Seth Frantzman Profile picture
Jul 31, 2024 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

Feb 25
For many years there was a subset of critics of Israel who would say things like "I want Israel to reflect my liberal/progressive values." And they expected to take part in a discussion where reasonable people would say "well I can understand that, let's debate Israel's policies, I understand why you feel uncomfortable with some of them." They posed as being inside the tent of Israel discussions, merely objecting to Israel's "policies." And they were taken at face value by moderates and centrists.
Some of these types of people would even come to Israel, they'd spend most of their time with Palestinians, or at unrecognized beduin villages, or supporting African refugees. They posed as just wanting Israelis to support their progressive causes.
Then came October 7 and these folk were all silent. They never posted one photo of hostages, never had any empathy for Shani Louk or Naama Levy, they never wanted their "social justice" faith to mention the hostages...their "social justice Passover" never mentioned those held in Gaza. It never mentioned the Bibas children.
Read 10 tweets
Feb 21
What is further surprising about kidnappinig and murder of the Bibas children, and now the decision by Hamas to lie about returning the body of Shiri Bibas, the mother, is the way Israel has always been surprised at every turn of events, always reacting.
Israeli officials have vowed to avenge the latest Hamas action; but the fact is that since Oct. 7 Israel has always been reacting. Israel was taken by surprise by the Hamas attack. Shiri, Yarden, Kfir and Ariel Bibas were kidnapped from Nir Oz.
The family were alive when they were kidnapped. Israel now believes that the children were killed in November. However, that means that during October the baby Kfir and toddler Ariel were alive. Between October 7 and 27 four adults were released by Hamas; two American women and two elderly women. However there was seemingly no priority put on getting the Bibas children out of Gaza. Why?
Read 18 tweets
Feb 20
One thing that has interested me a little since the hostage deal began, is the lack of interest in the freed hostages or the victims such as the Bibas children, among self-defined progressive Jewish circles in the US. I mean groups such as rabbis involved in human rights or academics or social justice activist types and commentators. It's a small, niche group of outspoken people, but symbolic.
What I see is a collective silence from them, a decision apparently to never post images of the Bibas children, never post images of women hostages or Hamas parading emaciated male hostages. Basically anything related to hostages who are Jewish and Israeli is considered something they won't discuss or empathize with or post about.
It's hard to quantify because most of these people have left this platform but some of them still post elsewhere and you can look at their posts since mid-January and see. Is it a collective decision since Oct. 7 in most of these groups to never mention Jewish victims of Hamas crimes?
Read 10 tweets
Feb 19
I think it's important to understand that Hamas purposely targeted civilian communities that had been involved in peace because Hamas' goal is one state. Hamas is weakened by peace and two states. Hamas was created and grew in the late 1980s and early 1990s largely in opposition to Oslo and peace.
Whenever there was a chance for peace Hamas has come along to destroy it, to create war. When Israel left Gaza there was a chance for Gaza to be governed in a peaceful way and pave the way for two states. Hamas took over to use it as a base to prevent peace.
What's strange is that Hamas is not only backed by Iran, which wants to destroy Israel; but the West supported having Hamas leaders in Doha. Hamas is backed by Doha and Ankara, two western allies. As such the destruction of peace requires a discussion of why western countries wanted Hamas in Doha.
Read 9 tweets
Feb 18
There is a false comfort in the assertion that Hamas cannot be defeated or that Israel has achieved most of its goals in Gaza. The fallacy rests on assertions that Hamas cannot be eradicated and that similar groups in other places have not been removed.
This analysis is It's ahistorical but gives comfort because it means one doesn't ever have to defeat an enemy fully, one can always just "degrade" capabilities and use precision strikes to go after "command and control" and then after X number of things have been destroyed (key leaders, fighters, bunkers, weapon platforms, capabilities etc)...then you have completed your mission.
This way of looking at war is inviting because it means you never really have to accomplish too much. Back in the 1990s after Al Qaeda attacked US Embassies, the US "responded" with strikes in Afghanistan and Sudan. Let's recall what the claims at the time were.
Read 24 tweets
Feb 12
One of the interesting things about Hamas and the Oct. 7 war is that in the past Hamas was often seen by some/many in the progressive, left, liberal and human rights community as part of the problem, part of the rise of extremists or "far-right" that weakened the Oslo peace process. You'd hear arguments such as "Hamas and the Israeli Right are against peace" which posited that the Israeli center and left and the PA or Fatah were partners for peace.
Over time this narrative changed and there was a quiet attempt to infiltrate pro-Hamas messaging throughout the global far-left. This was openly stated by one western intellectual who said Hamas and Hezbollah were part of the global left. The goal was to portray the most fanatic and murderous groups, the armed groups, the ones attacking civilians, blowing up buses and raining rockets down on civilians as "left" and thus "good."
This dovetailed with a coordinated push among human rights groups (HRW and Amnesty) to define all of Israel as "apartheid." Their reports erased the Green Line and defined Israel in the pre-1967 borders as "apartheid."
Read 10 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!

:(