The notion that there are other than “hard-liners” among Hamas’ leadership seems laughable. There may be tactical disagreements about how best to kill Jews and destroy Israel, though the Post doesn’t show that there are. But to elevate any such tactical disagreement into a hardliner vs. moderate dichotomy (good terrorist/bad terrorist) is to play Hamas’ game.

In addition to its claim that the assassination of Ismail Haniyeh is a blow to Hamas “moderates,” the Post lodges two other criticisms of the attack. First, the assassination makes a ceasefire unlikely, at least in the short term. Second the assassination won’t harm Hamas because Haniyeh can easily be replaced.

The first point is true, and bad news for Hamas and its beleaguered fighters. Israel, no doubt, understood the likely impact of that assassination on negotiations. Indeed, one of its purposes of the assassination might well have been to derail them.

The second point is also true, but misapprehends Israel’s thinking. Israel doesn’t assassinate leaders like Haniyeh to crush Hamas. Israel’s effort to crush Hamas consists, instead, of killing its fighters and uprooting its infrastructure in Gaza.