I support a ceasefire in Gaza. But as calls for a ceasefire grow, it’s crucial for us to reflect on what a realistic one would entail. To assume an immediate cessation of hostilities, a simple panacea toward a two-state solution--the official position of the United States--is naive and untenable without realistic conditions.

Congressman Pat Ryan released a statement in which that realistic path toward a mutual lasting peace could be achieved.

Ryan says all hostages must be returned; perpetrators of sexual violence must be held accountable; Hamas must surrender; a new Palestinian regime committed to Palestinian people’s wellbeing must be created; Israel must recognize it and be committed to a long-term peaceful two-state solution; and there must be an increase in humanitarian aid. Ryan also acknowledged there is no indication Hamas intends to surrender, and the possibility of a new Palestinian government in time to end the bloodshed able to negotiate a genuine two-state solution with Israel seems remote.

I agree with Rep. Ryan’s stance. One thing he did not mention, however, is America’s so-called “unconditional support” for Israel. While it’s true Israel has a right to defend itself from the terrorist group Hamas, it also has a duty to respect international law and refrain from using Hamas’ foreseen October attack as a pretext for perpetrating genocide against innocent Palestinian citizens, nearly half of whom are under age 18. As long as the United States continues supplying capital and arms, and rejects a UN Security Council resolution to achieve a ceasefire, the possibility of ceasefire becomes more remote.

This is a perfect “tail wagging the dog” scenario requiring Israel’s allies to exercise some tough love toward the Israeli government for which even the Israeli people are withdrawing support.