Continuing its one-sided approach to the IDF-Hamas war, the New York Times published an article that provides the most upbeat assessment of Hamas’ situation, “After Surviving Israel’s Onslaught, Hamas Plans Its Future in Gaza.”  Rather than pushing back on the claims made by Hamas, its author Adam Sasgon tries as much as possible to verify them.  

Referencing a two-hour interview with its senior official Khaled Mishal, Rasgon noted that Hamas believes it has the upper hand, is winning the war, and has no reason to change their cease-fire demands.  He then suggests that at least in the shortrun, these beliefs are valid, quoting a West Bank journalist: “If the war ends now, it would be a victory for Hamas.” 

Strengthening this claim, Sasgon interviews Maj Gen. Gadi Shamni. Israel “is losing the war in a big way,” he claims.  “While it is undeniable that Israel has devastated Hama’s military capabilities, Hamas has retaken towns in ’15 minutes’ of Israeli withdrawals.”

Sasgon does note that many Gazans are critical of its October 7th action. However, he doesn’t push back on Mishal’s claim that it is only a small minority who now reject Hamas.  Instead, Sasgon asserts that the October 7 action gave “Israel a pretext to wage a massive bombing campaign that has reduced cities to rubble.” 

Notice his choice of the word “pretext,” suggesting that Israel always desired the destruction of Gaza.  This shows a shocking bias.  After all, since the war has begun, one of the main criticisms made of Israeli governments is that they believed Hamas could be bought off — allowing Qatar funding — and instead focusing on the West Bank’s potential for unrest.  This was why they were so unprepared for the Hamas attack.

Sasgon’s bias, however, goes much deeper.  He doesn’t explain why the IDF leadership and Defense Minister Gallant are desiring a ceasefire now, willing to make substantial concessions beyond those made by Netanyahu.  Instead of quoting any of these military leaders, he quotes Shamni: someone who is more than a decade retired from the military and more than two decades since he had command in Gaza.

And why hasn’t Hamas accepted a favorable ceasefire since, if it believes that if the war ended now, it would be victorious?  The answer is that while Hamas can retake control of areas, what does that get them.  As has been happening, the IDF often returns easily killing more Hamas members. But more importantly, Hamas doesn’t want to be responsible for civilian matters.  Indeed, Sasgon notes that Hamas is willing to give up control of “civilian matters but its military wing and intelligence forces were off limits.” 

A main problem with this Hamas fantasy is: Who is going to fund the rebuilding of Gaza and allow Hamas free reign to focus on its military goals.  Given the drastic need for rebuilding, would any Arab country, save Iran, or any Western government allow Hamas to siphon off material to rebuild its tunnel complex and gain weapons from abroad?  But what is most telling is the actual surveys of Gazans that Sasgon chooses not to include.

Initial reports emphasized that Gazans were in strong support of the Hamas attack as evidence of their seemingly rejoicing when captives were paraded through the streets, but by December support softened: only slightly over half of Gazans supported the October 7th attack or Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. March 2024 results seemed to show support was growing, with now 70 percent supporting October 7th.  

However, these results were manipulated by Hamas.  Captured documents indicated that the actual tabulation found only 31 percent supported October 7th. Similarly, the actual support for Sinwar declined to 22 percent.

Moreover, as the war continued and the devastation persisted, Gazans become even more hostile to Hamas. Mahmoud Mushtata, a writer for the pro-Palestinian +972 Magazine reported:

As the war has dragged on, displays of public opposition to or criticism of Hamas have grown among Palestinians in Gaza. Many accuse Hamas of failing to anticipate the ferocity of Israel’s response to the October 7 attacks, and hold the group partially accountable for the dire consequences they are now facing. 

Mushtata referenced a recent poll by the Institute for Social and Economic Progress, an independent Palestinian research organization, that found less than 5 percent of Gazans want Hamas to rule in a post-war transition government. Nearly 85 percent of Gazans oppose Sinwar. 

The New York Times, like other liberal publications, has never been willing to accept Israel’s position that a complete destruction of Hamas’ military infrastructure was necessary and feasible.  To forestall this, critiques understated IDF successes and tried to forestall its invasion of the Rafah area; an invasion that destroyed the last four Hamas battalions, the tunnels to Egypt along the Philadelphi corridor, and enabled the IDF to gain control of the Rafah crossing, limiting Hamas’ ability to pilfer entering relief aid. 

The governing of Gaza after a permanent ceasefire is unknown.  However, it should be clear that the U.S. and many allies are working to find a solution that minimizes if not totally eliminates Hamas’ ability to gain influence or reestablish its military presence.  They will not allow Gaza to be turned into a Lebanon where a military organization (Hezbollah) operates with total immunity from government control. 

Moreover, Hamas has been devastated and because anti-Hamas governments control the rebuilding purse strings, it is likely that it will never be able to regain anything close to its former military power.  Thus, the only thing that Sasgon’s article accomplished was to enable anti-Israel forces to sustain their hope for victory, which for them means a one-state solution and the elimination of Israel. 

READ MORE from Robert Cherry:

Would a Harris Presidency Help Blacks?

Al Aqsa Mosque: New York Times Ignores History

Robert Cherry is an American Enterprise Institute affiliate and author of the forthcoming book, Arab Citizens of Israel: How Far Have They Come?