AMERICA and ISRAEL MUST DEMANDS UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER of HAMAS PLUS IMMEDIATE RELEASE OF ALL HOSTAGES

 

In my view, along with those of hundreds of millions of people worldwide, Joe Biden and his administration of appeasement of terrorists and terrorist-sponsoring and financing nations like Iran have shown weakness as opposed to strength and a lack of commitment and a dereliction of duty when it comes to upholding the constitution and the current USA policy that "The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage."

 

The unconditional surrender of Hamas would eliminate this terrorist group and reassure Americans and Israelis that their sacrifices in a total war would be compensated by total victory. Disarming Hamas and its terrorists was the start; consolidating democracy in Palestine is the goal. Only by refusing to deal with Hamas and its terrorist group could Palestine redesign root to branch as a democracy.

 

“Unconditional” offers a fresh perspective on how the decision to insist on “unconditional surrender” of Hamas is not simply a choice between pressing Hamas into submission and negotiating an end to the conflict for the Palestine people and the citizens of Israel. It also traces ideological battle lines that remain visible well into the atomic age as the enemy shifted from Palestine to Iran, Lebanon, and Syria.   Ironically, only through surrender can Hamas terrorists actually escape death. If they put down their weapons and become prisoners of war, Israel will be constrained by international law from killing these killers.

 

Calling for the unconditional surrender of Hamas would effectively dismantle this terrorist organization and provide assurance to both Americans and Israelis that their sacrifices in a comprehensive conflict would result in complete victory. The disarmament of Hamas and its militants marks the initial step; the ultimate aim is to establish a stable democracy in Palestine. By refusing to engage with Hamas and its terrorist factions, Palestine could undergo a complete overhaul towards democratic governance.

 

The "unconditional surrender" concept offers a new perspective on the decision to insist on Hamas's surrender. It's not just about pressuring Hamas into submission versus negotiating for peace; it also highlights the ideological battleground that persists, even in the modern era, as the focus shifts from Palestine to other regions like Iran, Lebanon, and Syria. Ironically, surrendering might be the only way for Hamas militants to escape death; by laying down their arms and becoming prisoners of war, they would be protected by international law, preventing Israel from executing them.

 

The failure of major powers, including the United States, and other interested nations to demand Hamas's surrender is disappointing, though not surprising. Many Western Nations, despite having the capability to compel Hamas's surrender, hesitate due to concerns about their Muslim populations and the growing influence of left-wing radicals, particularly in academic and urban centers, with an often misguided understanding of the conflict.

 

However, surrender is not an unfamiliar concept in conflicts. Throughout history, many significant wars have concluded with one party surrendering.

 

For instance, during World War II in January 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, and Allied representatives convened in Casablanca to discuss war strategy. The outcome emphasized that only total victory over the Axis powers would be acceptable, encapsulated in the term "unconditional surrender."

 

During the remainder of World War II, there were no negotiations or arrangements with Germany, Italy, or Japan. The Allies remained committed to achieving unconditional surrender through military means.

 

This commitment came at a considerable cost, including civilian casualties such as those resulting from the atomic bombings in Japan. However, these actions led to Japan's unconditional surrender, bringing the war to a swift end.

 

The demand for unconditional surrender was not an obvious stance for Roosevelt and his allies, considering the armistice that ended World War I, which failed to prevent future conflicts.

 

The resurgence of Germany after World War I and the lessons learned from that conflict highlight the importance of total and unconditional surrender in establishing lasting peace.

 

Today, the same principle applies to conflicts involving Hamas and other terrorist groups. Just as Roosevelt and Churchill recognized the necessity of defeating the Nazis for global peace, rational actors today must support Israel in dismantling Hamas. Anything less would be a mere illusion.

 

While some argue that ideologies cannot be defeated militarily, history shows that ideologies like Nazism and Japanese imperialism were dismantled through force. Similarly, the toxic Islamist ideology of Hamas and its ilk can and must be defeated.

 

President Biden and other world leaders should demand and support Israel in securing the unconditional surrender of Hamas terrorists. This is the only viable solution to the Gaza conflict; anything less prolongs the suffering of innocent civilians, in my view and hundreds of millions of others worldwide.

Sources:

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/dec/5/hamas-unconditional-surrender-is-only-solution-to-/#:~:text=Israel%20would%20no%20longer%20need,Hamas%20terrorists%20actually%20escape%20death.

7 FAM 1823  U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY

(CT:CON-142;   07-26-2006)

The U.S. Government will make no concessions to individuals or groups holding official or private U.S. citizens hostage.  The United States will use every appropriate resource to gain the safe return of U.S. citizens who are held hostage.  At the same time, it is U.S. Government policy to deny hostage takers the benefits of ransom, prisoner releases, policy changes, or other acts of concession.  See 7 FAM 1821 e regarding U.S. Government policy and limitations on the role of Foreign Service posts and the Department of State should private citizens, organizations or companies elect to negotiate with hostage takers or pay ransom.