war, and with it, the humanitarian disaster in Gaza. But it is singularly interested in survival — their survival, not that of those they claim to represent.
Every proposal, every delay, every hostage still held is a bargaining chip to extract concessions, claim victory, and live to fight another day. But it is Israel which is pilloried for intransigence across the international community. Critics insist Hamas cannot be defeated.
But Hamas today is weaker, more isolated, and less capable than it was on October 6. The real question is not whether Hamas can be broken, but why the world is prepared to let it survive — likely guaranteeing yet another cycle of violence.
It is also worth recalling that Hamas is not only Israel’s problem. Arab states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Morocco have long regarded Hamas as a dangerous branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, backed by Iran, and a threat to their own stability. They may issue public rebukes, but privately
many hope Israel succeeds in breaking Hamas.
What many Western critics miss is the sheer impossibility of Israel’s position. Trading withdrawal for hostages would embolden Hamas and jeopardize the chance of regional normalization with Saudi Arabia. It would signal weakness in a region where, as history shows, peace follows strength — never humiliation.
But what is the alternative? To tell the families of hostages that grand strategy must come before their loved ones’ salvation?
Israel is walking an impossible tightrope — between rescuing lives today and securing its future tomorrow. Between bringing home its hostages and ensuring none are ever taken again. These are not abstract dilemmas. They are decisions that come with names, faces, and funerals.
There are no good options left for Israel — only unbearable ones.
This is no longer a conflict defined by a simple right and wrong. It is a grinding moral crucible in which every path leads to pain
apple.news
This is no longer a conflict defined by a simple right and wrong. It is a grinding moral crucible in which every path leads to pain. Pain, of course, is Hamas’s currency. And those who pass judgment with sanctimonious certainty — urging Israel to concede while absolving Hamas of responsibility — are doing nothing to free Palestinians, and even less to deter terrorism. They are merely extending Hamas more credit in its favourite currency.