You notice the pattern here? Israel agrees to a cease-fire with one or more of its enemies, often Hamas, and then at some point later, but usually not that much later, Hamas or one of those enemy groups attacks Israel and breaks the cease-fire. Then, when Israel fires back, forces on the Palestinian side contend that Israel broke the cease-fire.

How many times is Israel obligated to fall for this trick to placate the opinions of leaders in other countries who aren’t in the line of fire? …

It’s overstating it to say that an Israeli declaration of a cease-fire would be suicidal, but it would, at minimum, put all these IDF forces at risk of serious casualties. While we don’t know exactly how the battles are proceeding, it seems reasonable to conclude that the IDF is bringing a lot of firepower and advanced tactics to this fight. A cease-fire is what Hamas needs to get up off the mat.

[Which is why every moral idiot is calling for one, starting with the Moral Idiot In Chief at the White House. Even a “humanitarian pause” is not a neutral demand; it clearly benefits Hamas while putting Israeli forces in the field at greater risk. And for what? To allow a terrorist group declaring that their only goal is the annihilation of Israel a chance to catch its breath and reorganize? — Ed]