By the time you read this post, we will be in the 180th day that Israeli abductees, civilians and soldiers, men, women and children, pensioners and a baby, are being held in who-knows-what conditions somewhere in Gaza. I have been guilty of ignoring them in the last several weeks’ posts, but I feel that a corner was turned this week that will not allow me to ignore them further.

I wish that I could tell you how many of the abductees are still alive. I wish I could tell you how many of them were already not alive on 7 October. I wish I could tell you with any certainty how many there are in total. The figure that is being publicized is 134; seldom is it pointed out that, of those 134, 11 are reliably believed to have been murdered, 10 are reliably believed to have fallen in battle, 3 have been killed in a tragic misidentification by Israeli troops.

The reason for the uncertainty is, of course, that some were abducted by Hamas, a terrorist organisation recognised as such by the civilised world (or what little remains of it), others were abducted by Islamic Jihad, a smaller terrorist organisation, and others, in all probability, were abducted by some of those Gazan civilians who are, Hamas informs us, caught in a humanitarian crisis that horrifies the civilised world.

Presumably, these are some of the Gazans that were recently polled as supporting Hamas’s pogrom on 7 October. As The Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) reported on March 22, 71% of all Palestinians recently polled supported Hamas’s decision to attack Israel on October 7, up 14 points among Gazans and down 11 points among West Bank Palestinians compared to three months ago. Fifty-nine percent of all Palestinians believe Hamas should rule Gaza, and 70 percent are satisfied with the role Hamas has played during the war.

Given that the abductors are either members of one or other terrorist organisation or are unaffiliated ‘freelance’ Gazans, it should not surprise anyone that no details of the hostages have been released by those abductors: no numbers, no list of names, no record of whether they are living or dead. The Red Cross has, I hardly need tell you, not been allowed access to visit the abductees. Does anyone believe that the medication Israel provided for the chronically sick among the abductees has reached those abductees?

The New York Times (a newspaper not remotely supportive of Israel) carried last week a story featuring the testimony of Amit Soussana, a 40-year-old released abductee who is the first such person to speak about the sexual assaults she suffered at the hands of her Hamas captor. Pramilla Patten, the United Nations special representative on sexual violence in conflict, visited Israel from January 29 to February 14. She brought an investigative team that included forensic scientists, interviewers specialising in survivor interviews and experts in video technology and ‘fake AI’ detection.

The UN report published after the visit confirmed that “sexual violence, including genital mutilation, sexualised torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” was perpetrated by Hamas terrorists during the 7 October attack. The report also confirms that there is “clear and convincing information that sexual violence, including rape, sexualized torture, cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment, has been committed against hostages,” and that the remaining female hostages were being subjected to ongoing “sexualized torture.”

All of those quotes, I reiterate, are from a UN report.

I suspect you didn’t need me to tell you any of the above. I felt, nevertheless, that I needed to, to give context to what I am about to say.

I had a very depressing conversation this past week, with someone who is very well-informed, and who is a lifelong committed Zionist. Let’s call my collocutor Val. In the course of that conversation, Val expressed concern about the right-wing extremists who have central roles in the Government, and who are “expressing racist views”. Val, clearly concerned about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, then went on to ask my opinion about how the war, and the situation, will be resolved.

In my less than polished reply, I found myself making a number of points that led me to a conclusion. Let me attempt to marshal them here in a more organised form.

The entire population of Israel, the leadership of the US and Britain and the rest of the free world, recognise Hamas as a terrorist organisation that, by its own charter, seeks the destruction of Israel; that, by its statements since 7 October, intends to perpetrate similar pogroms again and again; that, by its actions in Gaza, has demonstrated and continues to demonstrate that, at best, it does not care about Palestinian civilian casualties and, at worst, it seeks to maximise Palestinian civilian casualties.

Knowing this, we all know that there is absolutely no point in attempting to negotiate a resolution of this conflict with Hamas. This is the reason why all parties are pressuring Israel to bring about an immediate ceasefire, which may then lead to a release of hostages, and nobody is pressuring Hamas to immediately release the hostages, which may then lead to a ceasefire.

It is also the reason why the families of the abductees are continuing to call on the Israeli government to bring home the hostages, and not demanding to meet with the Hamas leaders in Doha or calling on Hamas to release the hostages. In the 1970s, the Jewish world did not demand of the Israeli government: ‘Bring My People Home’. Instead, it demanded of Soviet Russia: ‘Let My People Go’, because it knew that, if the pressure were sufficient, the Soviets would recognise that it was in their realpolitik interests to comply. Hamas, in contrast, is in total thrall to its politico-religious fundamentalist ideology.

(Incidentally, I can think of no good reason why Hamas would ever agree to release even one more hostage. By not releasing hostages it is inflicting incredible pain on the whole country and also ripping Israel apart again.)

And yet, and yet: at the same time, there is an extraordinary dissonance going on. Almost the entire free world, and even, it appears, the Israeli government, is behaving as if Hamas is the rational and moral representative of a country. Israel is being told by the same bodies that recognise Hamas for what it is, that the resolution of the situation must be a two-state solution. Last week, the historian and commentator Gil Troy suggested that we should instead be calling for a ‘two-democracy’ solution. The question then becomes: How do we bring Gaza to the point where it can become a democratic state?

My answer to that, I am mildly surprised to discover, is that I do not believe it can be done. In 2005, Israel withdrew from Gaza. The Gazans’ first act, after that withdrawal, was to loot and burn everything Israel left behind: from the houses to the state-of-the-art hydroponic fruit and vegetable greenhouses, in which Gazans had been employed. Their self-interest was sacrificed to their ideology.

In January 2006, elections were held throughout the PA. Gaza was divided into five electoral districts, from North Gaza down to Rafah. The 24 seats contested were split between these districts in accordance with the distribution of the electorate. Hamas received 44.45% of the vote throughout the Palestinian Authority compared to Fatah’s 41.43%. Broadly speaking, Hamas dominated Northern Gaza in the election, and Fatah won in the southernmost district. However, because of the complicated seat-allocation system used, and probably because Hamas analysed the system and worked it more effectively than Fatah, Hamas won 15 of the 24 seats and Fatah won only 8.

I have not been able to find any percentage figures exclusively for Gaza, other than for the Northern Gaza district, whose 6 seats were all won by Hamas, despite their polling only just under 47% of the vote, to Fatah’s just over 36%.

It is also almost certainly true that Hamas approached the elections very cannily, fielding candidates in accordance with careful mathematical calculation and temporarily dropping their Charter call for Israel’s destruction, in hopes of winning over moderate voters tired of Fatah corruption. Nevertheless, there is no disputing that Hamas won the 2006 election decisively and, within the electoral definition, democratically.

In 2007, in violent clashes with Fatah, Hamas effectively seized power, quashed all opposition and has held power since. If all of this reminds you of the rise to power of Hitler, then hold that thought.

So, who is Israel actually fighting at the moment? I would suggest that, in the same way as Britain did not declare war on Nazism in 1939, but rather on Nazi Germany, so, too, Israel is fighting not Hamas but Hamas-governed Gaza. That being the case, and given that Hamas does not distinguish its warriors from civilians by dressing them in uniform, or distinguish between civilian and military establishments, but rather houses its headquarters in hospitals and schools and mosques, Israel would, I feel, be justified in acknowledging Hamas’ decisions and waging war against Gaza.

However, of course, Israel has done no such thing. Let’s assume that the Hamas Health Ministry’s official figures for deaths and injuries are accurate (in itself a huge assumption, since Hamas and its media have been inflating figures consistently). Let’s also assume that the IDF figures for Hamas fighters killed are accurate (a more reasonable assumption, since the IDF is able to provide names of many of those killed). If we then calculate the number of civilians killed in proportion to the number of combatants killed, we arrive at a figure that may be unprecedented in any war, and is certainly unprecedented in any entirely urban war, as this is.

If we, further, understand what the legal definition of ‘proportionality’ is in terms of civilian casualties in wartime, then clearly Israel is, rather than committing genocide, carrying out a just war with full respect for international conventions of war.

Let’s jump to some bottom lines. If ‘winning the war’ means eliminating Hamas completely, then Israel cannot win the war. The best it can hope to achieve militarily is a much more severe than usual mowing of the lawn, which will mean reserving to itself the right to go back in and mow the lawn again periodically in the future. Part of the price of that solution will almost certainly be that the residents of the Gaza envelope will never be able to return home. Another part of the price of that solution is that Gazans will live under the threat of Israeli military operations within heavily populated areas of Gaza to eradicate terrorists.

If the long-term aim is to bring Gaza to the point where it can be a viable democratic state, then I see no way that that can be achieved. The hatred is by now so deeply embedded, the corruption, of Gazans and UN bodies, so complete, the pool of talent and ability in Gaza so depleted, as generation after generation of able Gazans move abroad to pursue a career and a fulfilled life, that the Gazans that are left are simply not equipped to turn Gaza around.

I genuinely do not see any solution that will make it possible for Israelis to live securely within Israel and Gazans to live freely in Gaza. Which leads me to one stark conclusion. If nothing that anyone does can create a situation where the Gazans will accept a Jewish state and live in peace alongside it, then it is inhumane, and insane, to continue as we are, condemning generation after generation of Israelis to a tangible existential threat, and generation after generation of Gazans to living unfulfilled and unstable lives under the nonsensical and cruel label of ‘Palestinian refugees’ in perpetuity that the UN created.

So, what is my plan for the day after? How do I see this situation being resolved? There are, I would suggest, only two options.

We can call an end to the Zionist venture, and condemn Jews to be again defenceless against the world’s hatred and dispersed amongst the nations. On an individual level, many Israelis are considering taking, and some have already taken, that step. I cannot condemn them. It is a moral act of considerable bravery. On past form, as confirmed by what is happening now throughout the free world, this will mean permanent insecurity for the Jews, frequent forced or voluntary emigration from one temporary haven to another, occasional or less occasional mass murder. Nothing in today’s world suggests that the fate of the Jews in the diaspora will be better in the future than it has been in the past.

Or we can encourage the Gazans to leave Gaza, perhaps by offering financial incentives to the Gazans and to potential host countries. ‘Where are they supposed to go?’ you ask. There are no end of Arab countries. Let them spread themselves throughout the Arab world. Just over two million Gazans represent about 0.45% of the population of all Arab states. Their lives will almost certainly be materially better and more secure elsewhere, and their grandchildren will thank them for it.

Let me ask you a couple of questions.

Do you honestly see any practical resolution other than the two options I have presented? If so, I would love you to offer it in the comments below.

Does one solution seem more acceptable to you than the other? Do you give any weight to the fact that, uniquely, the Land of Israel was promised to the People of Israel by the God of Israel? Possibly not. How about the fact that Israel’s right to exist as an independent state was supported by the family of nations in 1947? Not good enough? What about the fact that there has never in history been an independent state of Palestine, whereas Jews twice lived in the Land of Israel as an independent nation in Biblical times? Jews were made a nation by God when he took them out of Egypt. The Palestinians became a nation when their leaders deemed it politically expedient half a century ago. Does the fact of unbroken Jewish residence throughout the Land of Israel from Biblical times to the modern era carry any weight with you?

I reached the end of writing this, and could not really believe that the argument had led me to the devastating conclusion that it’s us or them. (I know that some of my readers will be astonished that it has taken me this long to ‘wake up’ to reality.) So I read the post again, desperately hoping to find where my argument is forced or distorting. I can’t see it, I’m afraid. Believe me that I wish I could. I invite you, I implore you, to point out to me where my argument falls down.