Why capturing the last Hamas fighters alive should be Israel’s strategic—and moral—victory

Peloni:  In reading Jalal’s description of how to complete this war, is it really in Israel’s interest to prosecute it with a priority on preserving life on the part of our enemies, or should it be in the pursuit of a decisive, albeit well tardy, victory over its enemies?  I think this is an important discussion to be had.  War should not be the pursuit of morality or legality, but of achieving deterrence to future wars.  In fact, war is the undoing of social norms where morality and legality are better represented than on the battlefield, and that when these values are misplaced on the battlefield it comes at the cost of not just losing the deterrent effect of war, but also at the precious cost of soldiers lives as well.  So, while I can grasp Jalal’s perspective is that a primary objective should be that of denying the remaining Hamas combatants the ability of claiming victory as martyrs, I still argue that a quick, effective, and decisive victory has always been what is needed in this war, and that this still remains the case today, albeit it is already nearly two years too late to describe any victory gained as being quick.

I am curious of what others have to say on this topic.

By Jalal Tagreeb

Hamas soldiers surrendering in mass in Dec. 2023.  Screengrab via Youtube

Since the atrocities of 7 October 2023, Israel and Hamas have been locked in a war that has scarred a region and shattered lives. Now, more than two years on, the conflict appears to be entering its decisive phase. Israeli forces have pushed into Gaza City in a concerted ground operation and military briefings publicly estimate between two and three thousand Hamas fighters remain concentrated there.

Those figures tell an important story. For a movement that once presented itself as a mass political force, the reality on the ground is that its armed capacity has been reduced to a comparatively small band of combatants — fighters who, cornered and desperate, may be preparing for a last stand. International and Israeli officials have repeatedly warned that Hamas refuses to disarm and shows no intention of governing a post-war Gaza; that intransigence heightens the risk that its remaining members might resort to extreme, suicidal tactics rather than surrender.

If that is the case, what unfolds next is not merely a military operation but a moral test. There is a clear, pragmatic imperative to prevent those last-ditch tactics: suicide attacks, booby-trapped tunnels, executions of captives or forcible use of civilians as human shields. But there is an equally urgent ethical and strategic argument for doing so while preserving life wherever possible. Capturing fighters alive — and recovering every hostage still held — would be a far purer and more conclusive triumph than slaughter ever could.

First, the strategic value of live capture is considerable. Prisoners can provide intelligence: the locations of tunnels, weapon caches, command networks and, crucially, the fate and whereabouts of hostages. Since October 2023 a number of hostages have been released or recovered, but dozens remain unaccounted for; recent reporting indicates that around fifty hostages are still believed to be in Gaza. Securing those captives and extracting reliable intelligence would hasten an end to the conflict in a way that punitive killing cannot.

Second, taking prisoners denies Hamas the narrative victory it seeks. Organizations that rely on martyrdom and spectacle draw power from dramatic, violent finales. A captured leadership stripped of its mystique — interrogated in accordance with law, shown to be fallible, exposed in its defeat — would be a form of humiliation far more corrosive to an extremist movement than the pyrrhic boasting of a bloody last stand. It would also deprive the group of propaganda material that fuels recruitment and regional sympathy.

Third, there is a moral dimension that should not be underestimated. Democracies are judged by how they fight. Resorting to summary executions or indiscriminate slaughter corrodes legitimacy at home and abroad. By contrast, capturing combatants alive and prosecuting them transparently reinforces the rule of law and the case that Israel’s actions, however tragic the context, are rooted in legal and ethical norms. This matters because international legitimacy affects diplomacy, reconstruction planning and long-term security arrangements in the region. Recent diplomatic conversations — including with Gulf states and international actors considering Gaza’s future governance — make clear that the world is watching and that a post-war order will be fragile.

Fourth, the humanitarian and political calculus is stark. Gaza’s civilian population has suffered incomprehensibly; for Israel to finish this fight in a manner that minimizes further civilian loss is not only the humane course but also the politically prudent one. An operation designed to prioritize capture over killing must be supported by precise intelligence, disciplined forces and strict rules of engagement. That is difficult in dense urban terrain, but it is not impossible — and the payoff is stability and the moral high ground necessary for post-conflict reconstruction and negotiations.

Critics will say that taking prisoners increases risk: greater danger to soldiers, the possibility of ambushes and the complexities of detaining large numbers of combatants. Those are real concerns. But modern tactics, including targeted raids based on human intelligence and electronic surveillance, surgical use of special forces and an emphasis on isolating combatants from civilian populations, can mitigate such risks. Furthermore, the intelligence yield from captured fighters can dramatically reduce future operational hazards by revealing networks and weapons caches that would otherwise cost lives to root out.

In short: if Israeli forces can neutralize the immediate threat posed by the last cadres of Hamas without wholesale killing — if they can interdict planned suicide operations, secure hostages and take fighters alive — that would constitute not only a military success but a civilizational one. It would expose the group’s impotence, deny it the martyrdom it craves, and strengthen the legal and moral case for rebuilding a safer future.

If Hamas’ days are truly numbered, let the last chapter be written not with spectacle and slaughter but with the clear, quiet authority of the law: captured, tried, and deprived of the narratives that sustain violence. That would be a humiliation for the movement, yes — but more importantly, it would be a profound, practical step toward a safer, more stable region for all who live there.