Some people still believe Israel should eliminate Hamas

I was shocked to read an article that instead of retreating from its principles, the West should assertively support Israel's efforts to safeguard its citizens while seeking avenues for a lasting peace that addresses the legitimate grievances of both Israelis and Palestinians.

It says, the prevailing narrative in Western circles characterizes Israel's actions in Palestine as an unjustified onslaught, primarily due to the significant civilian casualties in Gaza. This perception, though flawed, is not unexpected, given Western society's empathy for the oppressed and its Judeo-Christian roots.

The critics are critical of West's abrupt shift from unwavering support to threatening withdrawal unless a ceasefire is agreed upon has jeopardized Israel's mission to dismantle Hamas.

They insist that despite concerns about the coherence of Israel's campaign, its goal to neutralize Hamas as a military force is both rational and achievable, having already incapacitated a significant portion of Hamas's arsenal. However, eliminating Hamas's network of fighters, often embedded within civilian areas, presents complex challenges and risks civilian casualties due to Hamas's use of human shields.

The supporters of Israel say that contrary to the liberal argument that wars against terror are futile, history demonstrates that military action can undermine terrorist ideologies. Hamas's defeat is not only technically possible but crucial for Israel and the broader Western world.

They accuse that since seizing control of Gaza in 2007, Hamas has evolved into a sophisticated terror organization capable of destabilizing the Middle East and posing a threat to Israel's security.

They insist, allowing Hamas to prevail would normalize terrorism as a viable political strategy and intensify internal conflicts within Israel. Additionally, it could divert attention from addressing larger security threats in the region, such as Iran's nuclear ambitions.

While Israel faces legitimate criticisms, such as restrictions on Palestinian movement and settlement expansion, these actions are primarily driven by security concerns rather than colonial ambitions.

They say by wavering in its support for Israel's right to self-defense, the West undermines its leadership role and succumbs to moral cowardice.

They claim it is crucial to recognize Israel's complex security challenges and refrain from pressuring for premature ceasefires that could leave Hamas intact and perpetuate the cycle of violence.