One would have to be a moron not to understand that the Hamas “March of Return” from Gaza to Israel is a variation on a theme. The theme is set forth in its original “Covenant” of 1988 calling for “the liberation of Palestine” (i.e., Israel’s destruction) in the “struggle against Zionism.” (The 2010 revision is, shall we say, subject to interpretation.)
Subtlety is not a Hamas selling point. Yet the New York Times and other such media outfits serve reliably as the public relations arm of this band of murderers, holding it out as a sort of civil rights organization. See, for example, the article by Isabel Kershner and Iyad Abuhewila on yesterday’s “march” action at the border. Indeed, the Times ventures here beyond the phenomenon of useful idiocy to something approaching collusion (“Friday’s flare-up, ignited by isolation and economic deprivation”).
Caroline Glick anticipated the service rendered by the Times to Hamas in her column “Hamas’s partners in its war against Israel” and she obviously has a point. Even given the predictable bent of the Times’s coverage, today’s story vividly illustrates Glick’s thesis: “Hamas’s strategy of harming Israel by forcing its soldiers to kill Palestinians is predicated on its certainty that the Western media will act as its partner and ensure the success of its lethal propaganda stunt.”
Times of Israel editor David Horovitz is a man of moderate temperament and disposition, but today he feels compelled to offer a primer a primer on Hamas and history in “Just in case anybody forgot what Hamas’s ‘March of Return’ is really all about.” Compare and contrast Horovitz’s primer with the Times’s eyewash.