Ghazi Hamad, of terror group's politburo, hails the major assault in which civilians were systematically murdered, saying 'there will be a second, a third, a fourth'
To answer the question, what they think would happen: Their October 7th attacked achieved everything they wanted.
KSA and Israel we’re coming to an understanding and treaty, that was against the interests of Iran who is in a power struggle with the KSA.
After their attack, it is now politically impossible for the KSA and Israel to have a treaty. That alone justifies this entire conflict from their power politics perspective
They never had any hope of inflicting damage on the Israeli government. They clearly don’t care about their own civilian casualties. In fact The worst the reprisals the better for their recruitment and funding efforts.
Probably not directly related to the rationale for their attack, but it got them some ancillary support, it removed Russia’s aggression from the news media cycle. Which probably got them some favor in those circles.
From a media perspective, this has been a massive Boone for their campaign. They more or less had disappeared from international headlines for the last 10 years. Now everybody is talking about the genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. They’re going to pay very dearly for it, but that’s more media attention than they’ve had for a decade.
Ok yes I can follow that. The cynical thing is that in none of the reasons the Palestinian people are central. Those are victimized by both the Israelis and Hamas, following this rationale.
An extra cynical level is that the wished of the extreme right Israelis and Hamas are the same. To keep this war going indefinitely, not matter the cost of human life.
In what kind of setting would this be proposed? ‘listen we might invite genocidal terror on our own people, but Russia needs some radio silence and we crave media attention’ and everyone involved going like ‘that’s absolutely worth it brother’.
Maybe I’m too naive, I cannot see the tactical gain in that perspective. Thanks though, for good counter points. It helps me trying to make some kind of sense of this.
I highly recommend you read, or listen to, The Prince by Machiavelli. It’s a very short read, but helps you get in the right frame of mind for this type of politicking
The whole philosophy is how to get the outcomes you want, any means are justified.
Saying person X is playing into person Ys playbook is making huge assumptions about their goals.
We can only infer and guess as to the organizational goals at play. We can line up the incentives for their actions, as I did two posts up, and say their behavior is consistent with these incentives.
We can only infer and guess as to the organizational goals at play. We can line up the incentives for their actions, as I did two posts up, and say their behavior is consistent with these incentives.
And I thank you for that exposition, however cynical it does give some reason to what appears madness.
But if it comes to serving the people of Palestine they aren’t really doing that, rather the opposite.
Hamas is not working in the best interest of Palestine civilians, they are working in the best interest of Hamas - Which is a fascist theocratic military organization with goals of ethnic cleansing.
The only issue at question is why did the Gazan people feel that Hamas was their best option in 2006 when they were elected into office? I don’t really know, I can speculate that the hopeless turn to extreme religious war mongers for even the promise of a better future, or failing that the promise of a fight as they are erased from history… some people, when they have no hope, will hold on to revenge.
Since 2006, and the failed coup in 2007, Hamas hasn’t held any elections and runs as a dictatorship.
To answer the question, what they think would happen: Their October 7th attacked achieved everything they wanted.
KSA and Israel we’re coming to an understanding and treaty, that was against the interests of Iran who is in a power struggle with the KSA.
After their attack, it is now politically impossible for the KSA and Israel to have a treaty. That alone justifies this entire conflict from their power politics perspective
They never had any hope of inflicting damage on the Israeli government. They clearly don’t care about their own civilian casualties. In fact The worst the reprisals the better for their recruitment and funding efforts.
Probably not directly related to the rationale for their attack, but it got them some ancillary support, it removed Russia’s aggression from the news media cycle. Which probably got them some favor in those circles.
From a media perspective, this has been a massive Boone for their campaign. They more or less had disappeared from international headlines for the last 10 years. Now everybody is talking about the genocide, and the ethnic cleansing. They’re going to pay very dearly for it, but that’s more media attention than they’ve had for a decade.
Ok yes I can follow that. The cynical thing is that in none of the reasons the Palestinian people are central. Those are victimized by both the Israelis and Hamas, following this rationale.
An extra cynical level is that the wished of the extreme right Israelis and Hamas are the same. To keep this war going indefinitely, not matter the cost of human life.
In what kind of setting would this be proposed? ‘listen we might invite genocidal terror on our own people, but Russia needs some radio silence and we crave media attention’ and everyone involved going like ‘that’s absolutely worth it brother’.
Maybe I’m too naive, I cannot see the tactical gain in that perspective. Thanks though, for good counter points. It helps me trying to make some kind of sense of this.
It’s straight Machiavelli politics.
I highly recommend you read, or listen to, The Prince by Machiavelli. It’s a very short read, but helps you get in the right frame of mind for this type of politicking
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm
Yeah I know Machiavelli, I don’t remember suicidal tactics, though, and certainly not playing according to ones worst enemies playbook.
But mass media wasn’t around in the Renaissance…
The whole philosophy is how to get the outcomes you want, any means are justified.
Saying person X is playing into person Ys playbook is making huge assumptions about their goals.
We can only infer and guess as to the organizational goals at play. We can line up the incentives for their actions, as I did two posts up, and say their behavior is consistent with these incentives.
And I thank you for that exposition, however cynical it does give some reason to what appears madness.
But if it comes to serving the people of Palestine they aren’t really doing that, rather the opposite.
Hamas is not working in the best interest of Palestine civilians, they are working in the best interest of Hamas - Which is a fascist theocratic military organization with goals of ethnic cleansing.
The only issue at question is why did the Gazan people feel that Hamas was their best option in 2006 when they were elected into office? I don’t really know, I can speculate that the hopeless turn to extreme religious war mongers for even the promise of a better future, or failing that the promise of a fight as they are erased from history… some people, when they have no hope, will hold on to revenge.
Since 2006, and the failed coup in 2007, Hamas hasn’t held any elections and runs as a dictatorship.