COMMENTARY: A few 'radical' options to end the war


By Berl Falbaum

As demands for a cease fire or a pause in the Hamas-Israeli war keeps growing, I am giving the calls much thought.

After all, they were coming from about every media institution, from protests around the world and from prominent politicians.

The voices are very clear: It was time for Israel to let up in its military operations and call a “time out,” so to speak.

As I reflected on the actions desired from Israel, an idea kept growing in my head on how this war could be ended and very quickly.

Admittedly, it was a crazy notion which I tried to suppress but it just kept dominating my thinking. I knew it was weird, strange, off the beaten path. I was ashamed of myself for even entertaining such a thought.

This is the first time, in this column, I am going to mention my solution to anyone. I am not confident that my editors will even print this, but I need to get it off my chest.

What if ... what if ... what if ... here goes ... Hamas laid down its arms and freed some 240 hostages it was holding. Suddenly, the war would be over.

The organization would acknowledge that thousands of civilians, including children, are dying needlessly and it was time to end the carnage. It would stop firing missiles into Israel which, at this writing, totals about 9,500 since October 7.

There I said it. What a relief. I am not sure how readers will react. They may send very angry letters to my editors, criticizing my “radical” proposal, that is, if editors publish this column.

With the world pressuring Israel, I know I must be misguided. Sure, Israel suffered the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, that 1,400 Jews were slaughtered, some were beheaded, some burned alive and some, including babies riddled with bullets. But it’s time for Israel to quit playing the victim card.

Thus, it only makes sense that Israel agrees to a cease fire or pause and give those who committed the crime an opportunity to recover from Israel’s response so they might attack the Jewish state again.

Israel might even open safe routes that Hamas can use to rearm itself and make the war more proportional. It just seems so unfair for Israel to have a military advantage. I now finally understand that the U.S. should not have used the A-bombs until the Germans had developed theirs.

I’m not sure why I cannot grasp this logic and accept the political thinking and demands from the world. If it is so clear to Israel critics, I must be missing something.

Worse, I have another proposal, just as absurd, one which would complement Hamas’ giving up its arms and freeing the hostages.

Since I have gone out this far on a limb and since it’s a little late to turn back, I might as well reveal that proposal as well.

Hamas would change its charter which now calls for the destruction of Israel. Instead, it would recognize Israel, commit itself to living in peace next to Israel side-by-side and join efforts to create a two-state solution.

Under this plan, Ghazi Hamad, a member of Hamas’ decision-making political bureau, would retract his statements that his organization would replicate the October 7 attack, repeating it “again and again and again.”

He would disavow the following remark he made in an interview: “The al-Aqsa Flood [the code name for the massacre] is just the first time and there will be a second, a third, a fourth because we have the determination, the resolve, and the capabilities to fight.”

He would express regret for his statements and promise that the slogan “from the river to the sea” which, translated, means Hamas seeks the destruction of Israel, is history.

Those are the two ideas that have consumed my thinking as I hear the endless calls for a cease fire or pause. At the same time, I am puzzled why the world has not made the same demands on Russia after 21 months of an unprovoked war against Ukraine where tens of thousands have been killed, in the wars in Yemen (where 377,000 have died) and Syria (where President Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people, killing children), or in several other conflicts raging around the world.

Setting aside my sarcasm, I will conclude with two questions the critics never answer:

—How can Israel avoid causing civilian casualties when the enemy embeds himself in tunnels under schools, hospitals, homes, and other public venues?

—Why would or should Israel pause in fighting an enemy who proudly remains committed to destroying it by all military methods, including the most barbaric means imaginable?
————————
Berl Falbaum is a veteran journalist and author of 12 books.