On Monday, Hizballah guerrillas entered the Mount Dov area of the Golan Heights, presumably to strike back after one of their own was killed in Syria last week by an apparent Israeli airstrike. The IDF opened fire without hitting the operatives, and they retreated into Lebanon. But Israel’s northern border remains on high alert, and Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Iran-backed terrorist group, is still threatening retaliation. Eyal Zisser believes it likely that he will try to make good on these threats:

Nasrallah . . . fears Israel will interpret his moves as weakness, [and thus] feels obligated to retaliate, and is willing risk a head-on clash. He hopes, of course, that he’ll be able to control the flames and [that] the attack ends with minimum casualties on the Israeli side—which would allow Israel to absorb the event and temper its own counter-response, as it has done in the past.

For this reason alone Israel should not play into Nasrallah’s hands. . . . In recent years [Jerusalem] has allowed Nasrallah to revert to his old habits and carry out attacks against Israeli forces. Initially this occurred in the Mount Dov area, and last September included an anti-tank missile attack from Lebanese soil into Israel.

Israel should reinstitute the same ironclad rule it applies to the Syrian arena, whereby any violation of Israeli sovereignty or attack on its soldiers is a red line that will be reinforced. Thus, instead of shooting at pointless dummy targets in Lebanon, . . . Israel has to claim a real price for violations of its sovereignty—from Hizballah and from the Lebanese government that provides its protection. This is the only way to prevent Nasrallah from establishing new rules of the game, and to ensure that the quiet along the northern border remains intact. Otherwise, the next terrorist attack is only a matter of time.

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.