Average college students cannot and will not read and write

The New Neo Posted on by

This is one of the more depressing articles I’ve read lately. And yet nothing in it is a real surprise. The trends have been going on for many decades, and although the piece emphasizes the pernicious influence of cellphones and AI, it started long before those things were commonly available.

For example, during the 1980s my then-husband was a college professor at a fairly decent state university. He would periodically assign short essays on exams, and noted to me how many of the students could not write at all coherently. It’s not just that they weren’t reading the material, although that was often the case as well. But they didn’t seem to know anything about sentence structure, punctuation, or even logical thought.

It was profoundly disturbing. At the time, my husband and I weren’t all that far removed from being students ourselves. And yet as students we’d not seen anything like what he was seeing just a few short years later. Granted, we hadn’t been teachers or engaged in grading papers while we were students (he was a teaching assistant as a grad student, but had only graded objective exams). But still, it was a shock to see work from university students that would have gotten a poor grade from my 5th grade teacher in a New York public school.

This is what it’s come down to these days:

I teach at a regional public university in the US. Our students are average on just about any dimension you care to name—aspirations, intellect, socio-economic status, physical fitness. They wear hoodies and yoga pants and like Buffalo wings. They listen to Zach Bryan and Taylor Swift. That’s in no way a put-down: I firmly believe that the average citizen deserves a shot at a good education and even more importantly a shot at a good life. All I mean is that our students are representative; they’re neither the bottom of the academic barrel nor the cream off the top. …

Most of our students are functionally illiterate. This is not a joke. By “functionally illiterate” I mean “unable to read and comprehend adult novels by people like Barbara Kingsolver, Colson Whitehead, and Richard Powers.” …

I’m not saying our students just prefer genre books or graphic novels or whatever. No, our average graduate literally could not read a serious adult novel cover-to-cover and understand what they read. They just couldn’t do it. They don’t have the desire to try, the vocabulary to grasp what they read, and most certainly not the attention span to finish.

Has reading an entire book ever even been asked of them? We read Dostoevsky and Melville in my high school, but then again I was in an honors class. I get the impression that, somewhere long the line, such classes were banned in many schools as elitist and discriminatory.

More:

Students are not absolutely illiterate in the sense of being unable to sound out any words whatsoever. Reading bores them, though. They are impatient to get through whatever burden of reading they have to, and move their eyes over the words just to get it done. They’re like me clicking through a mandatory online HR training. Students get exam questions wrong simply because they didn’t even take the time to read the question properly. Reading anything more than a menu is a chore and to be avoided.

Even I, once a voracious book reader, find that I no longer have the patience for an entire book except for a few exceptions. I am indeed more impatient than I used to be; much more. Is due to my age? Is it due to my getting used to the shorter offerings online? Then again, I preferred short stories to novels even in pre-internet days, although I made an exception for a few novels such as Crime and Punishment, Jane Eyre, David Copperfield, and Moby Dick. But in high school I could barely slog through The Scarlet Letter for example, although it was useful for vocabulary expansion (Hawthorne used a lot of words I found obscure at the time, despite the fact that I already had a good vocabulary).

And if we couldn’t or wouldn’t write coherently about those books we weren’t going to pass those courses. And this was in a NYC high school that catered mainly to working-class students in a non-affluent area – although, as I said, I was in the honors classes. I very much doubt the “regular” English classes had a similar reading list.

But more about today’s students:

They also lie about it. I wrote the textbook for a course I regularly teach. It’s a fairly popular textbook, so I’m assuming it is not terribly written. I did everything I could to make the writing lively and packed with my most engaging examples. The majority of students don’t read it. Oh, they will come to my office hours (occasionally) because they are bombing the course, and tell me that they have been doing the reading, but it’s obvious they are lying. The most charitable interpretation is that they looked at some of the words, didn’t understand anything, pretended that counted as reading, and returned to looking at TikTok. …

Their writing skills are at the 8th-grade level. Spelling is atrocious, grammar is random, and the correct use of apostrophes is cause for celebration. Worse is the resistance to original thought. What I mean is the reflexive submission of the cheapest cliché as novel insight.

That last paragraph represents something with a long history – something I believe Holden Caulfield referred to as “slinging the old bull” (Kamala Harris was a master at the practice, too). But Holden never had access to AI:

I can’t assign papers any more because I’ll just get AI back, and there’s nothing I can do to make it stop. Sadly, not writing exacerbates their illiteracy; writing is a muscle and dedicated writing is a workout for the mind as well as the pen.

When the author gets around to trying to explain some of this, he lists the following, among other things:

Chronic absenteeism. As a friend in Sociology put it, “Attendance is a HUGE problem—many just treat class as optional.” Last semester across all sections, my average student missed two weeks of class. …

Disappearing students. Students routinely just vanish at some point during the semester. They don’t officially drop or withdraw from the course, they simply quit coming. …

They can’t sit in a seat for 50 minutes. Students routinely get up during a 50 minute class, sometimes just 15 minutes in, and leave the classroom. I’m supposed to believe that they suddenly, urgently need the toilet, but the reality is that they are going to look at their phones.

I must admit something, which is that I have a fair amount of identification with those students. I was an excellent student with fabulous grades. However, I almost always experienced school as a hateful and intensely boring experience. The times I had an interesting teacher were few and far between, and I can count about only about six or seven teachers and/or professors in my entire career that I would describe that way. I also have little patience for auditory learning, and lectures were a big snooze and made me physically restless, although I had no cellphone or other distractions and did not suffer from ADD. What I remember of school, almost from the start, is the nearly-painful experience of intense boredom and restlessness.

In college, because we were allowed to smoke in class (!), I sat way in the back in large lecture halls and chain-smoked, trying to blow the perfect smoke ring in order to amuse myself (and no, I never inhaled; couldn’t stand it). I also created elaborate doodles, took desultory notes, and often cut classes and/or “disappeared” for most of the term, only to re-surface for the exam. Nevertheless, I was big reader – and certainly read the assigned novels, although not always the other texts except for skimming. Nevertheless, for the most part I did very well in school.

Am I proud of my relative non-participation? No, most definitely not. I wish I had been more engaged; I think I could have gotten a great deal more out of my education if I had been. But I was always interested in learning itself, and did quite a bit of it outside class. But my experience means that I can identify with what is being described in terms of the behavior of today’s students. I’m very glad there was no internet and no social media when I was growing up; both probably would have had a bad effect on me. I’m also glad that my son was in grad school before cellphones started to become ubiquitous.

I worry about my grandchildren, of course. They are very young now and don’t even have cellphones. But at some point those things will intrude, and I just have to hope that they will grow up with good values and strong abilities despite the temptations.

Religiosity and support for israel

The New Neo Posted on by

Support for Israel seems to be correlated with degree of religiosity, whether the religion is Christian or Jewish.

Obviously, the same would not be the case if the religion is Islam.

Here’s more:

The political arm of Reform Judaism is publicly opposing Huckabee [for the post of ambassador to Israel]. So too are the left-wing lobby J Street and the Jewish Democratic Council of America. The Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella group of Jewish community relations councils around the country, didn’t condemn the nomination outright but made clear its disdain for him with comments deprecating him as a “Christian nationalist.”

These views were summed up in an op-ed published in The Hill by Lily Greenberg Call, a veteran Democratic operative who had worked for the campaigns of former President Joe Biden and former Vice President Kamala Harris and resigned from a post at the Department of the Interior because she felt the Biden-Harris administration was too supportive of Israel after the Oct. 7, 2023 massacre. “Unconditionally supporting Israel actually makes Jews unsafe” and the Jewish state is “antithetical” to “Jewish values,” Call asserted.

On the other side of the issue, more mainstream, liberal Jewish groups like the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee said that they looked forward to working with Huckabee. More ardently pro-Israel groups like the Zionist Organization of America and the Orthodox Union endorsed him enthusiastically.

The opposition to Huckabee – and to Israel itself – is from leftist people of Jewish background, who are leftists first. Leftists do not, for the most part, like religion. In fact, leftism has often been described (not by leftists, however) as a replacement for religion and a type of godless quasi-religion. The reason leftists seem to have a soft spot in their hearts for Moslems is the exception, but that is based on Moslems supposed status as oppressed peoples, not their religiosity.

The leftists I know, some of whom are Jewish but not the majority, detest religion and look down on those who practice it or believe in it as irrational troglodytes. But I’d never heard the phrase “Christian nationalism” prior to reading the linked article. Here’s how it is explained by the author:

Przybyla condemned political conservatives and Trump backers as “Christian nationalists,” because they believe that the rights of all Americans “don’t come from any earthly authority,” she said “They don’t come from Congress or the Supreme Court. They come from God.”

That is something that Huckabee believes. But that belief was shared by all of America’s Founding Fathers, not least a non-denominational Deist like Thomas Jefferson. It was, after all, the man who would eventually become the third president of the United States who wrote in the Declaration of Independence that it was “self-evident” that all Americans were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

It’s either abysmal ignorance on the part of Przybyla, or refusal to accept the stance of the Founders. It hardly matters which; it’s a common notion, that of the negation of what’s known as “natural rights” and their religious basis in the beliefs of the Founders. It’s something I discussed previously in this post about Allan Bloom and his book The Closing of the American Mind, written in 1987. The following is a quote from the book:

But the unity, grandeur and attendant folklore of the founding heritage was attacked from so many directions in the last half-century that it gradually disappeared from daily life and from textbooks. It all began to seem like Washington and the cherry tree—not the sort of thing to teach children seriously. What is influential in the higher intellectual circles always ends up in the schools. The leading ideas of the Declaration began to be understood as eighteenth-century myths or ideologies. Historicism, in Carl Becker’s version (The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, 1922) both cast doubt on the truth of the natural rights teaching and optimistically promised that it would provide a substitute. Similarly Dewey’s pragmatism—the method of science as the method of democracy, individual growth without limits, especially natural limits—saw the past as radically imperfect and regarded our history as irrelevant or as a hindrance to rational analysis of our present. Then there was Marxist debunking of the Charles Beard variety, trying to demonstrate that there was no public spirit, only private concern for property, in the Founding Fathers, thus weakening our convictions of the truth or superiority of American principles and our heroes (An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution, 1913). Then the Southern historians and writers avenged the victory of the antislavery Union by providing low motives for the North (incorporating European critiques of commerce and technology) and idealizing the South’s way of life. Finally, in curious harmony with the Southerners, the radicals in the civil rights movement succeeded in promoting a popular conviction that the Founding was, and the American principles are, racist…

Students now arrive at the university ignorant and cynical about our political heritage, lacking the wherewithal to be either inspired by it or seriously critical of it.

I repeat: that was published in 1987. In the nearly forty years since then, it has only gotten worse.

But back to the issue of support for Israel:

As a Gallup poll published last June suggested, support for Israel in the United States is primarily a function of religious faith. And declining religiosity is directly linked to growing hostility to Israel.

The survey, which tracked opinions about the Jewish state and the Palestinians over the last quarter-century, demonstrated that support for Israel was far more prevalent among those who attended religious services regularly, and it declined among those who did not attend a church or a synagogue.

The poll notes that Protestants have generally been most supportive of Israel and remain so, but the percentage of Protestants in the population has declined. Meanwhile, those with no religious identity have increased, and they are the group most likely to be sympathetic to the Palestinians – an embrace which is rather ironic, considering that fundamentalist Islam is a huge part of what motivates the Palestinians. But it’s not about logic.

More:

The percentage of Catholics in the U.S. population has remained about the same over time, but Catholics have shown a somewhat more significant increase in sympathy for the Palestinians in the past five years than is the case for Protestants.

I’m not sure what that’s about; perhaps the current Pope? Despite this increase in pro-Palestinian sentiment among Catholics, the majority are nevertheless supportive of Israel.

In general:

If younger Americans are less supportive of Israel than older ones, it is to some extent the result of their being less religious than their elders. The fact that people 29 or younger are also more likely to have been indoctrinated in the toxic neo-Marxist ideas of critical race theory, intersectionality and colonial-setter ideology that brands Israel and the Jews as “white” oppressors—and which is antithetical to traditional faith—is also part of this depressing trend.

As for Jews, the poll doesn’t tell us much for two reasons: the first is that the number of Jews was so small as to be susceptible to large margins of error, and the second is that religiosity among Jewish respondents wasn’t measured in any way. But we already know from other polls that, among Jews, the more religious the greater the support for Israel. The definition of “Jew” is, of course, different than definitions for other religious groups, because being Jewish also represents an ethnicity and does not require any religions belief at all. And yet nevertheless, according to recent polls, support among American Jews for Israel remains extremely high:

Strong earthquake in Burma causes many deaths and much destruction

The New Neo Posted on by

An 8.2 earthquake in Burma is estimated to have caused thousands of deaths, although the figures are unknown as yet. But it sounds very very bad:

An air traffic control tower collapsed at Naypyidaw International Airport, killing all staff who were on duty, Burmese media said. …

Mandalay’s Ava Bridge collapsed into the Irrawaddy River after the quake, and buildings and temples lie in ruins.

Many homes have collapsed, and even some buildings in Thailand have been destroyed.

RIP.

Blaming Bibi: documentary about the family of a hostage

The New Neo Posted on by

The harrowing plight of the remaining hostages, and their loved ones and friends, should not be forgotten. Their are still about 59 and perhaps half of them are still alive.

And so I read this piece with interest. It describes a documentary that focuses on one such family, with relatives both in Israel and in the US.

The hostage families are not a unitary group, and even within this family there apparently are considerable political differences of opinion. And I consider that the families of hostages have undergone such stress, turmoil, fear, and sorrow that they are almost beyond criticism for anything they might do or say. However, quite a few of them are on the Israeli left and have long hated Netanyahu, and it should come as no surprise that they consider him blameworthy.

But two things in the article surprised me enough that I’m going to discuss them. First, a little background:

The film, which won the best documentary feature award at the Berlinale film festival, shows the first months after teacher Liat Beinin Atzili and her husband, artist and mechanic Aviv Atzili, were taken hostage in the attack on Kibbutz Nir Oz, part of the wider Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas assault on southern Israel in which some 1,200 people were killed and 251 taken hostage.

Much of the film focuses on Beinin Atzili’s older parents, American-born couple Yehuda and Chaya Beinin, who have lived in Israel since the early 1970s. They worked with the couple’s siblings and three children to get their daughter and son-in-law released.

As it turned out, Liat was released in that first wave, but Aviv had been murdered on October 7 and Hamas still holds his body.

Liat’s father Yehuda had this puzzling thing to say about the family’s initial attitude:

“We thought another couple of weeks and this would all be over,” said Beinin. “Nobody thought we’d be in this for the long haul.”

Why would anyone think that? I understand that it might have been wishful thinking, but it makes zero sense to me based on history. Beinin must be aware that the negotiations for a single hostage, Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, took five years to accomplish. Also, 1027 prisoners were exchanged for that one man, 280 of them lifers.

So how could anyone think this would “be over” in a couple of weeks, and why would that person not realize this would not just be a prisoners-for-hostages deal but would have to involve a war to destroy Hamas?

Yehuda Beinin is described in the article as a “peacenik” and “committed liberal who has long been opposed to the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.” So obviously he is going to see Netanyahu as the problem; perhaps that allows him to have a fantasy that this matter could have been resolved quickly and easily without Bibi. In fact, that leads to the second puzzling statement of Beinin’s:

It’s clear to Beinin that if Israel wants the remaining 59 hostages released, then Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “has to go,” he said. “The hostage families found themselves in a very difficult situation. There won’t be any resolution if he’s still prime minister.”

Well, I suppose he would be correct if Netanyahu was replaced by a leftist government willing to give Hamas everything it wants, keep Hamas in power, end all military operations and control of Gaza, and throw in a Palestinian state as well. But short of that, I can’t imagine what sort of magical thinking is required to think someone else would do better than Netanyahu – whose government, after all, made the deal that returned Liat Beinin Atzili to her family.

More:

And as [Yehuda] Beinin pointed out, both in the film and in interviews, he sometimes angers people, including his own grandchildren, when he brings in politics, and has tried to rein himself in.

So the family members are not united with him politically. And yet they have managed to work together. In addition, neither Liat nor Aviv’s relatives seem to want compromises in order to bring Aviv’s body home:

“Liat has said she doesn’t want a single hair on any Israeli soldier’s head harmed to bring Aviv home,” said Beinin. “And Aviv’s brother says if it will take twenty years to bring his body home, then it will take 20 years.”

I would be interested in seeing this movie if and when it becomes readily available.

Stefanik’s UN nomination withdrawn

The New Neo Posted on by

This seems wise to me:

President Donald Trump on Thursday withdrew his nomination of Rep. Elise Stefanik as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.

Trump cited the razor-thin majority that Republicans hold in the House of Representatives for his decision to pull Stefanik’s name from consideration by the Senate for the U.N. post.

The vote of Stefanik, a New York Republican, has repeatedly been crucial in helping the GOP caucus pass key legislation since the beginning of Trump’s term in January.

The full Senate for nearly two months had held off on voting on her ambassadorship nomination, after it was recommended by the Foreign Relations Committee, because of concerns that her departure from the House would threaten Trump’s legi

The post of ambassador to the UN is, I’m afraid, a rather meaningless job. Yes, it’s nice to have someone good in the position, but the task is to basically take orders from the White House and give ringing speeches at an institution that is hopelessly wrong-headed. Trump doesn’t need to threaten his own House majority in order to choose someone who can do that.

I was curious how the article would deal with the way in which NY Democrats have been handling the special election to replace Stefanik. Here’s the answer:

If Stefanik left the House, her seat would be filled by a special election in New York.

That leaves out the real reason why Trump removed her nomination:

“We still haven’t seen the final proposal from the Democrats in Albany, but there’s no doubt that Tammany Hall corruption is alive and well in the state capital,” Republican New York Assemblyman Matt Slater, who represents the state’s 94th district in areas of Putnam and Westchester counties, told Fox News Digital in an exclusive Zoom interview on Sunday morning.

“It is just blatantly corrupt for the New York State Democrats to keep changing the rules of engagement simply out of self-interest. Meanwhile, New Yorkers are struggling in so many different ways. U-Haul just gave us our worst migration rating ever because there’s so many New Yorkers who are fleeing this state. So they can get things done, but they only do it when it benefits them,” Slater continued.

Slater, who serves as the ranking Republican on the state’s Election Law Committee, was reacting to state Democrats working to introduce legislation that could keep Stefanik’s House seat vacant until June, when the state holds its scheduled primary elections.

And that’s not all. The Republicans of NY are doing a little dance, as well. Here’s the situation:

However, there is turmoil within New York Republicans because supposedly one Republican candidate, state Sen. Dan Stec, threatened to run as a third-party candidate if he did not win the Republican primary.

The state’s Conservative Party favored Stec despite him not supporting Trump and taking sides with the state’s Democrats.

What’s up with that? My guess – and it’s only a guess – is that, as in many deep blue states, the GOP in NY isn’t used to fighting to win. Many of them are in it for other reasons.

But there is a larger issue involving special elections and the GOP. I’ve noticed in the past it seems to be that, in special elections, the left mobilizes much better than the right. Turnout is ordinarily quite low in special elections and therefore it’s possible for a very motivated minority to win, and the left is certainly very motivated.

So, for example, we have this in Florida:

Voters in Florida’s 6th Congressional District, a Republican stronghold on Florida’s northeast coast, will head to the polls on Tuesday to elect a successor for the seat vacated by National Security Advisor Mike Waltz. In November, Waltz won reelection by a whopping 33-point margin and President Donald Trump won the district by 30 points.

Although Republican candidate Randy Fine is expected to eke out a win over his Democratic opponent Josh Weil, a new St. Pete Polls (for Florida Politics) survey shows Fine ahead by just 4 points, which falls within the poll’s margin of error.

Is it a skewed poll meant to put fear into the GOP? I have no idea, but the article mentions that another poll shows Republican Fine 13 points in the lead. However:

The general consensus is that Fine has run a lackluster campaign. For starters, he has been outraised by a staggering 10-to-1 margin.

That is common. The left has some very deep pockets and is not reluctant to dig into them when it matters. There is no question that they would early love to flip the House, and special elections are a tool for doing that.

It seemed short-sighted of Trump to nominate people from the House, with such a narrow majority and the threat of special elections to choose a successor. No district is “safe” under present-day conditions.

Biden and the press: now it can be told

The New Neo Posted on by

I think we already pretty much knew this, actually, merely by observing. But now it’s being admitted to:

Former President Joe Biden’s White House staff made “really unethical” demands of the press as part of a campaign to “bully” journalists into portraying the aging commander in chief in a good light, a former staffer revealed Tuesday.

“They did bully a lot of journalists, and I think they would tell you that now. They wouldn’t have told you at the time,” Michael LaRosa, who served as former first lady Jill Biden’s press secretary, told “The Young Turks” host Cenk Uygur.

The former president’s communications team, led by Anita Dunn, was “very hostile and very suspicious” of journalists and treated their jobs as if they were operating “out of a bunker,” LaRosa said. …

There was this thing in Biden world about quote approval, everything had to be on quote approval,” LaRosa said, explaining that the practice involved “one person” on Biden’s team deciding “what the reporter can use, what quotes they can use” after an interview with the president. …

“I mean you saw them get caught trying to script questions to radio reporters that summer, summer of 2024. It was very reminiscent to me of being on the campaign in 2020, where these young press staffers in these states like New Hampshire, or Iowa, or Nevada, they were sort of like dog trained to make the questions conditional for interviews,” he said.

“And I said to them, ‘Please never ask the journalist for the questions ahead of time. You can always ask about the topics, but do not ask them for the questions for Dr. Biden,’” LaRosa explained, claiming that he refused to take part in the practice when handling press for the former first lady.

Oh, how ethical of him! Jill didn’t need the help; Joe did. His was a Potemkin presidency, and the press was fully complicit.

And then there’s that name: Anita Dunn. She goes way back. I first mentioned her in 2009 when she worked for Obama and was blasting Fox as biased and holding up CNN as objective (unfortunately the video there no longer works).

Trump signs EO to promote US election security

The New Neo Posted on by

Nice try, although I doubt that this EO of Trump’s will hold up. The president does not have the authority to set nationwide voting rules for federal elections.

However, as you can see, the EO is cleverly drafted and in this particular form I suppose it might have a chance of court approval:

The order strengthens election integrity through a variety of mechanisms, including having the Election Assistance Commission require documentary, government-issued proof of U.S. citizenship on its voter registration forms, the administration said in a fact-sheet.

In order for states to receive federal funds for elections, they will be required to comply with “integrity measures set forth by Federal law, including the requirement that states use the national mail voter registration form that will now require proof of citizenship,” the document said.

“The Order improves the integrity of elections by directing the updating of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 and security standards for voting equipment and prioritizing federal grant funds accordingly,” the administration said. “This includes requiring a voter-verifiable paper ballot record and not using ballots in which the counted vote is contained within a barcode or QR code.” …

“All agencies must report on compliance with undoing Biden Executive Order 14019, which turned Federal agencies into Democratic voter turnout centers,” the document said.

The trick is that it doesn’t force states to do anything, but federal money is conditioned on compliance.

One of the things that is increasingly clear is that, by taking fairly commonsense approaches to a number of things, Trump pushes the left into taking more and more unpopular stances. Democrats for voting insecurity. Democrats for illegal violent gangs. Democrats for government fraud and waste.

ADDENDUM: And right on schedule, Governor Pritzker of Illinois claims that this will disenfranchise “millions.’

This woman is the president and CEO of NPR

The New Neo Posted on by

Mind-boggling.

When Twitter first came out, it struck me that a lot of people were revealing themselves through it. Did they think their tweets would not be noticed, or were ephemeral? Did a certain group contagion and abandon take hold? Did they think they were among friends?

Did they think at all?

And of course the notion of objectivity of coverage in the face of such a degree of partisanship is absurd.

And what of those Palestinian “protests”?

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve heard many people wonder why there have been so few Palestinian protests against Hamas. My response has been that there’s only a small percentage of Palestinians who aren’t onboard with Hamas and the war, and the consequences of protests would be dire. Gaza isn’t exactly a bastion of free speech.

But now we have this:

CAIRO — Thousands of Palestinians marched between the wreckage of a heavily destroyed town in northern Gaza on Wednesday in the second day of antiwar protests, with many chanting against Hamas in a rare display of public anger against the militant group.

The protests, which centered mainly on Gaza’s north, appeared to be aimed generally against the war, with protesters calling for an end to 17 months of deadly fighting with Israel that has made life in Gaza insufferable.

But the public calls against Hamas, which has long repressed dissent and still rules the territory months into the war with Israel, were rare.

In the town of Beit Lahiya, where a similar protest took place Tuesday, about 3,000 people demonstrated, with many chanting, “The people want the fall of Hamas.” In the hard-hit Shijaiyah neighborhood of Gaza City, dozens of men chanted “Out, out out! Hamas get out!”

“Our children have been killed. Our houses have been destroyed,” said Abed Radwan, who said he joined the protest in Beit Lahiya “against the war, against Hamas, and the [Palestinian political] factions, against Israel and against the world’s silence.” …

The militant group has violently cracked down on previous protests. This time no outright intervention was apparent, perhaps because Hamas is keeping a lower profile since Israel resumed war against it. …

Later, they said they regretted participating because of Israeli media coverage, which emphasized the opposition to Hamas.

So, what I take from it is that (a) it’s a very small group (b) they’re angry that they’ve had negative consequences from the war they started and probably supported (c) they want a breather from war, but their sentiments regarding Israel and its right to exist have not changed (d) they blame everybody; and (e) Hamas is choosing to take it easy on them, perhaps because it serves their “suffering Palestinians” narrative.

This may be the truth [my emphasis]:

A 19-year-old Palestinian, who also spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of retribution, said he planned to join demonstrations on Wednesday. His mother has cancer and his 10-year-old brother is hospitalized with cerebral palsy, and he said the family has been displaced multiple times since their home was destroyed.

“People are angry at the whole world,” including the United States, Israel and Hamas, he said. “We want Hamas to resolve this situation, return the hostages and end this whole thing.”

But truth is an elusive commodity in the Palestinian world. The whole thing may be some form of taqiyyah – that is, strategic deception. Hard to say. Actually, impossible to say. But I would guess there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the length of the war and its cost to the common Gazan. Having a temporary ceasefire gave them bit of respite, and then a resumption of the war must have seemed especially unwelcome. They believe that if the hostages were given up, the war would end. But I’m not so sure at this point; Israel cannot allow the situation to continue and leave Hamas or any similar group with similar goals in charge.