The belief in Israel’s moral fallenness could not have taken hold so widely—among Jews or Gentiles—were it not for the work of journalists and publishers, as Hamas knows all too well. Indeed, the terrorist group’s military strategy rests on maximizing civilian casualties in Gaza and then telling the world a tale of Palestinian suffering at the hands of bloodthirsty Israelis. So when yesterday a missile launched from Gaza at Israeli civilians fell short and landed near a hospital (possibly exploding a munitions dump), Hamas rushed to tell journalists that the IDF had bombed a hospital and killed 500 people. The New York Times and other outlets then rushed to amplify this claim without any sort of due diligence. John Podhoretz comments:

The point here is that the media in the United States and elsewhere are desperate—desperate—to blame things on Israel and credulous about doing so in a way that should be shameful to any sense of professionalism—or simple morality—they might possess.

Many decades ago, when Palestinians were massacred by Lebanese militiamen, an Israeli leader was alleged to have muttered, “Goyim kill goyim and they blame the Jews.” For this he was roundly denounced, and, obviously, speaking in such terms about a horrible killing spree was, at the very least, inappropriate. But today, unless the IDF is very wrong, we literally have a situation in which Palestinians [killed] Palestinians by the hundreds—and they blamed, or tried to blame, the Jews.

Tamir Hayman analyzes the latest reports about an offer by Hamas to release three female soldiers in exchange for 150 captured terrorists, of whom 90 have received life sentences; then, if that exchange happens successfully, a second stage of the deal will begin.

If this does happen, Israel will release all the serious prisoners who had been sentenced to life and who are associated with Hamas, which will leave Israel without any bargaining chips for the second stage. In practice, Israel will release everyone who is important to Hamas without getting back all the hostages. In this situation, it’s evident that Israel will approach the second stage of the negotiations in the most unfavorable way possible. Hamas will achieve all its demands in the first stage, except for a commitment from Israel to end the war completely.

How does this relate to the fighting in Rafah? Hayman explains:

In the absence of an agreement or compromise by Hamas, it is detrimental for Israel to continue the static situation we were in. It is positive that new energy has entered the campaign. . . . The [capture of the] border of the Gaza Strip and the Rafah crossing are extremely important achievements, while the ongoing dismantling of the battalions is of secondary importance.

That being said, Hayman is critical of the approach to negotiations taken so far:

Gradual hostage trades don’t work. We must adopt a different concept of a single deal in which Israel offers a complete cessation of the war in exchange for all the hostages.