Pro-Hamas demonstrators in Geneva, Switzerland. Photo: Screenshot

After Hamas terrorists rampaged through southern Israel in a spree of murder and rape on October 7, Israel declared war on a Nazi-like enemy. No one in their right mind has seen this as an opportunity for diplomatic negotiations, let alone peace, with the genocidal terrorist organization.

Yet as time has gone by, a disturbing trend of treating Hamas as a legitimate partner has emerged in mainstream media coverage of the conflict.

The line of argument is two-fold: First, asserting that what Hamas has done shows that the Palestinian issue cannot be ignored. Second, misrepresenting the true character of Hamas. The conclusion, as seen in The Economist and Foreign Affairs magazines, is an implicit legitimization of evil.

The Economist, in a recent piece titled “Does Hamas want to keep fighting Israel or start talking peace?” effectively validates what the terror group wanted to achieve on October 7:

It then moves on to the second point: a misrepresentation of what Hamas stands for. By claiming that the terrorist group is divided between so-called “moderates” abroad and “extremists” in Gaza, it creates the absurd impression that peace with the right leadership may be possible:

… it also depends on high-stakes struggles within Hamas: between a radical wing in Gaza and more moderate elements in exile in Qatar and Lebanon; between those aligned closely with Iran and its “axis of resistance” and those wanting closer ties with Arab governments; and crucially over whether to implicitly recognize Israel or to keep fighting to exterminate it. Who wins these arguments will affect whether a peace deal based on a Palestinian state alongside Israel can ever materialize.

Based on that, what follows is a skewed attempt to portray the 1988 Hamas’ founding charter, a document that calls for the annihilation of Israel, as irrelevant. Why? Because in 2017 the “moderate” former Hamas chief, Khaled Meshal, pushed for the publication of a revised document that endorsed a Palestinian state in the 1967 borders.

No where does The Economist mention that Meshal himself had made clear that the new document does not replace the original one. The Economist also ignores various expert views who claimed the new document was merely a rhetorical attempt by Hamas to widen its global appeal while continuing with its violent activity.

Instead, the magazine relies on “Hamas people” to give the impression that Yehya Sinwar, the mastermind behind the deadly October 7 attack on Israel and a convicted mass murderer, became “more extreme” after the 2017 document failed to lead to a political settlement with Israel:

Mr Sinwar had signed up to to the new charter, but became more extreme after it failed to lead to a political settlement with Israel, Hamas people say. The attack on October 7th marked the ascendancy of the extremists.

To avoid contradicting the entire premise of the article, The Economist concludes by infantilizing Hamas, saying it would have to stop being “a spoiler of peace” — an apologetic term masking the group’s own description as a glorifier of war.

Good vs. Evil

Similar patterns of whitewashing Hamas appear in a recent Foreign Affairs piece, whose headline reads: “Extend the Cease-Fire in Gaza — but Don’t Stop There.”

Like The Economist article, this piece begins by claiming that the Israeli-Palestinian issue cannot be ignored any longer. But instead of seeing Israel’s goal of wiping out Hamas as a possible way forward, the writers deduce that the terrorist group (through intermediaries) should eventually be invited to the negotiating table:

… if an extended cease-fire holds, Washington should immediately convene the parties that met in February to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and issued the so-called Aqaba Communique: Egypt, Israel, Jordan, the United States, and representatives of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). This time, however, Turkey and Qatar—U.S. security partners who maintain open channels to Iran and Hamas—should be invited, as well.

The explanation for this completely ignores Hamas’ intentions to destroy Israel, as expressed in its founding manifesto. Instead of labeling the terrorist group’s ideology as unacceptable or unrealistic, Foreign Affairs writers choose to describe Israel’s stated goal of “ending Hamas” as unrealistic:

If an extended cease-fire holds, it could pave the way for a resolution to the current war. Any agreement must end Israel’s blockade and functional imprisonment of Palestinian civilians in Gaza. It must also deny Hamas the capability to launch attacks on Israel. The Israeli government’s stated goal of “ending Hamas” is understandable in light of the group’s October 7 atrocities, but it is unrealistic. Hamas will endure as a political movement as long as the denial of Palestinian rights endures.

While claiming that “it is hard to imagine that anything good could come of the last two months of horror and bloodshed,” the piece ends with a utopian call for “a sustained diplomatic process” toward “a secure and peaceful future” for both sides.

But the October 7 attack, in which Hamas terrorists slaughtered, mutilated, and kidnapped innocent Israeli men, women, and children, should have obliterated any view that legitimizes the terrorist group as a political actor.

Why are respectable media outlets willfully blind to this fact, as well as to Hamas’ unwavering genocidal ideology? Why is wiping Hamas out — like the decision to wipe out the Nazis — not considered a preferable future solution?

The answer, at best, seems to be a misunderstanding of good and evil or, at worst, a tacit acceptance of the latter — especially when it’s targeted against Jews.