During the 1960s and 70s, writes Gil Troy, both the United Nations and the Olympics represented a hopefulness about a future very different from the bloody first half of the 20th century. The former provided a forum where nations could come together to work through their differences over a negotiating table; the latter an opportunity for people all over the world to channel rivalries through sport rather than armed conflict. For Troy, and others, that image was shattered at the 1972 Munich Olympics, where, 50 years ago this week, Palestinian terrorists murdered eleven Israeli athletes and a German policeman:

Suddenly, the Munich Olympics were defined by the Palestinian terrorists in those ghoulish stocking caps and the discordant sweatsuits, who sauntered into the Olympic village. After negotiating for hours, the Germans botched the rescue operation. . . . It was obvious to everyone I knew—mourning these young Israeli heroes, one of whom tried barricading the door with his body—that these Olympic games should end.

This tragedy offered the International Olympic Committee (IOC) an opportunity to do penance for greenlighting the infamous 1936 Hitler games. Yet, like something out of a novel, Avery Brundage, the same mean-spirited, severe-looking, anti-Semitic International Olympics Committee president who approved Hitler’s hosting then, insisted the “games must go on” in Germany 36 years later.

Remarkably, the more Palestinian terrorists terrorized innocents, the more international recognition their cause achieved. Two years later, the UN welcomed the head of the PLO. Yasir Arafat, the grandfather of modern terrorism, became the first representative of a non-member organization to address the General Assembly—sporting a holster to back up his menacing tone.

Since then, the UN has often functioned as the Third World dictators’ debating society, while sports have become increasingly politicized.

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.