In the past several months, the State Department has announced a series of sanctions on individual Israelis on the grounds that they have been involved in right-wing radicalism or violence against Palestinians. Michael Doran looks into what’s behind this effort:

The White House has established an interagency initiative to produce sanctions against Israeli entities and individuals. . . . The team convenes frequently to meet the goal, set by the president and his top advisers, of rolling out packages of sanctions with regularity. By my count, six tranches have been rolled out so far. The next tranche, I have learned, is already prepared, waiting for release after Iran attacks Israel, so that the administration can dodge the accusation of weakening Israel in time of war.

The regularity of the rollouts, which average about one tranche per month, matter to the administration more than the specific content of the sanctions. The goal is not to reverse any policy by the Israeli government but to create a climate of controversy around Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing coalition partners. President Biden did not create this sanctions machine in response to any development on the ground in the Middle East other than the surprise attack by Hamas on October 7.

The administration’s cover story, that it is issuing sanctions in reaction to events on the West Bank, evaporates when one examines the specific content of the sanctions.

Doran also notes that the National Security Council official Ilan Goldenberg has been playing “a very enthusiastic role” in the sanctions efforts. Goldenberg was previously an adviser to Kamala Harris, and her campaign recently named him its Jewish community liaison.

Two of the most important questions about the recent agreement with Hamas are “Why now?” and “What is the relationship between the deal and the military campaign?” To Ron Ben-Yishai, the answer to the two questions is related, and flies in the face of the widespread (and incorrect) claim that the same agreement could have been reached in May:

Contrary to certain public perceptions, the military pressure exerted on northern Gaza in recent months was the main leverage that led to flexibility on the part of Hamas and made clear to the terror group that it would do well to agree to a deal now, before thousands more of its fighters are killed, and before the IDF advances further and destroys Gaza entirely.

Andrew Fox, meanwhile, presents a more comprehensive strategic analysis of the cease-fire:

Tactically, Hamas has taken a severe beating in Gaza since October 2023. It is assessed that it has lost as much as 90 percent of military capability and 80 percent of manpower, although it has recruited well and boosted its numbers from below 10,000 to the 20–30,000 range. However, these are untrained recruits, often under-age, and the IDF has been striking their training camps in northern Gaza so they have been unable to form any kind of meaningful capability. This is not a fighting force that retains any ability to harm the IDF in real numbers, although, as seen this past week with a fatal IED attack, they are able to score the odd hit.

However, this has not affected Hamas’s ability to retain administrative control of Gaza.

Internationally, Hamas sits alone in glory on the information battlefield. It has won the most resounding victory imaginable in the world’s media, in Western states, and on the Internet. . . . The stock of the Palestinian cause rides high internationally and will only get higher as Hamas proclaims a victory following this cease-fire deal. By means of political pressure on Israel, the international information campaign has kept Hamas in the fight, extended the war, prolonged the suffering of Gazan civilians, and has ultimately handed Hamas a win through the fact of their continued survival and eventual rebuild.

Indeed, writes Fox in a separate post, the “images coming out of Gaza over the last few days show us that too many in the wider world have been played for fools.”

Hamas fighters have been seen emerging from hospitals and the humanitarian zone. Well-fed Palestinians, with fresh haircuts and Adidas tracksuits, or in just vests, cheer for the camera. . . . There was no starvation. There was no freezing. There was no genocide.