It literally is uncertain. Like, that's what this development has created for those of us observing.

My point is that what Hamas agreed to isn't uncertain (at least at this point). IDK, maybe there's some timestamp issue where NYT published the OP article before it was clear... but as of last night (after the timestamp on the Al Jazeera article laying out everything in detail), the NYT wrote "Hamas’s Offer to Hand Over 33 Hostages Includes Some Who Are Dead". I still haven't seen any NYT article that simply lays out what the basic agreement details are; they seem to have wanted, with the "dead hostages" article, to just seize on an I-guess-technically-accurate data point and present it to make Hamas sound duplicitous and deadly, and then call it a day, with their readers still uninformed on the broad factual details of what was happening with the cease-fire talks.

"Militants" is a common usage term in journalism for combatants who are not or may not be formally a part of a state apparatus. Considering large parts of Hamas are 'off the books' of the local government in Gaza and a good number of those fighting currently are likely not regular soldiers, it's not unreasonable to call them militants.

From Wordnik:

from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

• adjective Fighting or warring.
• adjective Having a combative character; aggressive, especially in the service of a cause.
• noun A fighting, warring, or aggressive person or party.

from The Century Dictionary.

• Fighting; warring; engaged in warfare; pertaining to warfare or conflict.
• Having a combative character or tendency; warlike.

from WordNet 3.0 Copyright 2006 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.

• adjective disposed to warfare or hard-line policies
• adjective engaged in war
• noun a militant reformer
• adjective showing a fighting disposition

From Encyclopedia.com:

Militant, in contemporary academic, activist, and journalistic interpretations, refers to an individual (as a noun) or to a party, a struggle or a state (as an adjective), engaged in aggressive forms of social and political resistance.

My point is that by deciding that Hamas people with guns can't be "soldiers," but IDF people with guns can, the NYT is giving a subtle stamp of legitimacy to the IDF.

I get what you're saying -- it's not exactly a typical war. But I would argue that the IDF's conduct is also equally non-typical for a "normal" armed conflict between capable state actors. It's misleading to even call it a "war" -- it is, very literally, more of a terrorist operation by Israel, blowing up civilian infrastructure and killing innocent people to put pressure on the Gaza state apparatus (such as it even exists) to agree to political terms they otherwise would never accept, to stop the killing.

If we're calling Hamas "militants" out of pure desire for accuracy, can we start calling people who work for the IDF who blow up universities and snipe doctors "terrorists"? And mount a factual defense of that term, based on their conduct in the "war"? Because I think I could make a pretty good argument for why that term applies to them more accurately than "soldiers" and "war" for what's happening on the ground right now.