While moral opinion is subjective, facts are not. Even committed Zionists must not let compassion cloud reality by accusing the Jewish state of crimes it clearly has not committed
July 29, 2025 14:27
Morality, whether grounded in secular ethics or religious belief, is ultimately personal. The suffering of civilians in Gaza is real and harrowing. It is entirely legitimate – indeed, human – to look at images of dead, injured, and hungry people fighting over food parcels, and to say: “Enough!”
But while moral opinion is subjective, facts are not. Even committed Zionists must not let compassion cloud reality. To accuse Israel of crimes it demonstrably has not committed is defamatory, with serious consequences not only for the Jewish state but for Jewish communities worldwide.
The accusation that Israel is using “starvation as a weapon of war” has circulated since the outset. Yet the facts tell a different story. One need only consult social media to see footage of thousands of food pallets that Israel had cleared but hadn’t been collected by the UN and international aid agencies. The UN offered various excuses for its failure to distribute aid already on the Gazan side of the border, while simultaneously claiming, without apparent irony, that Israel was not letting enough in. Only after Israel released images of these massive supplies baking in the sun did those same agencies suddenly manage to collect over 270 trucks in just two days.
None of this is to deny that Gaza is facing a food crisis. It is a war zone. Distribution is dangerous and often chaotic. Hamas is looting and taxing aid – something routinely downplayed or denied by international organisations. Yet how else to explain donated goods offered for sale in Gaza markets? Hamas has deliberately sought to maximise civilian suffering, knowing the world would blame Israel. The UN and its partner agencies frequently fail to deliver. Whatever the cause for this crisis and whatever mistakes Israel may have made – and temporarily pausing aid delivery in March to wrest away Hamas’s control over it may have been one – there is no policy of starvation. Nonetheless, Jerusalem has rightly responded to the worsening situation, launching for the first time IDF airdrops and coordinated humanitarian pauses to further facilitate UN distribution and to remove any excuse why it could not be done.
It is not just Hamas’s overall responsibility for the suffering that is being constantly overlooked. Egypt’s early decision to seal its border with Gaza effectively also sealed the Gazans’ fate – with the tacit and shameful approval of much of the international community.
For years, we heard of Gaza as the “world’s largest open-air prison” – a myth that ignored Egypt’s control of the strip’s southern border and the fact that thousands of Gazans – citizens of a hostile government that regularly attacked Israel – were nevertheless allowed to enter the Jewish state for work and medical care.
The only time Gaza has truly resembled a prison was when civilians desperately needed to flee and Egypt reinforced and closed the border – in breach of international law. Rather than condemning Cairo, the world looked away. Fears that Israel would prevent Gazans from returning were always absurd – a policy Israel could never have enforced against the will of the international community. Even if that concern were valid – and the presence of the far right in government did little to ease it – it’s a strange kind of “humanitarianism” that prefers civilians remain trapped in a war zone rather than escape it.
These conditions created impossible challenges for Israel: to wage war in a narrow, booby-trapped, tunnel-riddled strip where two million civilians were trapped and used by Hamas as human shields – all while trying to free hostages, eliminate Hamas, and avoid widespread destruction, suffering, and food insecurity. No army in history could have succeeded.
As the food crisis deepened, Hamas sabotaged a ceasefire and hostage deal that would have eased conditions on the ground and could have paved the way for a permanent end to the war. Hamas’s decision was not made in isolation. International pressure on Israel was mounting. Joint statements from 28 Western governments blamed Jerusalem alone for the humanitarian situation and effectively called only on Israel to halt the fighting. France went further still, announcing it would recognise a Palestinian state in September. Hamas, unsurprisingly, welcomed these developments which it clearly interprets as a reward for its massacres.
Whatever the intent behind such lopsided pronouncements, the effect was clear: Hamas was given every reason to believe it could dig in. That global pressure would eventually force Israel to concede on terms dictated by its attackers.The EU is now threatening sanctions even as Jerusalem is expanding aid efforts. This will only further encourage Hamas to reject a ceasefire the West claims it so desperately wants. This is not responsible diplomacy. It is certainly not moral statecraft.
Serious diplomacy, and serious moral reasoning, must weigh not only immediate suffering but long-term consequences. Those calling for Israel to simply end the war must reckon with the likelihood that this would not secure the release of all hostages. It is doubtful Hamas would have released the 148 hostages during the two previous truces without sustained military pressure. The remaining hostages – and the two million Gazans under Hamas’s rule – are the jihadists’ insurance policy. That’s why they may never give up every last captive. Let’s not forget that two Israelis had been held hostage since 2014 and 2015, respectively, long before October 7.
Ending the war unilaterally would also preserve Hamas’s rule – condemning the very people whose suffering moves the world to continued tyranny. It would give Hamas time to regroup, rearm, and plan the next invasion.
That does not mean calling for an immediate end to the war is illegitimate. It is a moral position. But let us be intellectually honest: it won’t magically solve all the ethical dilemmas facing Israel. Such a decision would come with its own security, political – and yes, moral – costs.
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.
