Earlier this month, the Middle East Quartet—a group comprising representatives of the U.S., Russia, the EU, and the UN, self-tasked with bringing a resolution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict—produced a report that, inter alia, complained of the growth of the “West Bank settler population” since 2009 and the construction of new houses for Jews in the area. But, argues Ahron Shapiro, the statistics cited by the Quartet are misleading, perhaps mendaciously so. In fact, he writes, the settlements are demographically “treading water.” And that’s not the only problem:

[T]he Quartet report fails to explain . . . that all Israeli West Bank settlements are in [what is designated by the Oslo Accords as] Area C, and it failed to differentiate between construction in settlement blocs and in isolated settlements. This is no mere issue of semantics and is as equally relevant for settlement blocs as for Israel’s east Jerusalem neighborhoods.

The entire raison d’être for the mutually agreed land swaps that everyone from President Obama to the Arab League have referred to as part of any potential peace agreement between the Palestinians and Israel is to help resolve the settlement issue. They were designed to do so by allowing Israel to keep its existing east Jerusalem neighborhoods and strategic settlement blocs [in area C] where most settlers live and in return give the Palestinians land inside of pre-1967 Israel as compensation.

If settlement blocs and east Jerusalem neighborhoods aren’t the land the Security Council and Quartet had in mind for land swaps, just what exactly were they expecting to swap? And if they are the land destined for swaps, what exactly is the problem if Israel builds there? . . .

[Furthermore], since taking office in 2009, Prime Minister Netanyahu has built fewer homes in Israeli settlements in the West Bank than previous prime ministers going back to the 1990s. . . . [Finally], the long-term trend has shown proportionally fewer housing starts in Israeli settlements than elsewhere in Israel, and also fewer housing starts in proportion to the Israel’s settler population compared to the general population. . . .

[A]ccording to the Oslo Accords and its signed addenda and additions—legally binding documents recognized under international law—Israel has the right to exercise complete administrative and security control over Area C. . . .

If Israel is forced to conclude that any such agreements signed by Israel as part of a peace deal may fail to be upheld and supported by the international community, how can it sign a [new] peace deal which will almost certainly require international security guarantees?

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.