The air around Hamas seems thinner, the once-vibrant chorus of praise and condemnation fading into a quieter hum. The dramatic pronouncements, the breathless pronouncements of the past few years—of Hamas's near-mythical prowess—have largely subsided. Why? The answer, while multifaceted, likely lies in the group's recent military performance.

Two years ago, the floods in Gaza were portrayed as a devastating blow to Israel, a symbol of Hamas's resilience. A year later, Hamas was heralded as a force capable of confronting Israel's most formidable military equipment. A few months after that, the group was celebrated as a defiant underdog. These narratives, while captivating, have encountered a chilling reality. Hamas's military campaigns, once depicted as heroic victories, have demonstrably faltered. Claims of single-handedly defeating Israeli forces, of effortlessly breaching fortifications, are now significantly harder to maintain in light of the actual battlefield outcomes.

The shift in the narrative is clear. The very conditions that fueled the intense debate—the perceived strength and defiance of Hamas—are now demonstrably less potent. The recent declarations of surrender, the agreements to shift their focus, and the lack of significant military gains have all contributed to a significant decrease in the public's interest and, consequently, the fervor of the debate. The author's observation that "巧妇也难为无米之吹" (even a skilled cook can't cook without ingredients) perfectly encapsulates this shift. The diminished capacity for Hamas to deliver on the earlier, sensationalized promises has led to a natural cooling of the rhetoric, both pro- and anti-.

This observation is particularly poignant in the context of the current international climate. The decrease in the intensity of the discussion suggests a growing awareness that the narrative has become less relevant, perhaps even less impactful. The very act of generating such intense debate now seems somewhat distant from immediate geopolitical concerns.

Turning to the second part of the original content, the author's observation regarding American history textbooks reveals a different, yet related, perspective on narrative control. The absence of "Four Ancient Civilizations" (a concept central to many introductory Chinese history courses) suggests a deliberate choice to focus on periods of significant technological and cultural advancement. This approach prioritizes specific historical events and milestones, potentially shaping students' understanding of historical development in a way that emphasizes certain themes over others. The focus on periods of "civilization bursts" might also lead to a different understanding of historical progress, possibly emphasizing the interconnectedness of cultures and the exchange of ideas across time. This raises important questions about the ways in which history is presented and the narratives that are emphasized, particularly in the context of a globalized world.

In conclusion, the quieter tone around Hamas reflects the changing realities on the ground. The diminishing military effectiveness of the group has led to a cooling of the debate, both pro- and anti-. Meanwhile, the author's observation about American history textbooks highlights the choices made in shaping historical narratives and the potential impact on student understanding. Both instances reveal how narratives, whether in the realm of politics or education, can be influenced and shaped, often with a specific agenda in mind.