Hamas Attack on Israel - 7th Oct 2023

[aurelius]

I get that. My point is that Hamas' operations were probably never very sophisticated to begin with. I would wager that at no time going all the way back to 10/7 could Hamas have produced a complete manifest of hostages.

And I think we may be thinking of Hamas all wrong. Your earlier assessment that Hamas is really just a gang maybe spot on. More like gangs. So sure, Hamas has an international level organization but at the local level is might just be a bunch of gangs. That the international level organization aren't fully in control of.

To kind of make another terrible analogy to 9/11, it would seem Hamas put all of its efforts into this one attack similar to how Al Qaeda put all its efforts into 9/11. Both appear to have underestimated the response and/or overestimated their ability to withstand the response. I am honestly surprised at how easy this has been for Israel. I thought Hamas would turn this into an urban bloodbath where Israel was expending hundreds of lives to gain blocks. But so far Hamas's defense seems to be mostly firing ineffective rockets into Israel and hiding in tunnels.

[mikeylikey]

I get that. My point is that Hamas' operations were probably never very sophisticated to begin with. I would wager that at no time going all the way back to 10/7 could Hamas have produced a complete manifest of hostages.

And I think we may be thinking of Hamas all wrong. Your earlier assessment that Hamas is really just a gang maybe be spot on. More like gangs. So sure, Hamas has an international level organization but at the local level is might just be a bunch of gangs. That the international level organization aren't fully in control of.

To kind of make another terrible analogy to 9/11, it would seem Hamas put all of its efforts into this one attack similar to how Al Qaeda put all its efforts into 9/11. Both appear to have underestimated the response and/or overestimated their ability to withstand the response. I am honestly surprised at how easy this has been for Israel. I thought Hamas would turn this into an urban bloodbath where Israel was expending hundreds of lives to gain blocks. But so far Hamas's defense seems to be mostly firing ineffective rockets into Israel and hiding in tunnels.

The more time goes by the less I like the 9/11 analogies.
10/7 was a mostly conventional operation which succeeded for conventional reasons. Even ignoring the actionable intelligence Israel apparently had, 10/7 used attack vectors which at least generally would have been anticipated. Hamas was able to do the damage they did not by being especially clever but simply by bringing so many resources to bear.

My perception is that 9/11 was the result primarily of luck, incident to the use of a novel attack method that the US can be somewhat forgiven for not anticipating. A couple dozen men and something like $300k spent. This would not be a particularly heavy lift in my understanding of al Qaeda's resources and capabilities at that time.

In terms of impact, 9/11 was a paradigm shift for Americans. Israelis have lived with war and terrorism in their backyards for their whole lives, I'm not sure that 10/7 really changed how they fundamentally see the world.

I do think 9/11 and 10/7 had motivations which were at least similar, namely, "provoke a larger and more capable enemy into a self-destructive overreaction."

[aurelius]

The more time goes by the less I like the 9/11 analogies.

Agree to the points you make.

I was trying to convey with the 9/11 analogy is that Hamas does not seem prepared for the Israeli offensive. Similarly, Al Qaeda really didn't have a response to the US offensive. The group quickly splintered into numerous, regional groups. And failed to mount any counter offensive or large-scale attack after (as you point out 9/11 was very lucky). Al Qaeda was essentially neutralized within the first few weeks of the offensive in Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgency was mostly a resistance force to US occupation (composed of the deposed Baathists) and regionally based. If the US had not invaded Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency and ISIS would not have happened.

Hamas resistance to date has been paper thin. The Israelis are not engaging them in the tunnels choosing to just collapse points of ingress/egress. You look at some of the difficult urban warfare the US conducted in Iraq as a counter example. I thought Hamas would have fought Israel in a similar manner with snipers and small units hiding in buildings and rubble. Making Israelis soldiers clear every block room by room. I just read Isreal claims to have killed the Hamas leader. Hamas might be decimated already. I find that surprising.

[mikeylikey]

The more time goes by the less I like the 9/11 analogies.

Agree to the points you make.

I was trying to convey with the 9/11 analogy is that Hamas does not seem prepared for the Israeli offensive. Similarly, Al Qaeda really didn't have a response to the US offensive. The group quickly splintered into numerous, regional groups. And failed to mount any counter offensive or large-scale attack after (as you point out 9/11 was very lucky). Al Qaeda was essentially neutralized within the first few weeks of the offensive in Afghanistan. The Iraqi insurgency was mostly a resistance force to US occupation (composed of the deposed Baathists) and regionally based. If the US had not invaded Iraq, the Iraqi insurgency and ISIS would not have happened.

Hamas resistance to date has been paper thin. The Israelis are not engaging them in the tunnels choosing to just collapse points of ingress/egress. You look at some of the difficult urban warfare the US conducted in Iraq as a counter example. I thought Hamas would have fought Israel in a similar manner with snipers and small units hiding in buildings and rubble. Making Israelis soldiers clear every block room by room. I just read Isreal claims to have killed the Hamas leader. Hamas might be decimated already. I find that surprising.

All true. In light of this, which do you think better describes the case?
- Hamas thought they could put up a fight and way overestimated their own abilities, or,
- Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

[coldfire]

I just read Isreal claims to have killed the Hamas leader. Hamas might be decimated already. I find that surprising.

How do you figure? I see mostly dead civilians and destruction of Gaza, with occasional "leaders" killed. The number of killed Hamas members remains unknown, but I suspect it to be quite low.

[Hardartery]

I just read Isreal claims to have killed the Hamas leader. Hamas might be decimated already. I find that surprising.

How do you figure? I see mostly dead civilians and destruction of Gaza, with occasional "leaders" killed. The number of killed Hamas members remains unknown, but I suspect it to be quite low.

I find it difficult to believe anyone really thought Hamas would hang around after the attack. They are never all in Palestinian territory, and it would be highly doubtful there was ever any intention of defending or doing anything directly against the Israeli offensive. That is just not how it works, they hit and run not mount an army to stand and fight. Israel knew full well they had no realistic chance of harming Hamas leadership, this is just violence and revenge.

[mbasic]

All true. In light of this, which do you think better describes the case?
- Hamas thought they could put up a fight and way overestimated their own abilities, or,
- Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

I know you asked which-better .... either one.

But, why not both?
Maybe is was a last ditch suicide mission of sorts, and they were knew they would be exterminated but take out as many jews as possible and drag the thing out as long as possible with the hostages (rather than just killing them outright) to be the news/world limelight for a spell while doing so.

I guess #2 then, but I think they thought they def would kill more jews and wreak more havoc.

None of this was going to fix the two state solution or what have you ...

[mikeylikey]

All true. In light of this, which do you think better describes the case?
- Hamas thought they could put up a fight and way overestimated their own abilities, or,
- Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

I know you asked which-better .... either one.

But, why not both?
Maybe is was a last ditch suicide mission of sorts, and they were knew they would be exterminated but take out as many jews as possible and drag the thing out as long as possible with the hostages (rather than just killing them outright) to be the news/world limelight for a spell while doing so.

I guess #2 then, but I think they thought they def would kill more jews and wreak more havoc.

None of this was going to fix the two state solution or what have you ...

What's puzzling me is the fact that they did actually do some good-faith-ish negotiating and released some hostages in exchange for a cease-fire. Which doesn't really square, strategically, with either hypothesis. Why release hostages if you were seriously hoping to achieve some kind of material objective - you're further from that than when you started and they're your only asset now that IDF captured your Radios(TM). But also, why release the hostages if the whole point is just to go down in flames and do as much damage as you can in the process?

[mbasic]

All true. In light of this, which do you think better describes the case?
- Hamas thought they could put up a fight and way overestimated their own abilities, or,
- Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

I know you asked which-better .... either one.

But, why not both?
Maybe is was a last ditch suicide mission of sorts, and they were knew they would be exterminated but take out as many jews as possible and drag the thing out as long as possible with the hostages (rather than just killing them outright) to be the news/world limelight for a spell while doing so.

I guess #2 then, but I think they thought they def would kill more jews and wreak more havoc.

None of this was going to fix the two state solution or what have you ...

What's puzzling me is the fact that they did actually do some good-faith-ish negotiating and released some hostages in exchange for a cease-fire. Which doesn't really square, strategically, with either hypothesis. Why release hostages if you were seriously hoping to achieve some kind of material objective - you're further from that than when you started and they're your only asset now that IDF captured your Radios(TM). But also, why release the hostages if the whole point is just to go down in flames and do as much damage as you can in the process?

yah man (much like my response) I don't think the whole thing was well thought out.

I'm guessing the planning, command, and control structure at Hamas HQ ain't the greatest .... probably the latter half of the operation was going to be made up "on the fly". This is not a dig or anything but: prooooobably not the best minds over there. (Al Queda is a different story)

[mikeylikey]

I'm guessing the planning, command, and control structure at Hamas HQ ain't the greatest .... probably the latter half of the operation was going to be made up "on the fly". This is not a dig or anything but: prooooobably not the best minds over there. (Al Queda is a different story)

I mean, does Hamas even has monkey bars?

[aurelius]

How do you figure? I see mostly dead civilians and destruction of Gaza, with occasional "leaders" killed. The number of killed Hamas members remains unknown, but I suspect it to be quite low.

You suspect? With what? Your vast intelligence network (social media)?

I don't figure anything. My statement reads "Israel claims to have killed the Hamas Leader". I am assuming Israeli intelligence confirmed this. I am not privy to Israeli intelligence capabilities and methods.

Hamas is incentivized to show the Israelis are not being effective and ONLY killing civilians. If Israel claims to kill a leader/take out Hamas assets, it would be in Hamas's interest to counter that claim. Israel also knows this and is unlikely to make false or unverified claims.

[aurelius]

All true. In light of this, which do you think better describes the case?
Option 1: Hamas thought they could put up a fight and way overestimated their own abilities, or,
Option 2: Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

I am choosing door number 1.

The nihilism required for option 2 is truly next level shit. Even the Nazis didn't follow Hitler's "Nero Decree".

[mikeylikey]

Option 2: Hamas was generally aware this would result in the end of their existence as such, and don't/didn't really care.

The nihilism required for option 2 is truly next level shit.

I mean we are talking about a group one of whose (whom's?) staple methods of attack is literal suicide bombing.

dang prepositions

[coldfire]

You suspect? With what? Your vast intelligence network (social media)?

Israel claims that roughly 5000 Hamas terrorists were killed, including those participating in October 7 massacre, whose number is estimated to be 3000. So even according to Israel's (probably exaggerated) numbers, they have killed 2000-3000 terrorists, which is one of the worst civilians to combatants ratio ever.

I don't figure anything. My statement reads "Israel claims to have killed the Hamas Leader". I am assuming Israeli intelligence confirmed this. I am not privy to Israeli intelligence capabilities and methods.

I was not asking how do you figure Israel killed another Hamas leader, since this is not very interesting. I was asking how do you figure Hamas might be decimated.

[aurelius]

Israel claims that roughly 5000 Hamas terrorists were killed, including those participating in October 7 massacre, whose number is estimated to be 3000.

I might be misunderstanding this sentence as it akwardly constructed. You are either referring to the entirety of Hamas or just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack. Hama's military wing is estimated to be >30,000 people. Israel's stated goal is to eliminate Hamas. Not just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack.

I have no opinion on the 'actual' number of Hamas personnel killed. It is likely no one will know that for several months.

So even according to Israel's (probably exaggerated) numbers, they have killed 2000-3000 terrorists, which is one of the worst civilians to combatants ratio ever.

I don't understand the relevancy of this statement in the context of the recent discussion. But yes, Israel has shown the bare minimal regard for the collateral damage and death to civilians in their campaign against Hamas. To the point Israel may be committing war crimes. See the links I posted regarding proportionality and international humanitarian law.

I was not asking how do you figure Israel killed another Hamas leader, since this is not very interesting. I was asking how do you figure Hamas might be decimated.

Ignoring the subjective determination of what is interesting* you asked how do I figure.

I 'figure' Hamas is decimated as since October 7 it has only been able to ineffectually lob rockets at Israel while hiding in tunnels. Tunnels that are being actively collapsed around them resulting in the majority of their leadership in the North being killed. This is evidenced by a complete lack of cohesive response, the inability to find and locate hostages, and the continual (surprisingly easy) success of Israel's ground operation.

*I think intelligence gathering is interesting. How does Israel know when Hamas leaders are killed? Israel is listening to Hamas communications. That is the most likely way Israel know when Hamas leadership is killed or significant targets destroyed.

[aurelius]

I mean we are talking about a group one of whose (whom's?) staple methods of attack is literal suicide bombing.

Do you remember the SNL Osama Bin Laden suicide bomber skit? Where Osama is convincing this guy to be a suicide bomber who just isn't getting it. It is pretty funny and I think encapsulates the mentality of leadership willing to use suicide attacks. Paraphrased from memory:
"I'll just drop the bomb off and meet you guys back at the pad to watch the game."
"No, no, no...you stay with the bomb"
"Yeah, I stay with the bomb arm it, make sure nobody discovers it, then meet you guys up for some beers"
"No, you need to STAY with the bomb"
"Like when it goes off?"
"Yes!"
PAUSE
"Why don't you do it?"
"Umm...I have a sore throat. *fake cough* I have doctor's note."

[coldfire]

I might be misunderstanding this sentence as it akwardly constructed. You are either referring to the entirety of Hamas or just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack. Hama's military wing is estimated to be >30,000 people. Israel's stated goal is to eliminate Hamas. Not just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack.

I have no opinion on the 'actual' number of Hamas personnel killed. It is likely no one will know that for several months.

Here is what I meant. According to Israeli media, they have killed roughly 5000 Hamas members, including those killed during Oct 7 attack. Current estimate is that roughly 3000 Hamas members invaded on Oct 7, and most of them were killed in Israel. This leaves us with 2000-3000 (out of >30,0000) killed in Gaza, which is not very impressive, even if true.

[Philbert]

I might be misunderstanding this sentence as it akwardly constructed. You are either referring to the entirety of Hamas or just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack. Hama's military wing is estimated to be >30,000 people. Israel's stated goal is to eliminate Hamas. Not just those that participated in the Oct. 7 attack.

I have no opinion on the 'actual' number of Hamas personnel killed. It is likely no one will know that for several months.

Here is what I meant. According to Israeli media, they have killed roughly 5000 Hamas members, including those killed during Oct 7 attack. Current estimate is that roughly 3000 Hamas members invaded on Oct 7, and most of them were killed in Israel. This leaves us with 2000-3000 (out of >30,0000) killed in Gaza, which is not very impressive, even if true.

Decimate, verb, to kill every tenth man.

[aurelius]

Here is what I meant. According to Israeli media, they have killed roughly 5000 Hamas members, including those killed during Oct 7 attack. Current estimate is that roughly 3000 Hamas members invaded on Oct 7, and most of them were killed in Israel. This leaves us with 2000-3000 (out of >30,0000) killed in Gaza, which is not very impressive, even if true.

It is clear to me that Hamas is reeling from the Israeli offense. As evidenced by how little Israeli losses are and how easy it is for Israel to advance. I believe Hamas leadership has been compromised by either deaths or simply cutoff. As evidenced by Hamas's inability to communicate with one another or locate hostages. You are free to draw whatever conclusions you want.

What is your source for the underlined? Everything I read is that Hamas was relatively unapposed. And had time to stage and execute Israeli families. Hamas mutilated bodies. As well rape Israeli children and women (so much for them being good Muslims). Then transport 200+ hostages back to Gaza. Those are not indicators of a force that faced resistance.

[coldfire]

What is your source for the underlined? Everything I read is that Hamas was relatively unapposed. And had time to stage and execute Israeli families. Hamas mutilated bodies. As well rape Israeli children and women (so much for them being good Muslims). Then transport 200+ hostages back to Gaza. Those are not indicators of a force that faced resistance.

They did not face much resistance in the first hours of the invasion. The fighting on Israeli ground lasted for several days. This is from October 10:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/hama ... rcna119640

To carry out Saturday’s attack, the militant group used some of its most elite forces, namely the Nakba unit, which has 3,000 to 5,000 fighters, said Michael A. Horowitz, a geopolitical and security analyst who is the head of intelligence at the Le Beck consultancy.

"So this means between half to around a third of some of Hamas' elite commando force has been killed," he said.

The 1,500 reported killed could also include fighters from a smaller Palestinian militant group, Islamic Jihad, according to Yezid Sayigh, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

According to local Hebrew sources, I've read similar numbers, with the claim that not all bodies were counted. So, I was wrong, it was probably 1500-2000 Hamas members killed on the Israeli side.