Reason has turned the tide against deceit and the allure of evil in the ongoing war in Gaza, as even the skeptics are accepting the necessity of eliminating the terror group Hamas as a precondition to peace.

The Economist, a conservative international business publication that labeled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "discredited," submitted in its main editorial "Leaders" that "the only path to peace lies in dramatically reducing Hamas' capacity to use Gaza as a source of supplies and a base for its army."

"Tragically, that requires war," the renowned publication said.

It continued that grasping the actions of Israel required the perspective of looking back on 7 October.

"When Israelis talk about Hamas' attack as an existential threat, they mean it literally, not as a figure of speech," according to The Economist.

"Because of pogroms and the Holocaust, Israel has a unique social contract: to create a land where Jews know they will not be killed or persecuted for being Jews."

It added that Israel had long honored that commitment with a strategic doctrine that calls for "deterrence, early warnings of an attack, protection on the home front, and decisive Israeli victories."

The Economist said the terrorists ripped apart Israel's social contract by shattering the security doctrine created to defend it.

It indicated that on the fateful day, "deterrence proved empty, early warning of an attack was absent, home-front protection failed, and Hamas murdered 1,400 people in Israeli communities. Far from enjoying victory, Israel's soldiers and spies were humiliated."

One of the painful lessons that the world had learned in nearly one month of Israel's ordeal was that Hamas, by choosing to murder Israelis regardless of how many Palestinians die in Gaza, "has proved that it is undeterrable."

The Economist commented that the only way out of the cycle of violence is to destroy Hamas' rule.

Thus, Israel is doing what it must to kill the senior leaders and smash the military infrastructure of the terror organization.

The suggestion that a war that entails the deaths of thousands of innocent people can lead to peace will appall many, it said.

The alternative of letting Hamas exist and rule Gaza that the ceasefire proponents had implied would have unthinkable consequences.

"While Hamas runs Gaza, peace is impossible. Israelis will feel unsafe, so their government will strike Gaza pre-emptively every time Hamas threatens," it said.

The effect on the Palestinians, "suffocated by permanently tight Israeli security and killed as Hamas' human shields in pre-emptive Israeli raids," is their radicalization, which is the ultimate goal of the terrorists.

"The only way forward is to weaken its control while building the conditions for something new to emerge," The Economist added.

In the aftermath, new leadership for both sides is expected.

"The Palestinians need moderate leaders with a democratic mandate. At the moment, they have none," it said.

The question that remains is how to stop Hamas or its successor from seizing back control of Gaza before fresh leaders can emerge from fair elections.

It ceded that a war is needed to degrade Hamas enough to enable something better to take its place.

The Economist's conclusion: "A ceasefire is the enemy of peace because it would allow Hamas to continue to rule over Gaza by consent or by force with most of its weapons and fighters intact."

It added that "the case for humanitarian pauses is stronger, but even they involve a trade-off. Repeated pauses would increase the likelihood that Hamas survives."

The ultimate conclusion of the treatise was: "For the sake of Israelis and Palestinians, peace deserves to have the best possible chance. A ceasefire removes that chance entirely."

Regrettably, the United Nations and the other supposed champions of peace do not see the logic behind terminating Hamas, no matter the cost.