In his much-vaunted book My Promised Land, the Israeli journalist Ari Shavit devotes a chapter to a “massacre” of Arabs that he claims took place in the town of Lydda during the 1948 war of independence. Last July, the historian Martin Kramer demonstrated in Mosaic that Shavit’s account was unfounded. Kramer recently presented his analysis in Israel, where a Hebrew translation of My Promised Land has yet to be published. The response of his audience, filled with veterans of the 1948 war, many of whom had taken part in the conquest of Lydda, was telling:

I could have dispensed with my own analysis. The reactions tumbled forth in immediate response ‎to Shavit’s text. I heard gasps of disbelief and angry asides. I didn’t ask for a show of hands as to ‎how many thought Shavit’s account had any credibility, and in retrospect I wish I had. But to ‎judge from the audible responses, it would not be an exaggeration to say that this audience was ‎surprised and offended.‎

[N]othing I heard, either in the lecture hall or outside of it, added to the store of ‎testimony about the “massacre” component of Shavit’s Lydda tale. The conquest of Lydda had ‎many moving parts, and most of the veterans I met served in the 89th Battalion under Moshe ‎Dayan. That meant that they were not in the city when the “massacre” supposedly took place, but ‎fought the day before, mostly on the road between Lydda and Ramleh. But I wasn’t looking for ‎new testimony, because there are plenty of recorded recollections from people who witnessed the ‎events. . . . I did want these veterans to know ‎what much of the world (Israel excepted) has been reading about their battle for over a year now. ‎And I wanted them to start to talk about it among themselves and with others.‎

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.