Israel’s Impossible Choice in Gaza

The images from Gaza are unbearable: the rubble, the children, the grief. The moral horror of starving people is visceral, immediate, and human. And yet, for Israel, the choices ahead are not shaped by what is humane, but by what is necessary to survive.

Since the attacks of October 7 — the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust — Israel has faced not just a war against Hamas, but a collapse of the strategic assumptions that governed its posture toward Gaza for nearly two decades. The idea that Hamas could be contained has been shattered. What remains is a binary, brutal choice.

Siege, Reoccupation, and the Destruction of Hamas

This is the path Israel appears to be on. It involves continuing the siege of Gaza, enduring international condemnation, and — if the goal is truly to dismantle Hamas — ultimately reoccupying the territory. The civilian toll will be high. The political cost will be staggering. More nations may recognise Palestinian statehood. Israel’s global standing may deteriorate further. It may become an international pariah state. 

But this option offers something that, tragically, the second does not: a chance to neutralise the immediate and existential threat posed by Hamas, and to reduce the danger to a level comparable to the West Bank — volatile, but largely containable.

Ceasefire and Withdrawal — With Hamas Intact

This is the path urged by much of the international community. A ceasefire would stop the killing — for now. It would allow aid to enter, lives to be saved, and the current outrage to abate.

But Hamas would remain. It would rebuild. It would govern. And its military capabilities — diminished, perhaps, but not destroyed — would once again be pointed at Israel.

The group’s own leadership has never hidden its intent: Hamas has promised to repeat October 7 again and again .

More importantly, Hamas’s leaders have stated explicitly that it would continue to use the human sacrifice of Palestinian women, children and the elderly, to defeat Israel.

To choose this path is to accept that another massacre will eventually occur — that the price of moral restraint today may be paid in Israeli lives tomorrow.

Shadows of 2005

This is not the first time Israel has confronted this dilemma. In 2005, it withdrew completely from Gaza — no settlements, no troops, no occupation.

Hopes for peaceful self-governance gave way to rocket fire, cross-border attacks, and, eventually, Hamas’ violent takeover. This history complicates the moral calculus. Israel did what the world asked — it left. But it did not gain peace. It gained a hostile, entrenched regime on its doorstep.

A reoccupation of Gaza is not a sustainable end state. It must be followed by a credible transition: to regional actors, international oversight, or a reconstituted Palestinian administration.

But none of those outcomes are possible while Hamas remains in control. If the world wants an alternative to Israeli occupation, it must first offer an alternative to Hamas rule. So far, it has not.

No Righteous Path

There is no easy answer to the war in Gaza.

There is no clean or righteous path forward.

Only a question: what can Israel do to prevent another October 7?

A continuation of the current siege will  bring increasing international moral opprobrium and diplomatic fallout. But a ceasefire and withdrawal will allow Hamas to claim victory, and continue to pose an existential threat to Israel.

Between those, there is no good choice — only the choice a state makes to survive.