It must be weird to live in New York Times-land, where every Republican is a Nazi, every anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorist is a freedom fighter, and every Jew is a disciple of Adolf Hitler. 

Given that the world of New York Times extends from the Hudson to the East River and is also bounded by the Harlem River, I can't make a joke about "From the River to the Sea Manhattan will be free," but you get the idea. Times writers want to rule the world as much as Hamas wants to rule "Palestine.

First came the death of its top leader abroad, Ismail Haniyeh, by a bomb planted in Tehran. Then came Israel’s announcement that, only weeks earlier, it had killed Hamas’s most elusive and revered military leader. All of this as Israel continues to wage the deadliest war Palestinians in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip have ever faced.

At first tally, the latest score in the 30-year struggle between Israel and Hamas looks like a devastating one for the Islamist movement, one that throws its future into question. Yet the history of Hamas, the evolution of Palestinian militant groups over the decades and the logic of insurgencies more broadly suggest that not only will Hamas survive, it may even stand to emerge politically stronger.

Analysts and regional observers in contact with Hamas leaders see the latest blows it has suffered — including Mr. Haniyeh’s assassination, widely believed to be at Israel’s hand — as offering Israeli forces a short-term victory at the cost of long-term strategic success.

Hamas is a death cult bent on one goal: the destruction of Israel by murdering every Jew possible. In the world of The New York Times this apparently is not a particularly radical goal, given their belief that Israel is a "settler colonialist" state, but for the life of me I can't imagine what more Hamas could ask for. 

The New York Times is not alone in worrying that Israel giving in to Hamas is an injustice. The Washington Post criticized the Iron Dome because it saves Jews, and that is a very bad thing. 

“Hamas not being able to kill Jews gives us the sads” - WaPo pic.twitter.com/TFqGkIqB7O

— Jay Asliken 🕋☪️✈️ (@assliken) June 10, 2024

“I don’t see a reason to conclude Hamas could become irrelevant,” he said. “The question is: How does Hamas change after this? And I think there is a very strong argument to be made that the leadership becomes more hard-line.”

Mr. Deif himself replaced Ahmed al-Jabari, the military leader Israel killed in 2012 with a targeted strike on his car. At the time, he was leading Hamas’s side in a mediation effort to reach a long-term cease-fire with Israel.

One of the many calumnies leveled at Israel is that it is the cause of Palestinian radicalism. If only the Jews would allow themselves to be killed with abandon, the Palestinians would quit killing Jews. 

I suppose that is right, given that all the Jews would be dead. But short of that, Hamas will never give up. That is what "from the river to the sea" means after all. 

Hamas' goal is a one-state solution, and that state will be free of Jews, just as the Palestinian territories are, and most Muslim countries. 

We keep hearing about "moderate" terrorists, but those terrorists keep telling us that killing Jews is their goal. It's not like any Hamasniks are claiming to be moderate--it is only their apologists in the West. 

If you have ever wondered why even liberal Jews might support Hamas, wonder no more. 

They read The New York Times. What a mistake.