EDITORIAL — The pros and cons of the ceasefire

Just before the five-day truce between Israel and Hamas ended yesterday, the parties agreed to another day of ceasefire.

"In light of the mediators' efforts to continue the process of releasing the hostages and subject to the terms of the framework, the operational pause will continue," the Israel Defense Force said.

The initial agreement was that a number of hostages would be released in exchange for every day of ceasefire.

The ceasefire is both good and bad for the overall situation.

A cessation of hostilities means more lives can be spared from needless killing. We cannot deny that the Israeli attacks against Gaza --despite being justified following Hamas’ terror attack last October 7-- have killed their fair share of innocent civilians, especially women and children who had nothing with that attack at all.

A longer ceasefire also means that more hostages will be freed. We have to remember that a good many of them are like the innocent victims of Gaza; women, children, elderly, and even foreign workers, who were kidnapped despite posing no threat to Hamas.

But on the other hand, extending the ceasefire will give the Hamas terrorists more time to regroup. There is no doubt that they used the previous five days to consolidate their forces to better defend against the IDF and also to plan attacks of their own.

It is also likely that they are also taking advantage of the aid trickling in supposedly for the residents of Gaza.

For every day that the IDF isn’t pummeling Hamas that makes the terrorist organization grow stronger.

Hamas has every reason to be afraid; Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu assured that after the truce is over they will again go after Hamas with the same intensity and determination as before.

A shorter ceasefire will mean a weaker Hamas, one that can be easily dealt with; but it also means more hostages being held longer by Hamas and more deaths among the innocents of Gaza.

Right now we aren’t sure what the better scenario is.