Last week, the Israeli government approved the construction of 486 new housing units in Jerusalem and the West Bank. The decision quickly elicited a characteristic response: the U.S. State Department announced that it was “deeply concerned,” while Nicolay Mladenov, the UN “special coordinator for the Middle East peace process” condemned settlement building as the main impediment to resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. None of these statements, writes Jonathan Tobin, is connected to reality:

[T]he one thing we can definitively say about the [the new homes] is that their construction will have zero impact on the prospects of revived negotiations with the Palestinians or on a successful outcome of such talks if they ever resume. . . .

[A]lmost all of these new housing units are in places that even the Obama administration has stated would remain part of Israel in the event of a successful peace negotiation. . . . [Furthermore], the language used to describe these developments is part of the problem. Nobody would call a new apartment building in an existing neighborhood in the United States a new town, but that’s essentially what is being done every time the construction of a house anywhere in Jerusalem or the West Bank (provided it is a house that Jews live in) is called a new settlement. . . .

Of course, to Israel’s critics and foes, the semantics of settlements and even legal questions about land aren’t significant. . . . Focusing on the settlements is the tactic the Palestinians have [deployed] since the Oslo Accords to excuse their strategy of avoiding peace. It’s a shame the U.S. government, the UN, and liberal publications like the Times echo their talking points.

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.