There is increasingly urgent talk of a cease-fire in the war between Israel and Hamas, as people all over the world understandably recoil at the loss of civilian life from Israeli airstrikes, such as those on Tuesday and Wednesday that devastated part of Gaza’s Jabalya refugee camp, where Israel said Hamas militants were operating. No one can view the thousands killed and wounded with indifference; no one can wish for anything but the quickest possible end to their suffering.
For now, the most that can prudently be pursued is a more limited approach, based on pauses in the fighting for humanitarian relief. A unilateral or unconditional cease-fire by Israel would be inconsistent with the country’s right to defend itself against the authors of the massacre on Oct. 7: Hamas. To leave this Iranian-backed terrorist organization — a top official of which recently said the Oct. 7 attack could, and should, be repeated — intact and in charge of Gaza would be untenable, not only for Israel but also for the region. It would reward Hamas’s aggression, as Secretary of State Antony Blinken told a Senate hearing this past week, which means it would encourage more of it.
Nor would it be morally and politically appropriate to put the entire onus of civilian casualties on Israel, since Hamas itself has consciously exposed noncombatants to danger by provoking Israel militarily — while protecting its own leaders and fighters in tunnels. (Hamas has apparently not thought to build shelters for civilians.) At least some of the dead in Gaza have likely been killed by the militants’ own errant rockets.
A case can be made for a cease-fire to facilitate possible hostage releases along with humanitarian aid for Gaza’s civilians. But that would have to be on the basis of a verifiable pledge by Hamas to free all of its 240 captives and to stop indiscriminate rocket fire at Israeli civilians — two blatant, unjustifiable violations of international law. Most analysts assume Hamas would reject such terms, which speaks volumes. Nevertheless, Arab and other governments with influence on Hamas should continue pressuring it to accept.
Hamas’s culpability does not absolve Israel of responsibility to do everything it can to prevent civilian casualties and relieve Gaza’s humanitarian crisis. That means doing more than it is doing at present, particularly with regard to aid for the civilian population. A broad cease-fire might be off the table for now, but President Biden and Mr. Blinken are right to urge the establishment of safe zones in southern Gaza, to which many civilians fled before Israel’s ground invasion, and continue to flee. “Pauses” in Israeli combat operations could facilitate humanitarian assistance — food, water and medicine — to civilians in these areas.
Mr. Blinken pushed for such an approach during his visit to Tel Aviv on Friday. And even though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has so far balked, the Biden administration needs to insist. Israel should also allow in fully vetted fuel shipments. Hamas has hypocritically stockpiled diesel for its own use, but allowing more in for hospitals is a risk Israel can accept to limit civilian harm. The Israel Defense Forces’ top general said as much last week, before Mr. Netanyahu contradicted him.
Israel’s legitimate war aims do not include reoccupying Gaza or expelling its population. Nor are Palestinians generally its enemy — only Hamas. Israel’s highest officials need to make that clear to the world, repeatedly. Israeli politicos who suggest otherwise need to be disavowed. Israel has to swiftly contain violence against Palestinians by settlers on the West Bank. These are strategic as well as moral imperatives: Israeli success hinges in part on preserving as much of the world’s sympathy as possible. To be sure, there are many who closed their minds to the Jewish state’s arguments long ago, or never opened them at all. Yet Oct. 7 showed fair-minded citizens of both the real dangers Israel faces and the character of its enemies, generating support the country’s leaders can help sustain.
FAR OVER the horizon lies this war’s end, difficult to visualize but necessary to contemplate, if only because no war can be judged except in light of its plausible objectives. Defeat for Hamas is neither guaranteed nor, if achieved, sufficient for lasting peace. That would also require stable governance and security in Gaza, perhaps supervised by an interim Arab and Muslim peacekeeping force. There would have to be an end to both the Hamas tunnel network and the Egyptian-Israeli blockade on Gaza. There could be an enhanced administrative role for the admittedly troubled Palestinian Authority, and elections. Then would come — sooner rather than later — serious diplomacy aimed at Palestinian statehood, side by side with Israel, in peace.
