After Hamas launched hundreds of rockets into Israel, the IDF responded by destroying a few buildings in the Gaza Strip, including the one that housed the Hamas television station, and then agreed to a cease-fire. Ron Ben-Yishai argues that Jerusalem was too quick to do so:

The Israeli acceptance of a cease-fire the minute Hamas offered it erodes what is left of Israel’s deterrence, opening the door for further and more severe rounds of fighting in the not-too-distant future. . . . Moreover, both the truce efforts and the surprise rocket attack launched against Israel on Monday were Hamas’s doing. Israel barely responded, serving as the pawn of an organization that is waging a war of attrition against the residents of its southern region. . . .

One should be skeptical about the chances of the current cease-fire agreement leading to long-term quiet [for] two reasons: firstly, the arrogance demonstrated by Hamas and Islamic Jihad, who have been repeatedly declaring over the past 24 hours that they “taught Israel a lesson.” Moreover, . . . it’s doubtful [Hamas is] suffering much from the damage Israel inflicted on its military assets. [From the terrorist group’s perspective], that’s a reasonable price to pay for the psychological blow inflicted on Israel. . . .

Showing restraint meant something so long as Hamas was not stepping over the line while provoking Israel, and so long as Israeli deterrence was maintained vis-à-vis Gaza’s terror organizations. This week’s events have created a strategic turning point for Hamas, [that will dangerously embolden its leaders]. The Israeli leadership failed to notice this turning point, [and it’s likely] the Gaza border communities’ residents will pay the highest price.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.