If the terrorist sect does not accept terms, then terms must be dictated to it after a thorough application of force has broken its will to resist.
One week ago, Joe Biden revealed the details of an Israeli cease-fire proposal (to which the Israelis seemed conspicuously cold) that he said held out the promise of a “better ‘day after’ in Gaza without Hamas in power” (to which Hamas is expected to consent). The premise would be laughable, but the earnestness with which the Biden administration appears to believe its own suppositions drained the moment of its dark humor.
The widespread skepticism the president’s announcement produced was entirely warranted. But while the Israeli side has apparently consented to what one Netanyahu adviser said was “not a good deal,” Hamas stubbornly refuses to just roll over and die. Though that would represent a pleasantly bloodless conclusion to the war in Gaza, the terror group that slaughtered civilians en masse at the outset of hostilities seems disinclined to consent to its own euthanasia.
“Hamas will not surrender its guns or sign a proposal that asks for that,” the Arab mediators relating Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar conveyed to U.S. officials on Thursday, according to the Wall Street Journal. That revelation was apparently so unremarkable that it merited little in the way of subsequent reporting on Hamas’s negotiating posture.
The rest of the Journal piece was devoted to the political fallout resulting from an Israeli air strike on a compound housing a U.N.-run school that had served as a makeshift civilian shelter. Palestinian officials insist the strike was reckless and unprovoked. The Israelis maintain that the facility was being used by Hamas to shelter militants who participated in the October 7 attacks. The Journal’s report blurs the ethical distinctions between the combatants and their competing claims, but one stands out. When Israeli forces kill civilians, it’s an accident (when it’s not a fabrication). When Hamas kills civilians, it’s strategic.
Tragedies like the one that allegedly unfolded near the Nuseirat camp occur in war — a war, some may need reminding, that was inaugurated by Hamas. It is the offensive actor in this conflict, and the collateral damage that accompanies Israel’s defensive campaign is a lamentable consequence of Hamas’s aggression. Indeed, drawing fire near or onto civilian targets is a key feature of Hamas’s tactics in its asymmetrical struggle against the Israelis. Lending the terrorist sect’s claims credibility — or even mere emotional weight — advances Hamas’s objectives and prolongs the war.
The Biden administration may prefer the fantasy that Hamas will wake up tomorrow and agree to its own dissolution. Perhaps, as State Department spokesman Matt Miller said this week, Hamas will concede to its dismemberment and the imprisonment of its leadership because it seeks to “represent the interests of the Palestinian people.” In the real world, however, the stakes of this war are existential — one party to it or the other must cease to be. The avenues for diplomacy are closing rapidly if they’re not already sealed off. If Hamas does not accept terms, then terms must be dictated to it after a thorough application of force has broken its will to resist. This is a war, after all.