A ceasefire in Gaza may be the best of bad options

In the last Newsleaders, I provided a framework for thinking about the conflict in the Gaza Strip before concluding I was unsure about which approach would lead to lasting peace with the least casualties. However, for the sake of offering an actual opinion, I will make a claim this week  –  I do believe it’s possible for Israel to achieve its security goals without continuing the ground invasion, and thus I support a ceasefire to minimize civilian casualties.
To begin, I would like to remind readers the Oct. 7 attacks were likely preventable. Previous intelligence assessments warning of Hamas and affiliated groups conducting training exercises in preparation for a large-scale attack were dismissed as unrealistic. Israeli security forces were redirected away from the Gaza Strip towards the West Bank to help with the fallout from settler violence, as well as to the northern border with its much weaker (but admittedly unstable) neighbors in Lebanon and Syria.
Even if you have not read these reports, there should be an intuitive shock at the idea of a successful attack on Israeli soil. Israel has single handedly defeated many of its neighboring states simultaneously in many previous wars. A look at Israel’s past accomplishments and present armaments, plus the fact it has made peace with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, should leave no question that not only is Israel viably defendable, but it is also a regional powerhouse. If any doubt about that were to remain, a future U.S. supply of surface-to-air missile defenses and other similarly defensive weapons would alleviate all doubts.
If Israel were to call a ceasefire today, that would not mean a return to Oct. 6. There would be a much heavier presence of Israeli defense forces around Gaza. With assistance from allies like the United States, continuous surveillance of the Gaza Strip would be rather easy. If Israel did want a target for its bombs, it could continue to hunt down and destroy the networks abroad that the Iranian Revolutionary Guards’ Quds Force uses to supply groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah, thereby beginning to starve those groups of rockets, bullets, spare weapons parts and more. Working on destroying the supply of weapons to the Gaza Strip is a lot better than blockading essentials goods and utilities because weapons are not required for civilians to survive. Destruction of the tunnels used to smuggle weapons is easier said than done, but will be better enabled by cooperation with Egypt, who stands much to gain from future security partnerships with Israel.
If any similar or even larger attack were to somehow occur in the future, a reinforced presence of Israeli forces on the Gaza border would make short work of it. As for long-term peace, a ceasefire could eventually coax Hamas to disarm in the long run. Although some say Hamas is far too radical to accept disarmament, I counter after a couple of years with no prospects at any successful cross-border incursions (due to a heavy continued Israeli security presence) combined with a growing unsettled Palestinian youth that, thanks to a reformed Israeli Gaza policy, would be much angrier at Hamas than it would be at the Israelis, Hamas would be forced to transform itself into a more moderate political group or risk dying as a result of outdated times.
This leaves one main thing to be desired – justice for the victims of Oct. 7. However, I can see no solution that disentangles bringing Hamas attackers to justice from using excessive violence that would wind up killing far more civilians than militants. Although justice is important, the lives of the innocent will always outweigh justice for those we have lost in my calculations. I do believe there is a tragically “acceptable” number of civilian casualties for any well-intentioned military operation, but I am almost certain we are far past that number in Gaza.