As a narrow country with much of its population concentrated along its Mediterranean coast, Israel is particularly vulnerable to attack from the sea, and organizations like Hizballah and Hamas are able to do it substantial damage. Even more vulnerable are its natural-gas facilities, which Jerusalem hopes to expand. Turkey, meanwhile, has become a hostile power with influence in the eastern Mediterranean, while Iran and China are increasing their naval presences in the area. Seth Cropsey outlines a maritime strategy for Israel, which, he argues, will also benefit the U.S.:

[W]hile making sure that the Israeli navy’s size, composition, and balance are sufficient, a clear statement of maritime strategy would [further] improve Israel’s security. The objective is security for the close-in waters of [an] arc that stretches from Haifa through the western reaches of the Sinai to Eilat and the Red Sea. This would defend population centers, infrastructure including natural-gas rigs, and other coastal targets. It would be Israel’s first line of maritime defense. . . ,

A strategy of deterrence by denial—that is the ability to inflict immediate and substantial pain against attacking vessels or mine-layers, and the ports from which they and special operations forces emerge—is needed to stop attacks and even better, deter them. . . .

An Israeli maritime strategy should [also] consider how best to draw on Israel’s human and technological strengths for superior weapons, platforms, and sensors. . . . In the early 19th century, French naval planners developed what would become known as the jeune école concept of naval warfare. Based on smaller naval combatants and highly skilled crews, the intent was to deploy large numbers of technologically advanced, steam-propelled small vessels to counter England’s high-displacement battleships. . . . Israel has very high-quality and skilled sailors. Like 19th-century France, it possesses advanced technological skills. Marrying these two strengths is as useful in defeating terrorists at sea as it applies to defending against conventional ships. . . .

The U.S. has a major stake in the success of Israel’s sea defense, not only because of its interest in Israel’s overall security and well-being but because it has reduced its own presence in the Mediterranean so dramatically since the end of the cold war.

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.