Both parties are unanimous in their public stance on this issue. Neither will call for a ceasefire.

The chief reason both give seems to be morally questionable in my opinion. The reason given is that any ceasefire would allow Hamas to regroup and thwart the Israeli aim of ridding themselves of the threat of Hamas altogether.

The fact that any realistic operation to achieve such an aim will necessitate the eventual slaughter of many more thousands of innocent people surely raises an ethical quandary.

The question is this: is it morally acceptable to allow the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives in order to eradicate an evil entity whose continued existence would probably endanger far less lives than those lost in the military operation itself.

Would not a far more humane and morally acceptable stance be to call an immediate ceasefire and allow the Qataris to broker a deal for the return of the Israeli hostages even if that would likely involve the return of Hamas prisoners from Israeli jails?

One thing for sure is that unless Israel obliterates Gaza then this cycle of violence will continue. Is all this loss of innocent life really morally justifiable?