Hamas Is Destroying the Foundations of a Palestinian State
A detailed response to the Financial Times editorial that accuses Israel of erasing the path to Palestinian sovereignty — while ignoring who’s actually lighting the match
Barely had my critical response to Piers Morgan’s misconceptions cooled off when the Financial Times published a strikingly similar piece — as if copied from the same template, only with even more sweeping accusations against Israel. So, what exactly went wrong with the analysis in this reputable paper?
The article opens straightaway with claims that the IDF opened fire this week on desperate civilians rushing toward food aid. But wouldn’t it be useful to clarify which incident we’re actually talking about here? Perhaps the one initially circulated by media outlets based solely on Hamas sources — and later debunked as an outright fabrication? Or maybe the second one, in which Gaza’s Hamas-run Health Ministry reported dozens of deaths — a claim that was also discredited, while the IDF’s own statement was taken out of context and misrepresented? In reality, the IDF’s report, as usual in such cases, was transparent and specific.
Here’s the IDF’s official statement:
“Earlier today, during the movement of the crowd along the designated routes toward the aid distribution site—approximately half a kilometer from the site—IDF troops identified several suspects moving toward them, deviating from the designated routes. The troops carried out warning fire, and after the suspects failed to retreat, additional shots were directed near individual suspects who advanced toward the troops.
The IDF is aware of reports regarding casualties, and the details of the incident are being looked into.”
And here’s how major media outlets like CNN, BBC, and Sky News reported the exact same event on the same day — take Sky News, for example:
“24 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli fire while waiting for aid in Rafah, according to Gaza’s Hamas-run health ministry. The IDF says shots were fired after individuals approached in a way that ‘posed a threat.’”
Why bother with investigations when Hamas can provide ready-to-publish “breaking news” within 15 minutes of any event — no verification, no editorial oversight needed? And of course, if this narrative conveniently aligns with the editorial stance of the outlet, then what could be more perfect? A gift, really — isn’t it?
Now here’s a pattern that never fails to infuriate me: these days, any article condemning Israel but pretending to be “objective” always includes a token sentence condemning Hamas and a perfunctory reference to October 7th. This formulaic gesture utterly trivializes the immense tragedy suffered by the Jewish people — much like the distorted, casual overuse of the word “genocide.” In my view, it’s revolting. A journalist who uses this technique shows not a shred of genuine compassion, and in doing so, dehumanizes the victims of the massacre — as if brushing it aside to quickly move on to the main course: Israel-blaming.
To be fair, the author of this article doesn’t even bother to feign sympathy for Israel. Instead, the entire narrative is built on emotionally loaded rhetoric with no substantiating evidence to speak of.
Here are just a few phrases from the article that paint the entire piece in a single, accusatory tone:
• “Israeli forces have this week fired on people rushing desperately to collect food aid.”
• “The horrors of Gaza have overshadowed Israel’s assault in the West Bank.”
• “suspected war crime…”
• “more occupation, possibly annexation…”
This is a textbook case of blame-shifting — the kind where the actual perpetrators hide behind civilians, sabotage humanitarian aid, and even attack their own people, yet somehow evade accountability. Not a single word about the hostages Hamas still holds, the looted aid convoys, or the relentless disinformation campaign aimed at misleading the global public.
The article repeatedly emphasizes that Gaza’s civilians shouldn’t be punished for Hamas’s crimes — while accusing Israel of collective punishment across the board.
Let me pause here for a second. Even without dissecting the entire piece — just skimming its surface — I could already feel the raw propagandistic charge it carries. You can only imagine what kind of conclusions a credulous reader might draw after consuming it in full.
The article leans heavily on emotionally charged, legally loaded terminology, tossed around without evidence or precision. Its sources are the usual vague and unverifiable suspects — “Palestinian officials,” “international aid agencies,” “hospital officials in Gaza” — the sort of references everyone seems to invoke these days when they want to shield themselves from scrutiny.
Then there’s the accusation that Israel refuses to let foreign journalists enter the combat zone — as if that, in itself, proves it has something to hide. But let’s be honest: what happens if half of those journalists get killed because Hamas doesn’t care who it shoots at? Who do you think will be blamed for those deaths? There are strict safety protocols in place, and for good reason. War zones are not amusement parks.
“Finally, they should lead the way in formally recognising a Palestinian state, before there is nothing left to recognise.”
Why now?
Why not mention that since 1948, the Palestinian leadership has rejected the two-state solution eight separate times — while Israel repeatedly agreed?
Maybe the real reason is they never wanted a state in the first place. After all, sovereignty comes with inconvenient responsibilities: building an economy, investing in science and trade.
But why bother with that when you can rely on billions in international aid while preserving a unique, inherited refugee status — one that contradicts the very charter of the United Nations, which oddly makes an exception only in their case?
The author accuses Western nations of hypocrisy and double standards, yet fails to mention that Hamas is under no pressure whatsoever to abide by international law — unlike Israel, which is expected to operate under intense global scrutiny and strict legal constraints.
Israel, on the other hand, is held to the strictest of standards and expected to “play by the rules,” even under existential threat.
And here we arrive at a paradox: calls to recognize a “state” entirely controlled by a terrorist organization — one that openly rejects Israel’s existence and seeks its destruction.
To debunk every distorted claim in this piece would require a response three times its length, and I won’t waste time refuting every single line. Instead, let me highlight just a few more critical points.
The article casually states that 54,000 people have died in Gaza since the start of the war — as if that number were an uncontested fact. In reality, those figures come from Gaza’s Ministry of Health, which is controlled by Hamas. Israeli statistics, which distinguish between combatants and civilians, are conveniently ignored.
Also absent is any mention of Hamas’s long-declared strategy of maximizing civilian casualties — something its own leaders have openly admitted.
The entire piece is saturated with emotionally manipulative slogans and accusatory clichés (to the author’s credit, he did put in the effort). All of it masquerades as a pursuit of justice but is clearly designed to lead the reader to one conclusion only.
Of course, a systemic analysis of the conflict’s origins was too much to hope for — because if that had been included, the article would have crumbled under the weight of facts that contradict its central premise.
Ultimately, any rational reader will recognize that this article completely disregards the grim reality on the ground — the profound moral dilemma of confronting a terrorist organization entrenched in an urban environment, where every hospital and school is transformed into a fortified combat post, interconnected by a labyrinth of tunnels.
There is no mention of the fate of the hostages, no accounting of the countless war crimes committed by the terrorist group, no examination of Hamas’s actions or underlying motives.
Instead, the narrative is reduced to a one-dimensional demonization of Israel, presenting the Palestinian side as the sole, blameless victim in this conflict.
So when the article claims that “Israel is destroying the foundations of a Palestinian state,” I can’t help but reframe the headline. Because if you take a step back and look at the full picture — the indoctrination of children, the decades Gaza spent preparing for war, the hundreds of kilometers of tunnels dug right under the noses of international observers, the massacre of October 7th, the taking of hostages, the looting of aid convoys, the systematic rejection of peace, and the explicit promises to destroy Israel — then the truth becomes unmistakably clear:
Hamas is destroying the foundations of a Palestinian state.
Hamas is expressing what a Palestinian state would look like. Good thing we'll never have to have one.
The possibility of a Palestinian state train left the station a very long time ago. I would say it never even truly made it to the station.