Seth Frantzman Profile picture
May 8, 2024 14 tweets 4 min read Read on X
The story of the US delaying munitions for Israel is getting a lot of coverage, the BBC call it the "biggest warning yet for Israel."

So here's my question. While countries are growing frustrated with the long war in Gaza, have there been any real repercussions for Hamas since Oct. 7 on the global stage?
What I mean is this. Hamas is hosted by two western allies, in Doha and Ankara. There were no repercussions for Hamas leaders in Doha after Oct. 7. While the US and western leaders expressed support for Israel, they didn't move to sanction those leaders more or put them on trial for crimes against humanity.
Hamas leaders openly celebrated in Doha on Oct. 7. They faced no repercussions from the US, and Doha is the major non-NATO ally. And since Oct. 7 the Hamas leaders have jetted around the region, hosted as if they were a state by Turkey, a NATO member. So Hamas has gotten the message after Oct. 7 that there are no repercussions for its attack.
You can argue that Hamas faced repercussions from Israel's offensive in Gaza. But outside of Israel and Gaza, the group faced no repercussions I can think of. It massacred hostages with citizenships from around the world and held them hostage...and no country sought to bring it to trial for war crimes, or to detain its leaders. In the opposite, Hamas has been given MORE support since Oct. 7. It has not been condemned by the UN or most countries.
This is what is jarring about the pause in munitions for Israel. If the goal of the international community was to stop the war, and not have wars like this, then Hamas perpetrators should all be charged and the group should stop getting the red carpet, but instead it is literally still hosted by western allies.
I think the message is kind of clear. There was a lot of lip service to condemning Hamas in the West after Oct. 7...but no one sought to arrest its leaders, the way they did in the Balkan wars for Mladic or others they charged with crimes.
How is what Hamas did on Oct. 7 different than Srebrenica? The group openly massacred 1,000 people and put out footage of it. It massacred children, women, elderly people, and took children, women and the elderly as hostages. It openly paraded the body of Shano Louk to crowds. But no one put out charges for the men in that video.
There's something strange about the impunity Hamas enjoys. It carried out a genocidal massacre openly and faces no repercussions on the global stage, no real condemnation from the int'l community...and in fact is still seen as a partner by many int'l NGOs...and is still hosted by western allies.
Even when you do get a condemnation for Hamas in the region, it comes in the "all lives matter" form of "we condemn all killing of civilians"...and when int'l orgs discuss Gaza they say "armed groups"...they never say Hamas. In the opposite, they often praise Hamas police for "law and order." What part of "law and order" is parading the body of a dead person in the streets for men to spit at?
I think one can conclude that the Western powers, whose allies host and back Hamas, do not really condemn Oct. 7 in a meaningful way. They never wanted it defeated or dismantled and in fact they have worked to prevent that from happening. They have some interests in Hamas, interests that go back many years and are probably only discussed quietly.
How might those interests be discussed? With terms like they used to discuss why they didn't mind Saddam Hussein. A useful authoritarian genocider for some countries, until he got too powerful and invaded Kuwait. They might say things like "of course the Oct. 7 attack was awful but Hamas is a legitimate political party also and we need to make sure we engage with them too, they will be part of any future unity government in Ramallah and any future two state solution."
They might say things quietly like "of course we condemn Oct. 7, but remember Hamas leadership didn't know about it and we need to engage with the moderates and we have an interest in talking to them, otherwise they will only talk to Iran." It's the same way Hezbollah gets out of any real sanctions and is portrayed as a "partner" in Lebanon.
Unfortunately when we look at the pause in munitions, it is a big message to Israel. There was no similar policy change regarding Hamas after Oct. 7 in the West...no attempt to get their leaders to leave the western allies that back them, no attempt to isolate Hamas, or to bolster the PA. And this is most glaring...the has been NO ATTEMPT to bolster the Palestinian Authority after Oct. 7. This tells you what you need to know. There is a powerful Hamas lobby, it's powerful and complex..and it has made it so Hamas is condemned in statements sometimes...but in general the goal is to bring Hamas to power in Ramallah.
There is a growing addiction to Hamas in the region and globally. And this is going to lead to more wars, just like it led to Oct. 7. Responsible leaders would not want Hamas to grow, but unfortunately the new world order that Iran is advancing with Russia and China and other powers...sees Hamas as one of the key pawns and Hamas' alliance with western allies means the West is blind to the advance of this pawn and how it is destroying the MIddle East.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Seth Frantzman

Seth Frantzman Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @sfrantzman

Jul 22
I'm fascinated and saddened every time I see a news story about Hamas in Gaza, such as the recent statements about EU foreign policy chief Kaja Kallas speaking with her Israelis counterpart and discussing Hamas in Gaza. It always shocks me that after 655 days of war that Hamas continues to control part of Gaza and negotiate to return to control most of it. The existence of Hamas in Gaza shouldn't even be a discussion today. It shouldn't be there. But it is. It is unclear if Hamas will be removed from Gaza. If it is to be removed there doesn't appear to be a clear roadmap for doing so. This lack of a process is part of the wider series of missteps and challenges that plagued the war for 21 months.
It's fascinating that despite murdering more than 1,000 people on October 7 and kidnapping 250; that decisions were made in the early months of the war that would result in keeping Hamas in power. Instead of being laser focused on removing Hamas, so Israelis wouldn't be kidnapped again, so they wouldn't be massacred again; the war was treated as another round in Gaza, another 2006, 2009, 2014. In fact, the plans for the offensive in Gaza were almost identical to past raids. The concept: Go into part of Gaza city or Khan Younis, uproot some tunnels; and then leave. Go into the Philadelphi corridor, clear it out and then negotiate over leaving it.
One of the early examples of a decision that was obviously made to result in Hamas staying in power, was the decision to move civilians in Gaza to be under Hamas rule. The IDF or other officials made decisions early on that under no circumstances would Israel deal with the civilians, and under no circumstances would an alternate authority be created to administer their lives in a non-Hamas zone. As such the result was to move 2 million people to remain under Hamas rule.
Read 13 tweets
Jul 6
There is a lot of talk today about sheikhs in Hebron who want to for an "emirate" of Hebron. This is being greeted by some as a positive initiative. Let's take a look at the claims and also what the results could be. Image
First, the context. Israel is engaged in a 637 day war in Gaza against Hamas. Hamas still controls around 40 percent of Gaza. In Gaza, Israel has backed an initiative to have armed militias involved in some activities in the rest of Gaza. There is one named commander, Abu Shabab (not his real name obviously) and there are rumored to be others.

Some see this as a wise decision to have multiple armed gangs and militias run a post-war Gaza. Israel's current government opposes having the PA run Gaza, so the theory is that armed militias fighting eachother and Hamas is a good future.
In the West Bank the PA has been relatively successful at ruling Palestinian cities and towns for thirty years. However, Israel's current government includes parties that oppose the PA. The PA leader Mahmoud Abbas is aging and there is talk of what comes next.
Read 25 tweets
Jun 29
Israel's Ynet says IDF possibly "preparing for a new phase in its campaign against Hamas on Sunday, as heavy airstrikes pounded northern Gaza and military officials weighed a deeper ground maneuver, potentially including a renewed incursion into Gaza City."

Is this the third "new phase" since March 2025? There was one that began on March 1 after the ceasefire fell apart; it truly began on March 18...then another one began after May 5 with Gideon's Chariots. Now, it's June 29...and yet another.
What the report says is a "deeper" maneuver...the IDF has spent the last months basically re-taking buffer areas around Gaza, leaving Hamas in charge of the central camps and Gaza city. 632 days of war and the IDF basically never went into parts of Gaza city or the central camps.
I remember having a conversation with someone a year ago and I'd said that the IDF still needs to defeat Hamas and remove it. They said "but hasn't Israel taken all of Gaza and defeated Hamas"...I had to remind them that, no...the Israeli offensive always leaves Hamas in charge of around half of Gaza. And it's the same a year later.
Read 5 tweets
Jun 23
Iran's targeting of Qatar appears counter intuitive because Doha has generally been the most friendly country toward Tehran in the Gulf. Unlike the tensions that have existed between Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in the past with Iran; and to a lesser extent the UAE; Doha is close to Iran. Al-Udeid US base in Qatar is also just one of MANY US bases in the Gulf; there is also the naval facility in Bahrain, and al-Dhafra in the UAE and sites in Kuwait.
However, on the other hand Iran may assume it has enough political capital built up with Doha, and also cooperation with them in the energy sector; that Iran can do this and climb down after. If Iran focused on Saudi Arabia it could harm the fragile Beijing brokered new relations with Riyadh; it if targeted the UAE this could cause a crisis; also Bahrain could lead to a crisis.
Doha is therefore the least obvious choice. Iran could have targeted Al-Asad base in Iraq, or US bases in Syria, or in the KRG or US naval ships, or many other locations. However, Tehran may have assumed Doha is a kind of safe bet. It could tell Doha before hand what it would do, then there will be a formal complaint but maybe this leads to a deal brokered by Doha and Ankara?
Read 13 tweets
Jun 22
What happened to the Iranian hardliners? Remember back in the era before the JCPOA and also after we were always told that it was important to "empower" the "moderates" in Iran's regime and that if we didn't do everything the regime wanted then the "hardliners" would be empowered? What happened to this fiction?
The narrative of hardliners and moderates was obviously a transparent nonsense designed to cater to the West's need to feel that it can "do X and then Iran will be happy and do Y"...it was sold to the West in a nice package and hundreds of opeds in Western media and commentators employed this paradigm to explain Iran
Notice how Iran's regime never felt it needed to "empower moderates in the US"...or that its behavior, such as attacking Saudi Arabia or Israel or other countries would "empower hardliners." Iran never had to sell itself this fiction because this was a talking point cooked up in the West, probably at a focus-group decades ago, as a way to sell the West, and especially the US, a mythical Iran policy.
Read 8 tweets
Jun 13
The data behind the attack according to Israeli media, around 200 warplanes using 330 munitions against 100 targets
Compare to a recent strike on the Houthis which was 20-30 warplanes and 50 munitions
The October strike was reported to include around 100 aircraft
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(