Why a NYT Article on a Hamas Leader Is Absurd

Photo Credit: Camera

Billboard posted by CAMERA during a previous Hamas war against Israel.

A recent New York Times article on Mousa Abu Marzouk, the head of Hamas’ foreign relations office shows a complete failure of journalism.

Writer Adam Rasgon’s article: “Hamas Official Expresses Reservations About October 7 Attack on Israel” centers around Marzouk telling him: “If it was expected that what happened would happen, there wouldn’t have been Oct.7.”

Any decent journalist would have then asked: “What did you expect Israel’s response to be?”

But Rasgon either didn’t ask it or didn’t print a response if he did.

Did Hamas think that after massacring 1,200 people, taking more than 250 hostages, burning people alive, videotaping it and posting it online, Israel would send over a fruit basket?

Did Hamas think Israel would not attack and would do an immediate prisoner “swap?” since Israel had been willing to previously release 1,027 prisoners for a single soldier, Gilad Shalit?

Or did Hamas think Hezbollah and Iran would also attack and Israel could be severely damaged, with some territories conquered?

The absurd article conveniently makes no mention of Yahya Sinwar, who Israel released in the Shalit deal and who masterminded the October 7 attacks. It doesn’t mention that a Hamas official said the terrorist group would do October 7 again.

The article doesn’t mention that a Hamas official, when asked why there were no bomb shelters for unarmed Palestinians who were not allowed to hide in tunnels, said that was the responsibility of the UN.

One would think a New York Times writer interviewing the head of “foreign relations” might ask if he thought it was a good idea to televise a party atmosphere with music and Palestinian children in the crowd watching caskets on a stage containing the corpses of a murdered Israeli baby, Kfir Bibas, young child, Ariel, and 83-year-old Oded Lifshitz. But no! Instead of that, we get Hamas-justifier, attorney Stanley Cohen, who says that Marzouk “is not a nihilist. He would not support any action that he believed would bring unprecedented, wholesale retaliation.”

Wasn’t October 7 unprecedented? But forget about that! Hamas guys are regular joes! You can have a beer with them. Look even a Jew named Stanley is a “longtime” friend of Marzouk. Of course, the writer doesn’t include that Cohen has represented Hamas and Hezbollah officials and proudly has said in interviews that he “fights Zionism” and that the establishment of Israel was antisemitic. They didn’t meet on Friendster.com. This omission makes the article even less credible.

The article further seeks to normalize Marzouk by printing is comment that in a way Hamas could say it as one similar to “an average person” surviving Mike Tyson’s punches but not necessarily winning the bout. What a great analogy! Oh wait, boxers get into the ring, are paid and sign contracts and know they will get hurt whereas Israeli citizens who go to a music event sign up to dance, not to get murdered.

Perhaps the most perplexing element of the article is that it cites the now assassinated Hassan Nasrallah’s statement in 2006 that he would not have ordered the kidnapping and murder of Israeli soldiers had he known Israel would have invaded. Nasrallah may have been telling the truth; it was not a sure thing that Israel would attack in July of 2006, after soldiers Ehud Goldwasser and Eldad Regev were kidnapped/murdered. But considering that Israel did go to war over a handful of soldiers, all the more so it would launch a full invasion after October 7. Again, the writer fails to see the absurdity, nor does he mention that this may be why Hezbollah did not take part in a larger scale assault after Oct. 7. Nasrallah likely thought by only killing some in Israel but not sending a mass of terrorists to cross into Israel’s border, he would remain alive. It was of course a severe miscalculation.

In addition, if Marzouk played no part in the decision to attack on October 7, who cares what he says? People who would like to normalize Hamas and want them to be a part of whatever government eventually takes over.

Journalists have the right to interview anyone, but they should ask real questions and not attempt to fool readers by omitting crucial information. It is noteworthy that if one has watched any of the Piers Morgan debates, whenever anyone arguing on the Palestinian side is asked how Israel should have reacted, they change the subject and don’t answer, because they have no answer.

I would have liked the writer to have asked him to respond to the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia’s recent comment that the televised coffin spectacle was “a disgrace to Islam, an act of blasphemy against Allah.” Nor was Marzouk asked if he felt guilty so many Palestinians have died due to October 7.

But of course, such questions are not asked. That would go against the narrative.