Cease-fire delays Hamas defeat

Re “U.S. should join call for a cease-fire in Gaza,” editorial, Dec. 14

Your call for the U.S. to support a cease-fire in the Gaza Strip is as understandable as it is shortsighted.

A cease-fire now will allow Hamas to regroup, regain control over Gaza and do what it promises to do, and has faithfully done, as best it can: kill Jews. That in turn will at some point require Israeli retaliation. Those who will again suffer will be the Palestinian civilians whom Hamas hides behind.

Then, of course, The Times will again call for a cease-fire, which would, as now, just ensure yet more rounds of suffering for Palestinian civilians.

The editorial assumes a posture of humanitarianism when in fact what it recommends will inevitably involve far greater suffering for civilians over time. It’s better for Gaza finally to be liberated from Hamas, which has ruled it since 2007.

Fred Baumann Gambier, Ohio

Thank you for joining the call for a cease-fire in this conflict after more than 18,000 needless Palestinian deaths.

For every victim of Hamas on Oct. 7, 15 Palestinians have been killed by Israelis, often with U.S. weapons paid for by our tax dollars. By definition, the response has been disproportionate, a war crime. This is an ongoing massacre, not a war.

The editorial was a small step in the right direction, but it’s too little, too late. We need to demand an end to all non-humanitarian aid to Israel, a prompt investigation and prosecution for violations of international law, an end to apartheid, and the right of return for

Palestinian refugees. Robert Leyland Monefeldt Los Angeles

Your editorial is, as usual, heavily biased against Israel’s right to self-defense.

Nowhere in your editorial is there a call for Hamas to release the 150-plus hostages it still holds. You ignore the fact that Hamas only agreed to release hostages during the earlier cease-fire due to Israeli military pressure. Without this military pressure, Hamas terrorists (whom you wrongly label “militants”) will hang onto the hostages indefinitely.

Another point the editorial board should have considered is whether a cease-fire will, in fact, end the hostilities between Israel and Hamas. Ghazi Hamad, a Hamas leader, has publicly stated Hamas will continue to execute Oct. 7-type attacks against Israel.

As the old saying goes, it takes two to tango — or in this case engage in a meaningful cease-fire.

Andrew C. Sigal Valley Village

Calls for a cease-fire are ineffectual. The only reasonable call is for Hamas to surrender.

It can be unconditional or negotiated, though negotiated might preserve a few more lives on both sides than an unconditional surrender.

Either way, there should be immediate surrender.

Terrell E. Koken Costa Mesa