Share this page!

Enter URL or ID to Unroll

You can paste full URL like: https://x.com/threadreaderapp/status/1644127596119195649
or just the ID like: 1644127596119195649

How to get URL link on X (Twitter) App

  1. On the Twitter thread, click on or icon on the bottom
  2. Click again on or Share Via icon
  3. Click on Copy Link to Tweet
  4. Paste it above and click "Unroll Thread"!
  5. More info at Twitter Help
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
@sfrantzman
Jul 31 • 10 tweets • 2 min read • Read on X
INSIGHT into why the loss of Haniyeh matters most of all for Hamas. Hamas wanted to leverage Oct. 7 to come to power in Ramallah. The Iranian axis was working to bring Haniyeh and Hamas to power and replace the PA. China was brokering the talks with the 14 factions to accomplish it
Ankara and Doha were working closely to coordinate this goal. The reason Doha dragged out the hostage talks was to bring Hamas more clout and enable it to survive in Gaza and then get a deal that would let it release hostages slowly, to take over the West Bank.
Haniyeh was key to the Hamas plans. It knew he had popularity in the West Bank and among other Palestinian factions. There were increased whispers among the Palestinian factions that they could work with him...including from PFLP and others considered "moderate" and on the "left"
Before Haniyeh could swoop back into the West Bank on the back of some kind of long slow hostage release where Hamas would release one hostage a week or one a month...Haniyeh met with an accident in Tehran and was killed.
This DERAILS the Tehran plan that came along with Oct. 7. Iran's plan was to use Oct. 7 as the first shot in a large regional war that was designed to bring about a new regional and new world order, part of the multi-polar world Iran is working on with China-Russia-Turkey.
Turkey was playing a key role, preparing the way to also push for Hamas to take power in the West Bank with Russian and China's backing. Now Haniyeh is gone. The other Hamas leaders in Doha don't have the clout.
Who else is left? Sinwar, Marzouk, Ghazi Hamed, Mahmoud Zaher, Khaled Meshaal, Zaher Jabareen, Basem Naim, Osama Hamdan, Mahmoud Zaher, Sami Abu Zakhri...

Haniyeh had support and respect of other groups and even regional leaders. He was known. His removal, removes a key person who might have led Hamas back to power.
The real story of the elimination of Haniyeh is not about the ceasefire talks or necessarily defeat for Hamas in Gaza, it's actually about the day after and not having Hamas take over the West Bank with any kind of popular leader.
also this guy, Khalil al-Khayya
If you’d like to know the background and story behind Oct 7 and how we got here, as well as more about Iran’s plans, you can check out my just released book on the war that also looks at Iran and Hamas’ plans

• • •

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

Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 14
I doubt Doha will ever give up its asset Hamas, this has been a huge card that Doha was dealt in 2012 and is immensely profitable and holding onto the card is also a game winner for them, they can use it for leverage over the U.S., Israel, Hamas, Iran. They hold the lever that can heat up or turn down the war in Gaza and wars throughout the region by Iran’s proxies and they control the fate of 101 hostages. It’s massive for them.
Doha happened upon this strategy almost twenty years ago. While other countries such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE were turning against extremism, they realized that by openly hosting extremists they would get more leverage with the U.S. and the west because they could say “as long as we host them we can stop them attacking you”…so they could openly fund these groups and spread extremism via their media. The U.S. actually critiqued other countries more for terror finance than Doha which openly financed Hamas
By hosting the Taliban and Hamas Doha became the go-to for talks abs “mediation” playing both sides while other gulf states lost out. The U.S. rewarded Doha more and gave it major non-NATO ally status. The stronger Hamas and the Taliban got, the more suffering in Gaza and Kabul the more the west adored Doha. Suffering and hosting extremists became the main way to get backing in the west. Pushing tolerance and coexistence was a one-way ticket to a cold shoulder, oddly
Read 6 tweets
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 10
There are only two sides to the mob violence in Amsterdam.
-One side supports having police presence to protect people from mob violence.
-One side supports mob violence and argues that it is justified and excuses it and say "what about" and "they started it."
You're either on the side of mobs taking over cities, or on the side of peace and law and order.

There's no third side here. The side that backs the attacks on the Israeli fans has only one response, which is to claim the Israelis "started it." They never argue police should arrest the Israelis
You know how you know the side that backs the mob violence is lying about Israelis "starting it." They never say the police should investigate and detain Israeli "hooligans." Because they know the only hooligans are the mobs.
Read 15 tweets
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 9
The fact that Hamas was hosted by Doha encouraged Hamas to kidnap people and hold them hostage because it knew it could than do talks in Doha. It actually increased suffering in this respect. Because it incentivized Hamas to take hostages and target civilian areas to get hostages
Think of a different scenarior where Hamas was only hosted by Iran, a country that doesn't negotiate with Israel and can't "mediate." Hamas would have no incentive to take hundreds of hostages. Hamas would still want to attack, but it would be able to use a western ally as mediator
Hamas also knew that being hosted by Qatar meant that it could use this connection to get a better deal. Doha benefited by dragging out the deal so Doha would be necessary and needed; and Hamas also benefited. This incentivized Hamas to hold more hostages for longer.
Read 7 tweets
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 9
It increasingly looks like Doha may be trying to "play" this issue to get maximum benefit for itself. It poses as a mediator but it's real goal is now to appear to pause mediation in order to pressure Israel, it seems.
The reports about Hamas leaders being asked to leave Qatar or their office being closed may now be twisted by Doha such that it becomes about how, if the Hamas office is closed, then who will mediate.
Basically what Doha may be doing is trying to get out ahead of this issue by making it seem like it is pausing mediation, and that if Hamas leaves then definitely Doha can't mediate. It could but it will choose not to. This would put Israel in the awkward position of being pressured to ask Doha not to expel Hamas.
Read 9 tweets
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 9
I've noticed a trend in discussions about the attack on Israelis, Jews and others in Amsterdam after a game. Those who support the attacks or excuse them always claim it was Israelis who "provoked" it via chants or some other activity.
What you'll notice is that those who excuse the attacks never argue that police should have made sure to protect people. The people who say "both sides" did something also never say police and authorities should have prevented the violence.
You'll notice many posts saying "Israelis tore down Palestinian flags" or "Israelis attacked taxi drivers" or "Israelis booed a memorial for victims of Spanish floods." But these people NEVER say that police should have intervened to stop these "Israelis" from doing these things.
Read 9 tweets
Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Nov 8
The question these comments raise go to the heart of what the goals are of the current war. When the war began the Hamas atrocities were compared to ISIS and the Israeli public was told there won’t be Hamas in Gaza.
A year later with Hamas continuing to control a large part of Gaza, even though it has diminished “capabilities”, it appears that at the highest levels there was a dispute not about removing Hamas but more about even whether to keep troops in Rafah and Netzarim corridors.
The dispute does not seem to have been about replacing Hamas. This doesn’t even seem to be a discussion. Is it now taken for granted that Hamas will control Gaza into the future? When we hear that Hamas is no longer a “threat” that seems to be the end result
Read 14 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!

Send Email!

:(