It should be abundantly clear that the Gazans and their elected leadership brought the present war on themselves.

Here’s Charles Krauthammer, for instance, writing in the Washington Post [emphasis added]:

Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d’etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.

Even the Arab states of the region have turned their backs on this Hamas-inspired conflict, as reported by The Clarion Project:

In an unprecedented development, Hamas is being held responsible for its provocations, and Islamists' calls to action are being ignored. As Hamas continues putting Israeli and Palestinian lives in jeopardy by rejecting a ceasefire and firing rockets, the Islamist terrorist group must be disappointed at the Muslim world’s reaction. Hamas did not get the usual reflexive support and fiery backlash against Israel. In fact, it appears that the terrorist group’s largest support is coming from protests in Europe.

The latest round of fighting is remarkable in what did not happen. There weren’t automatic mass demonstrations against Israel and the West. No major riots or countless photographs of Israeli and American flags on fire across the region. No violence against diplomatic facilities. Even though Fatah fired missiles, there was no large-scale uprising in the West Bank.

They’re all out of step, it seems, but the Gray Lady. In an op-ed by Nathan Thrall of the International Crisis Group, we are told that the whole thing is all Israel’s fault:

JERUSALEM -- As Hamas fires rockets at Israeli cities and Israel follows up its extensive airstrikes with a ground operation in the Gaza Strip, the most immediate cause of this latest war has been ignored: Israel and much of the international community placed a prohibitive set of obstacles in the way of the Palestinian “national consensus” government that was formed in early June.

He proceeds to go into a long and twisted narrative in which he “explains” how Israel was a main actor in forcing the Gazans to go to war with it. No mention of the years of constant rocketry before the present escalation. And Thrall bends over backward to avoid mentioning the elephant in his room, the unbending and all-consuming dedication of Gaza’s leadership to the utter destruction of Israel. Thrall winds up his screed with this bizarre conclusion:

The current escalation in Gaza is a direct result of the choice by Israel and the West to obstruct the implementation of the April 2014 Palestinian reconciliation agreement. The road out of the crisis is a reversal of that policy.

Perhaps this op-ed is the Times’s way of presenting its true view of the war without having to expose it in its editorial columns.