The death of Yahya Sinwar, a key figure in Hamas and a mastermind behind the deadly October 7, 2023, attack on Israel, is a pivotal moment in the ongoing Israel-Gaza conflict. Sinwar’s leadership of Hamas—a terrorist organization that has openly declared its intention to destroy Israel—made him a central figure in the violence that has claimed thousands of lives. His elimination by Israeli forces is a critical step in Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorist threats.

Israel’s actions are not only justified but necessary. Hamas, responsible for the slaughter of innocent civilians, indiscriminate rocket attacks, and other forms of terrorism, has proven time and again that it is not a legitimate governing entity but a group that uses violence as a political tool. Sinwar’s death may weaken Hamas, but the organization remains entrenched in Gaza, continuing to sow terror and destruction.

In light of this, the idea of negotiating with Hamas raises serious concerns. For decades, the international community has adhered to a principle shared by many: democratic nations should not negotiate with terrorists. To do so is to grant legitimacy to organizations whose very existence is rooted in the destruction of another people. Hamas has consistently demonstrated that it is not interested in peace or co-existence, but in the annihilation of Israel. This underscores why Israel, in its fight against Hamas, is not simply defending its borders but preserving its right to exist.

The Biden administration’s attempts to persuade Israel to negotiate with Hamas for a ceasefire have been misguided. While it is understandable that the U.S. desires an end to the violence, pressuring Israel to negotiate with a group like Hamas is a dangerous precedent. As Nicholas Kristof from The New York Times pointed out, there have been moments where the U.S. has withheld aid or applied pressure to sway Israeli decisions. But this has not yielded long-term peace. In fact, President Biden’s approach may inadvertently empower Hamas by allowing it to dictate terms, a concession that Israel cannot afford to make.

Israel has repeatedly shown that it is willing to work toward peace when it deals with legitimate partners, as evidenced by its treaties with Egypt and Jordan. However, Hamas is not a partner for peace. It is a terrorist organization, designated as such by the U.S. government and many other nations, and its tactics—such as using civilian populations as shields, launching rockets indiscriminately, and committing acts of terror—make it clear that its aims are fundamentally incompatible with peace.

Critics of Israel’s military strategies, like MSNBC’s Ayman Mohyeldin, note that the assassination of Hamas leaders often leads to more radical figures rising to power. However, this criticism overlooks the fact that there are no peaceful alternatives when dealing with a group whose charter explicitly calls for Israel’s destruction. The cycle of leadership within Hamas is part of the problem, but it is not a reason to stop the fight against terror. Israel’s military strategy, while difficult and costly, is a necessary defense against those who wish to destroy it.

Sinwar’s death does not end Hamas’s influence, but it does disrupt its command structure. Noah Rothman from National Review rightly points out that the elimination of these well-connected, battle-hardened commanders weakens the group’s operational capabilities. While the idea of Hamas may persist, it is the leaders and militants who turn ideology into violent action. Sinwar’s death should therefore be seen as a necessary, if not sufficient, step toward ensuring Israel’s security.

Moreover, the long-term challenge for Israel is not just defeating Hamas militarily but dismantling the group’s ability to use Gaza as a launching pad for terrorism. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence on maintaining a presence in Gaza, and his refusal to give up control of key borders, reflects an understanding of the region’s complex security dynamics. Without such measures, Hamas will inevitably rebuild, and the cycle of violence will continue. Critics of Netanyahu’s strategy fail to appreciate that allowing Hamas to regroup would be a fatal mistake for Israel’s national security.

While the Biden administration’s calls for restraint may be well-intentioned, they overlook the reality that terrorism cannot be appeased. Hamas has exploited ceasefires in the past to rearm and reorganize, only to launch new waves of terror. Therefore, any attempt to force Israel into a negotiated settlement with Hamas undermines Israel’s right to self-defense and fails to recognize the terrorist nature of the organization.

In conclusion, the fight against Hamas is not just Israel’s fight—it is a battle against terrorism that affects the entire region and, by extension, global security. Sinwar’s death is a victory, but the larger conflict against Hamas and its ideology continues. The Biden administration should support Israel’s efforts to dismantle Hamas completely, rather than push for negotiations with an unrepentant terrorist group. Israel has a moral and sovereign right to defend itself, and in doing so, it serves as a bulwark against terrorism in the Middle East. We must stand with Israel in its pursuit of peace through strength, trusting that righteousness and justice will prevail.