UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

anyone subscribing to or promoting nyt propaganda is aiding and abetting foreign and domestic terrorism.

Article describes innocent civilian prisoners as terrorist organization's bargaining power against Israel

As if the New York Times hadn't humiliated itself enough during their coverage of the war between Israel and terrorist organization Hamas. They found a way to make it even worse.

Hamas, remember, started the war on October 7, 2023, by invading Israel and massacring innocent Israeli civilians. They brought well over 100 more back to Gaza with them. Many were tortured or died in captivity. Hamas also used their own countrymen as civilian shields, setting up operations in hospitals and schools, with the intent of using propaganda to blame Israel for trying to root them out.

With the help of their partners in legacy media, it's been overwhelmingly effective. Whether through antisemitism or an obsession with viewing anyone of a different ethnicity as automatically oppressed, most media outlets have happily taken the bait. Hamas invents casualty figures, the media mindlessly repeats them. Hamas murders civilians, the media acts as though Israel is committing "war crimes." Israel responds to a monstrous, abhorrent attack by saying "never again," and Hamas is treated with sympathy.

Now that President Donald Trump has brokered a deal that returns the remaining hostages, you'd assume that in a sane, rational world, this would be cause for celebration. Innocent people are being returned to their families. Well, if their families are still alive after being attacked by terrorists two years ago, anyway. The war is over. The "ceasefire now" crowd got their way.

But even then, it's not enough for the progressives at the New York Times. Far from celebrating, their latest coverage of the agreement openly cheers for Hamas, wondering if the terrorist organization isn't making a mistake by giving up its "leverage" against Israel. That leverage, of course, being innocent civilian hostages. Seriously.

New York Times Embarrasses Itself, Yet Again

Earlier this week, the Times published a "News Analysis" article by Adam Rasgon that might be a new low for the once-reputable paper. Headlined "Hamas Takes a Big Risk in Deal to Release Hostages," it only gets worse from there.

Instead of accurately describing Hamas as a terrorist organization that should never have taken hostages, nor held them for over two years, Rasgon worries that Hamas might not get their way after releasing them. Describing human prisoners as "leverage."

"The Palestinian militant group is giving up much of the leverage it has with Israel," the subheading says, "with no guarantee some of its main demands will be met."

That's not a misrepresentation of the text of the article. In fact, it summarizes it well.


"Hamas took a significant risk by agreeing to release the remaining hostages in Gaza, giving up much of the leverage it has with Israel with no certainty that it would achieve all of what it wanted in return," it starts.

What are we doing here? What even is this? Imagine being the family members or friends of hostages who were held by a terrorist organization, underfed, potentially tortured, and hearing the New York Times describe your brother or husband or father as "leverage." Imagine not seeing them for two years because that same terrorist organization started a war by murdering over 1,000 innocent people, and having the Times express zero concern for your family member, instead worrying that the terrorists might not get their way.

Rasgon also worries that the deal requires the terrorists to trust Israel and the United States. Which, reminder, did not start this war.

"The outstanding issues include a plan for postwar governance of Gaza and Israel’s longstanding demand for Hamas to disarm.

"These officials said that, by agreeing, Hamas put its trust in the United States to ensure Israel does not restart the war."


The writer also openly hopes that Hamas is able to "extract concessions from Israel" that would leave it "with some access to weapons."

"In future negotiations, Hamas could still extract concessions from Israel, possibly leaving it with some access to weapons and a role in postwar Gaza," Rasgon writes.

Instead of accurately describing Hamas as, again, a murderous terrorist regime, Rasgon unquestioningly adopts their views on the conflict.

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has consistently said Hamas must be disarmed before the Gaza war can end. Hamas has long regarded that as tantamount to surrender and views armed struggle as a legitimate form of resistance against Israeli control over Palestinian lands," he says.

It's almost as if this is a press release issued by the leaders of Hamas, reprinted by the Times. Sure, it's awe-inspiring to see them openly root for Hamas to regain control. But it's not surprising. Because the guiding principle of the progressives that now run legacy media is undermining and ultimately destroying western values. Aligning themselves with Hamas is acceptable, because that terrorist organization also wants the obliteration of western values. Another new low.