On Wednesday the State Department, invoking the sort of language usually employed for acts of terror, “strongly condemned” an Israeli announcement that 98 houses would be built in the West Bank town of Shiloh. The condemnation is hardly coherent, and Jonathan Tobin suspects ulterior motives:

The new homes do not constitute a “new” settlement by any reasonable definition. They are within the municipal boundaries of Shiloh, a sizable settlement that dates back to the 1970s, not last week. . . .

What’s more, the administration knows very well the need to put those houses there stems not from an expansionist urge but from a desire to uphold the law and eliminate settlements that were built without the sanction of Israeli law. The new homes in Shiloh are part of a compromise solution that would allow the Israeli government to evict settlers from Amona, a settlement built on land owned by Palestinians rather than public or Jewish-owned land, as is the case with legal West Bank Jewish communities like Shiloh. The courts have ruled that the Amona settlers have to go, and it’s necessary that the government provide them with a place to go to.

What Prime Minister Netanyahu is doing here happens to be exactly what the Americans want him to do in tearing down Amona, so it’s more than a little disingenuous of President Obama to treat this decision as an insult or an effort to flout Washington’s wishes [as the administration has claimed]. . . . .

If there is anything suspicious about the timing, it relates to the Americans’ manufactured umbrage. If the president is planning on leaving office with one final, devastating parting shot at Israel and Netanyahu, he needs a [pretext] to justify betraying an ally at a United Nations that is already prejudiced against Israel and riddled with anti-Semitism. The real story isn’t Netanyahu’s alleged insult but what might be Obama’s careful planning for a devastating blow to the U.S.-Israel alliance.

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.