On Friday, a Hamas sniper in Gaza shot and killed an Israeli soldier, prompting the IDF to respond with intensive attacks on the terrorist group’s positions. Since then, Hamas has agreed to a cease-fire that it has thus far observed. Amnon Lord comments on the situation:

Saturday has gone down in IDF records as the quietest day on Israel’s border with Gaza since the end of March, when Hamas first embarked on its border campaign. . . . It is still too early to determine whether this last round over the weekend restored the deterrence in place following 2014’s Operation Protective Edge. According to one media report, Israel has committed itself not to target children or youths sending over incendiary kites. Still, [it has made clear that] the entire range of targets [in Gaza] is open to attack, and no one in Hamas’s senior echelon has immunity.

Since the beginning of Hamas’s campaign, the IDF’s policy [regarding Gaza] was to create a “cumulative balance of losses” on the other side. The terrorists acted on three fronts: they shot rockets, attacked the border fence, and launched incendiary kites, [balloons, and the like]. The IDF considers its efforts on the border-fence front a success because the border was not breached—one of the main goals of the so-called “March of Return.” It’s not entirely clear that the enemy is of the same opinion. It has used the border disturbances to mobilize its people endlessly and give them the sense they are engaged in a war of attrition.

Furthermore, for the first time in the history of Israel’s wars against Hamas, the Israeli left, along with some American Jews and some members of the American Democratic party, are standing up in support of the terrorist organization. From Hamas’s perspective, the fact that Israeli intellectuals have come to, in some respect, identify with the Islamist terrorist organization is a remarkable achievement. . . .

The IDF’s goal is clear: to restore peace and quiet. At some point, someone [in Israel] will have to decide whether Israel can live with a terrorist entity capable of rattling the country, each time through the use of new and unexpected methods.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.