Of all that’s been said and written about the war between Israel and Hamas, nothing has cut through the mental fog quite so brightly as a remark this month from Hillary Clinton on “The View.”

“Remember,” the former secretary of state said, “there was a cease-fire on Oct. 6 that Hamas broke by their barbaric assault on peaceful civilians and their kidnapping, their killing, their beheading, their terrible, inhumane savagery.”

Those three words — “that Hamas broke” — aren’t trivial. They give the lie to the “Cease-Fire Now” mirage, or imposture, that has become a rallying cry at pro-Palestinian demonstrations. They are at the heart of what the war is about, and the key to how it can end. And they are the bright dividing line between those who would allow Hamas to get away with murder, and those who would refuse.

Why should it matter that it was Hamas that broke the cease-fire when Palestinian civilians are being killed in large numbers by Israeli bombs and bullets? Those saying that it shouldn’t matter argue that questions of culpability become secondary, if not irrelevant, when kids’ lives are at stake. If Israel has the power to save those kids by halting its campaign, goes the argument, then it has a moral obligation to do so.

But wait: Doesn’t Hamas also have the power? Hamas has a long record of firing those rockets from the vicinity of schools. It has sought to prevent ordinary Gazans from obeying evacuation orders, deliberately putting them at increased risk. It hides in a vast network of tunnels while civilians must fend for themselves above ground.

As I write, there are reports that Hamas might release some hostages in exchange for a brief cease-fire. But Hamas would do that only because it’s under intense military pressure. It could get a real and lasting cease-fire for the people of Gaza — and probably safe passage out of the territory for many of its members — in exchange for releasing all the hostages, surrendering its arms and renouncing its rule in favor of some other Arab power.