On Israel, Hamas, and what happens now

Part 2: Existential threats require an existential response.

(A side note: Many of you took issue with the “hammers and knives” line in Part 1. I didn’t mean to imply the Hamas attackers used only those weapons. Many had assault rifles. But by Western military standards, they were crudely armed. They depended on surprise - and the fact they were attacking civilians. A single Marine battalion would have crushed them.)

—

Part 2 of 2

After the most vicious terrorist attack in its history, Israel faces what seems to be a painful choice.

Not responding is not an option, of course.

The calls for ceasefire from “progressives” like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are the purest form of crocodile tears. I almost can’t believe I have to write this, but Hamas, the terrorist group that controls the Gaza Strip, cannot be allowed to kill nearly a thousand civilians without consequence.

But what response should Israel pursue? Can it preserve hope of a wider regional peace while still bringing Hamas to heel?

If not, what is more important - invading Gaza and destroying Hamas at any cost? Or punishing it with retaliatory strikes but trying to tamp down risks of a larger war?

Also, Hamas has taken over 100 hostages. What about them? Should Israel consider trying to trade for them?

My answers may surprise you.

(To read them, subscribe… or wait a week.)