NYT news desk: Hamas should rule Gaza
The New York Times just published a lengthy investigative article arguing that Netanyahu Prolonged the War in Gaza to Stay in Power (link).
Their conclusion that Netanyahu bears primary responsibility for the situation in Gaza, because he delayed a ceasefire, requires the premise that he should have accepted a ceasefire allowing Hamas to remain in power.
A ceasefire without defeating Hamas incentivizes Hamas and other groups to kidnap Jews around the world as bargaining chips.
They themselves note at one point:
“But Hamas still wanted the guarantee of a permanent truce, not just the possibility of one — they wanted to survive the war and remain in charge of Gaza”
However, the article does not analyze this point or its implications. As such, the authors appear unconcerned with Hamas remaining in control of Gaza.
In another telling point they write of Israel attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities and of the political deals necessary to achieve it:
“Above all, it highlighted how Netanyahu has instrumentalized war — whether in Gaza, Lebanon or in this case Iran — in part to stay in office."
“Above all”!
Israel set back an existential threat and advanced the global common good of restricting nuclear proliferation!
That should at least tie with Netanyahu’s political survival as a highlight.
While noting Hamas has some responsibility, they conclude:
“as the conflict turned from an existential battle into a war of attrition…it was Netanyahu who dragged it out. It was Netanyahu who refused to plan for a postwar power transfer, and it was Netanyahu who repeatedly delayed reaching a cease-fire”
They never even try to show Netanyahu had a chance to defeat Hamas and refused it in order to advance his political survival. Thus, they reinforce the stance that Hamas’s goal of staying in charge of Gaza is acceptable from their perspective.
By making the failure to reach a ceasefire proof of Netanyahu’s fault—while acknowledging that a ceasefire implies Hamas’s continued rule—they implicitly accept Hamas’s continued governance of Gaza, along with the risk of incentivizing more hostage-taking.