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
Why did CNN deel the need to put "peaceful" in quotes. The idea is to make it seem that there is a question as to whether it was peaceful.
Note that the article doesn't say anything about the man's statements. It does say "The source stressed potential mental health concerns have not yet been ruled out, which could factor into any charging decision."
They don't do reporting on the actual event, they try to make it seem as if it being "peaceful" is a controversial issue; but then do no reporting about what the suspect said.
The BBC also doesn't say anything about the perpetrator, but they don't put "peaceful" in quotes.
"A pro-Israeli peaceful demonstration was under way when the attack happened, police say - the group meets regularly for a walk to remember the hostages taken by Hamas"
I've been thinking about the remnants of the Hamas leadership, who almost all seem to live abroad. Two Hamas officials went to Iran this week and talked tough about continuing the war. This is a war they don't experience. They want Gaza destroyed while they live abroad. Most of these men are in their 60s or older.
Key Hamas leaders today include: Mohammed Zahar born in 1945, Mousa Abu Marzouk was born in 1951, Khaled Meshaal was born in 1956, Khalil al-Hayya was born in 1960, Fathi Hamad in 1961, Basem Naim was born in 1963, Ghazi Hamid in 1964, Osama Hamdan was born in 1965, Husam Badran in 1966 and Zahar Jabarin in 1968.
When you think of this age group, many of these guys were in their twenties when Hamas was founded, they were in their thirties during the Oslo years and forties during the Second Intifada. That's when they were able to take over Gaza. They were still relatively young. Some of their peers were killed such as Rantisi and Sheikh Yassin. Yassin was much older than the rest.
One of the elements to pay attention to in Israel’s new Gideon’s Chariots offensive in Gaza is the fact that many of its key players are new to their positions. A different chain of command than on Oct. 7 and in 2024. Here are the key figures: 🧵
The Defense Minister Israel Katz took over from Yoav Gallant in November 2024. Gallant was fired by the Prime Minister after a year of tension. Katz comes from the world of politics as opposed to Gallant who came from the world of the IDF
The IDF Chief of Staff assumed command in early March 2025. Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir comes from the armored corps and served as Director General of the Israel Ministry of Defense in 2023 and 2024. He was key to enabling the IDF to procure more weapons during the war and secure the supply train and logistics and power behind the IDF. He was considered for Chief of Staff in the past but lost out to Herzi Halevi
The IDF released a report on the failure of October 7 to defend Kibbutz Nir Oz. The report is worse than expected. It shows the IDF didn't defend this community at all, and only arrived at 13:10, more than six and a half hours after the attack began. Hamas and other terrorists had already come and left, they had complete control of the place and could do basically whatever they wanted. There was a small local security team from the community, but it was overwhelmed.
The small community was massacred; 47 people murdered, 76 kidnapped.
Jpost; "October 7 probe: IDF only arrived in Nir Oz after Hamas terrorists left because it was 'far away'" jpost.com/israel-news/ar…
The Golani Brigade's 51st Battalion was defending the sector, but it was understrength. The IDF completely failed to plan for or even apparently think about how to defend this community. It's strange because one assumes the IDF wouldn't have behaved this way in the north or the West Bank. Something about Hamas in Gaza cast a spell over Israel and its defenses such that this border was almost treated like a peace border.
According to Ynet "The battalion had 182 combat soldiers and 57 support personnel in the northern Eshkol region, prepared for an infiltration scenario from a single point without warning. Near their base, Judy and Gadi Weinstein were preparing for their 6:06 a.m. morning walk, unaware they would be Nir Oz’s first victims that day."
Articles like this illustrate the corrosive nature of how media use the term “disinformation” as a stand in for actually covering things on the ground or reporting what happened
Here you have an entire article that admits 800 people were killed, the article claims that some old videos were repackaged and some people falsely reported that others were killed…but where is the evidence that the “disinformation” led to “intensified” violence? Do they mean the information that was provided to SNA-backed militias who went on a rampage in Latakia? No. They don’t even mention them
The one place that rumors and propaganda did influence killing was in the attacks by the militias in response to the pro-Assad attacks. But this article doesn’t seem to unpack that or discuss it. It doesn’t even seem to interview people on the ground. Because western media have been encouraged to discuss “disinformation” as a stand in for actual reporting