Ari Fuld, the Israeli Jew stabbed to death by a Palestinian terrorist on Sunday, was a resident of the town of Efrat—part of an area of Israel from which Jews were violently expelled in 1948, and to which they returned after 1967. Thus, many reports on Fuld’s murder have emphasized that he is “a settler,” a term that has become one of contempt. Jonathan Tobin explores this attitude in his review of a recent HBO documentary on the Oslo Accords and their aftermath:

Like the hundreds of thousands of other Jews who live in the West Bank and Jerusalem, Fuld was reviled as an “obstacle to peace.” That’s why the reaction to attacks on those who fall into this category is so often one of heartless indifference—if not gloating about people who had it coming—on social media and elsewhere. Not only Palestinians who consider all violence against Jews justified acts of “resistance” hold this attitude. Across the world and even among many Jews, “settler” is an epithet more than a description. Since the Oslo Accords were signed 25 years ago, settlements and settlers have become the all-purpose scapegoat for the lack of peace and [are often considered] undeserving of sympathy even when settlers are slain by terrorists. . . .

Oslo Diaries puts forward the thesis that there were two peace camps—one in Israel led by Prime Minister Yitzḥak Rabin and his government, and the other led by the Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat. Opposing them were two anti-peace camps—one led by the current prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Likud party, and their settler supporters, and the other composed of Hamas and other Palestinians who opposed peace.

According to this account, the agreement was destroyed by Baruch Goldstein, the settler who murdered 29 Arabs in cold blood [in 1994]; Yigal Amir, the right-wing student who assassinated Rabin; and Netanyahu, who, [according to the documentary], encouraged extremism and sabotaged a process that was on the verge of working. [Thus], post-Oslo Palestinian terror is seen as merely a response to Goldstein’s terrible crime, rather than something that went on before and after the Hebron massacre, [as indeed it did]. . . .

But while Goldstein and Amir’s names will forever live in shame (and they did great damage to Israel), neither they nor Netanyahu and the settlers killed the peace. That was the work of Arafat and his associates. Far from heading a peace camp, we now know from both later events and subsequent revelations that Arafat did not share the peacemakers’ vision. . . . Indeed, as soon as the PLO began assuming control over parts of the West Bank and Gaza in 1994, both Arafat’s Fatah Party and his Hamas rivals began a bloody campaign of terrorism. . . . But [the actions of Arafat and his successors aren’t] allowed to challenge the illusion that the peace plan would have worked had not the settlers violently opposed it—an illusion the film tries to keep alive.

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.