Negotiating from a place of oppression

The New York Times tries to figure out why a cease-fire hasn't happened in Gaza

I don’t know when it happened but at some point I started hate-following the New York Times, receiving their Morning newsletter. I’ve written at least a couple of substack articles as reactionary, knee-jerk responses to their headlines (and no, I’m not crossing the paywall to read more).

Hoooooooo boy, it’s time for another installment of Casey’s hate-reading of NYT headlines.

The headline here is Will Hamas say no? Jullian E. Barnes is setting out to answer the pressing question. Why won’t Hamas just accept a ceasefire?

Seems like a good question. Some of us (not the New York Times staff, mind you) have been loudly calling for a ceasefire this whole time. Tens of thousands of college students, faculty members and others are occupying campuses to call for just that. US politicians have been calling for Hamas to surrender to Israel since October 7th (and well before that, for what it’s worth).

How could Hamas be so cruel as to perpetuate this war? Especially when their own side has lost tens of thousands of women and children to the ceaseless bombardment of the miniscule space they have been kept in? The one many have described as an open air prison?

One clue to the puzzle might be something Barnes hides in the fourth paragraph. Like a modern-day Sherlock Holmes he’s uncovered the truth.

Are you ready for it?

You’re not ready for it.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, pledged yesterday to strike Rafah with or without a hostage deal.

Ok so stay with me here. There is one side with infinitely more power. That side happens to have the backing of the world’s greatest military superpower. The other side is over 40% 14 years old or younger. The stronger side controls the flow of food and medicine to the weaker side. The stronger side has thousands of hostages and political prisoners. The weaker side has less than a thousand.

If you’re still asking yourself why Hamas wouldn’t surrender their only bargaining chip, maybe read that paragraph again.

But if you still can’t understand, look back at the quote. It’s right there. Barnes somehow keeps staring in wonder at the original question but it’s right there. Regardless of whether or not Hamas surrenders, Israel will still further bomb and destroy what little is left of Gaza.

Look closely the next time you see an article claiming Hamas is being unreasonable in its demands. Their formulation is consistent and simple.

We’ll return the hostages in return for an end of your military campaign against us.

And yet Barnes ends this idiotic mini-article with a phrase that makes you wonder if he got stoned in the middle of writing the several hundred words.

But that all requires Hamas saying yes to a first phase. So far, the answer has been no.

Yeah, well when the best case scenario includes further destruction of women, children, hospitals, universities and apartment complexes maybe that’s not a serious offer.

These are not stupid people. Barnes is a Harvard grad. He writes on the CIA. I am fully willing to admit I get my understanding of war, peace, world politics, negotiations and the like from books, podcasts and a few beautiful people I have had the privilege to know personally.

So I can only conclude the obvious. Barnes and the New York Times are not only being outright deceitful in their coverage, pretending to ask hard questions while ignoring basic answers, but something perhaps worse. There is a true contempt for the intelligence of the reader here.

Thank God thousands of students and 70% of Americans see through this utter facade. And bullshit.

No wonder nobody trusts these people.