On August 6, 2025, the New York Post published an opinion piece titled “Israel has every right to finish the job in Gaza — by obliterating Hamas,” arguing that Israel must fully occupy Gaza to dismantle Hamas following the group’s rejection of ceasefire deals and its brutal treatment of Israeli hostages. The article asserts that Israel faces a stark choice: surrender to Hamas’ demands or decisively eliminate the terrorist organization to protect its citizens and secure the hostages’ release. This essay examines the moral and strategic arguments for Israel’s potential full-scale military operation in Gaza, while addressing the political and humanitarian challenges highlighted in the piece. Drawing on the urgency of the situation and the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it argues that neutralizing Hamas is a necessary step, though one fraught with risks that demand careful consideration.
The Case for Eliminating Hamas
Hamas’ actions provide a compelling case for Israel’s need to eradicate the group. The New York Post highlights Hamas’ refusal to accept ceasefire proposals and its explicit vow to repeat the October 7, 2023, attack, which killed 1,200 Israelis and saw over 250 taken hostage. Recent videos showing emaciated Israeli hostages underscore the group’s cruelty, with reports from sources like Reuters noting that at least 111 hostages remain in Gaza as of August 2025, some likely dead due to Hamas’ mistreatment. The organization’s charter and public statements, as cited in the article, reaffirm its goal of destroying Israel through relentless violence. Allowing Hamas to retain power would mean endorsing a terrorist entity that prioritizes Israel’s annihilation over governance or peace.
Strategically, a full military occupation of Gaza, as reportedly considered by Israel’s security cabinet on August 7, 2025, aims to neutralize this existential threat. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) already control 75% of Gaza, according to the New York Post, but have avoided densely populated areas like Deir al-Balah and Gaza City to minimize hostage casualties. However, with evidence of Hamas’ ongoing abuse, the article argues that further restraint risks the hostages’ lives without achieving security. A decisive operation to dismantle Hamas’ infrastructure—its tunnels, weapon caches, and leadership—could prevent future attacks and potentially secure the hostages’ release by force, though it carries significant risks to both hostages and civilians.
Political and Humanitarian Challenges
The New York Post identifies significant obstacles to Israel’s mission, primarily from international and domestic political pressures. Internationally, governments in France, the United Kingdom, and Canada have criticized Israel’s actions, with some planning to recognize a Palestinian state—a move the article frames as rewarding Hamas’ violence. A UN official’s description of a full Gaza occupation as “deeply alarming” reflects global apprehension, with outlets like Al Jazeera reporting on August 2025 concerns over civilian displacement and casualties. These criticisms risk isolating Israel diplomatically and could lead to sanctions or reduced support from allies, complicating the IDF’s operations.
Domestically, the article notes pressure from hostages’ families and political opponents of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who fear that escalated military action could doom the remaining captives. Israeli media, such as Haaretz, reported in July 2025 that protests by families demanding a hostage deal have intensified, with some accusing Netanyahu of prioritizing political survival over their loved ones’ safety. The New York Post acknowledges this tension, noting that “some fear that stepped-up operations are a death warrant for the hostages.” Balancing the need to eliminate Hamas with the imperative to save hostages presents a moral and strategic dilemma that could undermine public support for the operation.
Humanitarian concerns further complicate the mission. The article references President Trump’s plan to expand U.S. aid operations in Gaza to address hunger, drawing a parallel to the 1992 Somalia intervention that led to the “Black Hawk Down” incident, where 18 Americans died. Gaza’s humanitarian crisis is severe, with the UN reporting in July 2025 that over 1.9 million Palestinians are displaced, and famine risks are rising due to restricted aid access. A full occupation could exacerbate these conditions, potentially increasing civilian casualties and drawing global condemnation, as seen in posts on X criticizing Israel’s actions as disproportionate.
Moral and Strategic Justification
Despite these challenges, the New York Post argues that Israel has “every right” to eliminate Hamas, a position grounded in both moral and strategic imperatives. Morally, Hamas’ actions—its October 7 massacre, hostage abuse, and commitment to ongoing violence—strip it of legitimacy as a negotiating partner. Surrendering to its demands, as the article notes, would mean allowing a terrorist group to maintain power and continue its attacks, an untenable outcome for any sovereign state. The IDF’s history of executing complex operations, such as the 1976 Entebbe rescue, supports the feasibility of a decisive campaign, though Gaza’s urban density and Hamas’ use of civilian infrastructure pose unique challenges.
Strategically, neutralizing Hamas could reshape the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A 2025 report by the Institute for National Security Studies suggests that dismantling Hamas’ military capabilities could pave the way for alternative Palestinian leadership, potentially enabling future peace talks. The New York Post emphasizes that the war could end immediately if Hamas freed the hostages and relinquished control, placing the onus on the group for prolonging the conflict. President Trump’s reported stance—“up to Israel” to decide—offers diplomatic breathing room, contrasting with the criticism from other Western nations and reinforcing Israel’s autonomy in addressing its security.
Navigating the Risks
To succeed, Israel must navigate the risks outlined in the article. Operationally, the IDF must prioritize precision to minimize civilian and hostage casualties, possibly through targeted strikes on Hamas leadership, as suggested by a 2025 Jerusalem Post analysis. Diplomatically, Israel could counter criticism by engaging allies like the U.S. to highlight Hamas’ violations of international law, such as using civilians as human shields, documented by Human Rights Watch in 2024. Addressing humanitarian concerns through coordinated aid efforts, as Trump proposes, could mitigate backlash, though the Somalia analogy warns of potential pitfalls.
Internally, Netanyahu’s government must address public fears by transparently communicating the operation’s goals and risks. The New York Post’s call for moral support—“anyone with any moral sense should back it to the hilt”—underscores the need for a unified narrative that frames the operation as essential for Israel’s survival. Posts on X reflect mixed sentiment, with some supporting Israel’s right to self-defense and others condemning the humanitarian toll, highlighting the need for Israel to balance force with accountability.
Conclusion
The New York Post’s argument that Israel must “finish the job” by obliterating Hamas reflects the dire necessity of addressing an existential threat while grappling with complex political and humanitarian challenges. Hamas’ intransigence, hostage abuse, and genocidal rhetoric leave Israel with little choice but to pursue decisive action, as surrender would embolden further violence. Yet, the risks of international isolation, domestic division, and civilian suffering demand a strategy that combines military precision with diplomatic and humanitarian foresight. As Orwell’s 1984 warns of rejecting evidence, Israel must ground its actions in the undeniable reality of Hamas’ threat, ensuring that its pursuit of security upholds both moral clarity and strategic pragmatism. The path forward is fraught, but eliminating Hamas remains a critical step toward safeguarding Israel’s future.