They're called "Qassam rocket" and the cost ranges from $300-800 — Manuel

Better to call it a family of different kinds of rockets. Qassam is just one specific rocket, one little one. Qassam-A I think is bigger. There are other rockets too.




What Hamas lacks is simply target acquisition, even if it can have drones. To have a system like the US M270 MLRS (or the M-140 Atacms), you have to need the targeting information. Israeli technology is on a totally different level here. Remember that Hamas operates out of a prison camp and it doesn't have any "safe haven" to train it's troops and safely build and test it's weapon systems. Yet with presumably Hezbollah/Iranian/Syrian support, it can have more advanced weapon systems. In truth these are few if any, and likely more of Israeli propaganda.

Those rockets look like they belong to Hezbollah to me. I don't doubt Hamas has some limited access to a few precision rockets, but not too much - Israel would usually spot more sophisticated rockets.

Yep, I should've added that they likely have more than one type of missile, but they tend to be rudimentary.

Israel is just on another level, though I've read that, when it comes to the Iron Dome, most of it is PR. That that system is not actually that good and you add that to the quality of Hamas' missiles, you'll get a relatively low missile launched to death caused by missiles ratio.

However, this time Hamas has killed 250 Israelis, that's not a trivial number compared to other Gaza massacres, on day 1, no less.

Just how low-tech is the Qassam rocket?

The utility of the Qassam rocket design is assumed to be ease and speed of manufacture, using common tools and components. To this end, the rockets are propelled by a solid mixture of sugar and potassium nitrate, a common fertilizer. The warhead is filled with smuggled or scavenged TNT and urea nitrate, another common fertilizer. The warhead's explosive material is similar to the civilian explosive ammonite.

The rocket consists of a steel cylinder, containing a rectangular block of the propellant. A steel plate which forms and supports the nozzles is then spot-welded to the base of the cylinder. The warhead consists of a simple metal shell surrounding the explosives, and is triggered by a fuse constructed using a simple firearm cartridge, spring and a nail.[15]

The cost of the materials used for manufacturing each Qassam is up to $800 or €500 (in 2008–2009) per rocket.

The Qassam can be improved, but improvements require more engineering knowledge and complicated tools, like lathes instead of welding equipment.

There are 45,000 acres of land under cultivation in the Gaza Strip growing fruits and vegetables. I don't know how much fertilizer is smuggled in for growing food and how much is used for bomb making. Sugar too would have to be imported. Then there is the scavenged or smuggled TNT. Sheet steel is used for the body of the rocket. Nozzles are welded onto drilled holes in the bottom plate. The nozzles improve performance, but are not canted to cause the rocket to spin -- which would improve accuracy, but requires much more skill in manufacturing.

Should you know of some some group interested in launching a hostile takeover -- say an artists colony wants the land of a nearby feminist commune -- this should give you some idea where to start.

https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/10/7/from-hubris-to-humiliation-the-10-hours-that-shocked-israel

Interesting article. Makes some good points.

Israel is just on another level, though I've read that, when it comes to the Iron Dome, most of it is PR. — Manuel

I don't have any information about how much is real and how much is PR, but apparently Iron Dome missiles (several models) cost between $20,000 and $100,000. Even averaged out, each rocket in the defense system -- effective or not -- costs a chunk of change.

Oh sure, it's extremely expensive. And even then, it's not a guarantee against some of the most basic missiles which can be made.

But as long as the US keeps pouring in the foreign aid, why would they care about costs?

I keep seeing the Hamas attack described as "unprovoked," as if Israel has not been occupying, dispossessing, blockading, and besieging a population. The attack is morally wrong but let's be honest about what its causes are. — Nathan Robinson

Yeah, and the justification for a more "mass shooting," less "military objectives" style of attack also rings pretty hollow vis-á-vis the Hamas leadership ordering this from their luxury penthouses in Qatar. They seem to have had an extremely businesslike attitude towards attacks over the last decade +.

I also don't think they expected to have killed this many people. It's a bit the dog that finally catches the car. There seems to have been a massive, systemic failure in the border defenses that had to occur to get to this point. So, a show of force probably expected to result in getting spotted and exchanging fire before breaking contact becomes hundreds of people getting shot in their beds.

By rights, this should be extremely damaging for Netanyahu for leaving the border garrisons under staffed and unprepared, but he'll probably use it to drum up support for himself.

But as long as the US keeps pouring in the foreign aid, why would they care about costs? — Manuel

Isn't that sort of the same relationship as Hamas has with Iran (probably involving less cash, however)?

To a small extent. As far as I can recall - it's been several years since I read up on this topic in depth - Iran offers more direct help to Hezbollah, but some of it probably ends up in Hamas' hands.

But yeah, it's one of the few remaining states in which the leadership clearly voices support for Palestine, which is why Israel hates Iran so much and even wanted the US to get out of the Iran deal, which Trump did to spite Obama.

Hopefully others here can tell you more details or correct my statement.

This just seems to be intentionally misunderstanding what people mean by "unprovoked." It's that the attack wasn't in response to an ongoing series of escalations, new border restrictions, a raid on the Al Aqsa Mosque, an assassination, etc., all the things that more commonly precede attacks. I don't think anyone supposes the situation came out of nowhere.

And that's important in what it says about Hamas' goals and reasons were in this case.


Thanks. Generally good points and I agree with a lot of it. Although it's a bit too gushing for my tastes. Running across the border and gunning down people while they wait for the bus or dumping your magazine into a night club crowd isn't exactly "blitzkrieg," or any of the other military superlatives mentioned.

Sure, such language is excessive, and war is horrible. Nevertheless, one can imagine living in Gaza under some of the worst conditions in the world, if you stay long enough in that situation, I know I would do nearly anything, however morally reprehensible my acts may be.

It feels as if, had they not done something like this, they would simply remained ignored as Israel gets peace treaty after peace treaty with traditional enemies. It's no justification mind you, it's context.

Likewise, if I were going to go to work, or having fun with some friends in a club, if they get kidnapped or worse - it's quite likely I'd want my country to do something, damn the consequences.

It would be ideal if only active military personal were targeted by combatants. That's impossible. Made much more difficult by the situation on the ground. Will it pay off in the long run for Hamas? Or will it only be another, much bloodier war, like the one's we see popping up every 4 years or so?

It's just a tragedy. And again, Israel hurts itself and massacres the worlds largest prison, not helped by the fact that, Israel has the most right wing government in its history.

How Hamas will end up, we do not know. Nor if Hezbollah will be dragged in. But we know the people in Gaza are screwed, as are more Israeli civilians than usual.

Surely the months of social turmoil over Netanyahu's judicial deforms served as distraction and cognitive interference for pretty much everyone in Israel - civilian, military, and intelligence. Today's attack on Israel likely has been in preparation for much longer than the Judicial scheme has been stirring things up, but Jewish social unrest in Israel was certainly a help to Hamas.

This situation is frickin' terrifying. Commentary from US media has pointed out that Iran is almost certainly involved in this attack - on 3rd Oct Ayatollah Khamenei posted an anticipatory tweet, commending the fighting spirit of the Palestinian jihadis and assuring them that they would be successul in destroying the invaders (that is, Israel). And the commentary pointed to the huge number of missiles that have been deployed, and the tactics and strategies that have never previously been available to Hamas. Meanwhile it suits Putin down to the ground to have this flare up, it will divert attention and possibly arms from his illegal war. If Hezbollah gets involved and the conflict spreads God help all of us.

Commentary from US media has pointed out that Iran is almost certainly involved in this attack — Wayfarer

Meanwhile it suits Putin down to the ground to have this flare up, it will divert attention and possibly arms from his illegal war. — Wayfarer

'But I am not brainwashed by the Western press' :rofl:

Hezbollah seems to have bombarded a farm in the north of Israel with rockets and artillery, and the Israelis are retaliating with airstrikes. Certainly a worrying situation.

Given the shifting geopolitical situation and rapprochement between Iran and Saudi-Arabia, I understand the fear.

What hangs as a shadow over these conflicts with Hamas and Hezbollah, is the question of whether this will be the time Israel's historical rivals may come to settle old scores.

It feels as if, had they not done something like this, they would simply remained ignored as Israel gets peace treaty after peace treaty with traditional enemies. It's no justification mind you, it's context.

I don't think Israel getting recognition and treaties with Arab states can be chalked up to Hamas "not carrying out enough attacks." Quite the opposite actually. Hamas, and the Palestinian cause more generally, lost support in the Gulf due to cozying up too much to Iran and doing things to support Iranian interests ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend," being what brought the Gulf states closer to Israel).

I'm sure both sides (Palestinians/Gulf Arabs) can find plenty to blame in the other for the breech, but Gulf support for the Palestinians didn't fall off because "they aren't doing enough to fight." Rather, the biggest cause was a conscious decision to pursue aid from Iran, which was more kinetic-focused, at the expense of aid from the Gulf, which was more political/ diplomatic/ economic. And I'd argue this preference in which type of aid to privilege seems to have more to do with "who rules over the Palestinian population in the occupied territories and how much power do they have over them," rather than "how does that leadership end the occupation?"

The problem goes beyond the relationship with the Gulf states. For example, Egypt blockades Gaza more stringently than Israel, with a lot of bad blood due to support for the insurgency in the Sinai. Not that the Palestinians didn't have good cause for violent resistance in Jordan, Lebanon, etc. They were treated horrendously outside Israel as well, used as pawns, forced into squalid camps, but from a real politick perspective it tended to erode their alliances (Jordan being the big exception to some degree).

So, while I think the Palestinians in general have plenty of reason for violent resistance, it's even more tragic that the resistance doesn't seem to actually be targeting any sort of realistic end goal. It often strikes me as cynical and nihilistic, aimed more at internal audiences. The gushing is bad because it's not only celebrating mass shootings, naked women being paraded through the streets as trophies, etc., but because it has this nihilistic and delusional vision where this will provoke Israel into the "final, apocalyptic, battle," they are fated to lose. It seems far more likely to simply decimate the Hamas leadership again and leave the Strip even more economically ruined before the status quo returns. By comparison, the rocket tit for tat strategy actually did seem to have some deterrent value and had clear aims re direct incursions into the OT.




I somehow doubt that Tehran expected anything of this scale, or Hamas for that matter. It's the sort of incursion that's been tried before and been far less successful. The likely expectation before the incursion would have been for some penetration but engagement by the IDF pretty rapidly, and at the border itself in many cases.

I'm not sure on the timing for the rockets, but if the volume came after the attack has proven shockingly effective, that would say something about the original intentions.

For opsec reasons I highly doubt anyone in Russia would have had an idea about this. Israel and Russia get along surprisingly well and Israel has historically had good humint inside Russia. It's also not necessarily a win for Russia. Israel is selling off a bunch of old Merkavas and they might be more willing to have such sales be part of some package for Ukraine now that Russian Kornets are showing up in Hamas' hand.

Iran and Russia is very much an alliance of convenience and there is plenty of bad history between the two. The Iran, Russia, NK arms alliance doesn't seem like something that will outlive any one parties near term local incentives. If Russia could get Iran to do anything they'd be trying to get them to contain the Azeris continuing to press on Armenia, since it's absolutely discrediting Russia as any sort of security guarantor and Iran has its own potent Azeri independence movement.

Russia wouldn't want it because they want all the weapons they can get out of Iran, who will be busy with this. Iran might want it as a distraction, but they have their own reasons to be reticent given they have at times seemed to be teetering towards civil war, shelling their own cities to deal with unrest. And they can rely on Russia much less as a check on Israel in Syria, making attacking from Lebanon or Syria in support of Gaza riskier.

[...] but because it has this nihilistic and delusional vision where this will provoke Israel into the "final, apocalyptic, battle," they are fated to lose. — Count Timothy von Icarus

That's perhaps not as delusional as you may think.

Israel is a tiny country surrounded by historical enemies that have attempted to gang up on it several times in the past. Each time it was saved by its professional military, without which it wouldn't have existed today - it would have literally been erased from the map.

Pretty much the whole Muslim world has a bone to pick with Israel, and even if relations with some Muslim neighbours appear stable now, it's entirely unclear if that hatchet is truly buried.

When one considers that Israel's population is less than 10 million people (for reference, Egypt alone has a population of 109 million), one realizes Israel's dominant (albeit precarious) position in the region is entirely unnatural and cannot last forever. When another nation or nations take over that role, will they be merciful towards Israel? I highly doubt it, and Israel owes that in part to its own conduct and failure to find a modus vivendi with the Palestinians.

I visited Israel and the West Bank in 2019 as part of a research tour. The problems there are complicated and many, and solutions are all but impossible, so don't interpret this as though I am taking sides.

The atmosphere there is fearful and tense, in both Israel and the West Bank. It is a police state. I left with exactly the feeling that, unless it can accomplish some kind of rapprochement with the Palestinians and the Muslim world at large, Israel is doomed when that pendulum swings the other way. The question is when that happens.

I don't believe that killing civilians has justification, nor celebrating death. All I am saying is that the situation in Gaza particularly, is quite desperate. And if you take that into account with the provocations, land theft and the walk on the Temple Mount, it was a matter of time.

You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing.

You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing. — Manuel

Unfortunately, the Israelis (i.e. post-'67 Zion-über-alles Likudniks) expect continued military & economic support and absolute security guarantees from the US because of Israel's active national policy to keep on "humiliating and beating" non-Jewish populations "to death over and over". Futile, murderous David seems now nothing but American hegemon-backed Goliath's highly profitable atrocity machine's raison d'etre (with civilian casualities on both sides considered acceptable, unavoidable, costs of doing business by "the planners" in Tel Aviv and Washington, DC). I wonder, however, have they planned for a wider war? No doubt Tehran & Moscow want one (though Beijing & Brussels certainly don't due to the coming price shocks in global oil markets and winter just a couple months away).

You can't keep humiliating and beating people to death, over and over, and expect nothing. — Manuel

Now you can educate: have any of Israel's neighbors ever offered peace or reversed their desire to annihilate the Israeli state and the people in it?

My long-held bias is that there will be peace in the Middle East when all - most - of the people in the Middle East want peace and work towards it, and not before. My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. If I'm a Palestinian, I want to know just WTF Hamas is thinking, because I don't see it doing the Palestinians any good, and indeed doing immense harm.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood

Don't confuse the nation-states with their populations as official Western media regurgitate ad nauseam. This persistent conflict is like an abandoned depot of boobytrapped, live munitions & WMDs left over from the US-Soviet Cold War. Besides, all the players are still incentivized as client-assets (or legacy operations) in one way or another by either side. The historical geopolitical context matters, sir; "peace" – wanting it or not – is only tactic.

Yep, I should've added that they likely have more than one type of missile, but they tend to be rudimentary. — Manuel

And actually on purpose.

Israeli anti-missile systems are top of the line (not only Iron Dome, but Arrow and David's Sling), hence the way simply is to saturate their ability to shoot down them by launching a mass of rockets. And here the tactical surprise (which is now obvious that Hamas had) helps this.

Today's attack on Israel likely has been in preparation for much longer than the Judicial scheme has been stirring things up, but Jewish social unrest in Israel was certainly a help to Hamas. — BC

They have planned for this for a long time. And now it seems to be right, add to the timing the 50th year anniversary of the Yom Kippur war (and the ugly surprise that was for Israel).

Hamas is something in a similar situation of the Taleban: there was no way to challenge the enemy (the US) with trying to fight a conventional war, hence fight a war with less tech than more of it. Less radio and electronic equipment that can be found. For the Taleban it was simply to a) exist and endure and b) use IEDs and make it difficult for the US and Afghani troops to operate freely.

I think for Hamas the idea may be the same: by launching this attack, they note to their people and to the World that they exist. Now for them it's only the part of enduring the Israeli counterattack. Because ending the open prison of Gaza for Bibi will be a very costly thing, hence likely they will make this retaliatory operation and possible free or get freed the prisoners.

On the Israeli side there are lot's of questions of how the so able intelligence service didn't anticipate this attack. And the last major operation, the 2006 Lebanon war wasn't a success and didn't meet it's objectives.

I think the reason is obvious: Israelis aren't defending their country from an enemy that could destroy their nation. They are defending their country from basically terrorist attacks. The combined conventional armies of Egypt and Syria could have beaten Israel if had they been more professional and better trained (which is extremely hard for a developing country). Both in the Six Day War and in Yom Kippur, the threat was there. Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza aren't an existential threat for Israel, and that has an effect on moral: you are more concentrated on not having losses than you are on fighting the enemy and taking the objective. It's noted that in the 2006 Lebanon war when Israeli troops got casualties the attack many times stopped and turned into an evacuation operation.

Haaretz says that over 600 Israelis have been killed.

At least 600 Israelis have been killed since Saturday morning's surprise attack by Hamas, with over 2,000 wounded and dozens of civilians and soldiers being held hostage in Gaza.

Let's see where that number goes to (up or down). But the reality is that Israel was caught surprised just like 50 years ago.



One Israeli civilian in the BBC commented that she was among people close to the Gaza border and she had to flee for her life among others as Hamas soldiers picked them by shooting from two sides. As obviously the purpose of the infiltration attacks have been to cause as much mayhem as possible, the gained tactical suprise has made this quite successful. And as someone already commented, these methods just work for those that are against talks with the Palestinians. Like Bibi himself.

Bibi's response is pure Netanyahu: he is already talking about the "evil city" and how people in Gaza should leave (Uh, were?) and that this will be a long war.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood

Just as with Americans or with any people, I wouldn't say that people like "Israelis" hold one belief. If you think that Americans are polarized with Trump supporters and liberals, then with Israelis it is as worse or even worse.

The question is what kind of peace? Peace with whom now? For politicians like Bibi it is an eternal struggle because on the other side there are terrorists. Hezbollah and Hamas are the perfect bad guys, because you can literally show them targeting civilians.

The problem here is that there indeed have been Israeli prime ministers and politicians who have truly worked for peace (and then got shot Jewish zealots for that). Unfortunately the withdrawal from Lebanon didn't secure peace, the vacuum just created a place for Hezbollah to fire rockets into Israel. And this is what Bibi argues makes the peace-mongers to be so wrong.

It's a kind of experimental state, in that the US sends cutting edge military technology which can be used on a civilian population and have no repercussions, because the Palestinians have nothing to offer (oil, technology, etc.) but their lives. Yeah, once in a while the US can be embarrassed by Israeli actions, but nothing they can't handle.

I wonder, however, have they planned for a wider war? No doubt Tehran & Moscow want one (though Beijing & Brussels certainly don't due to the coming price shocks in global oil markets and winter just a couple months away). — 180 Proof

That's a good question. I am waiting for the obligatory commentary on this topic by Norman Finkelstein, he'll have the best information on the topic.

There are reports of a few minutes ago claiming that Israel and Lebanon have exchanged fire. I know that Hamas has asked Hezbollah to get involved, I don't think they want to, but if an accident happens, they could go in and then all bets are off.



Yes, plenty of times actually, there's lots of examples here, much of it covered in The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World by Avi Shlaim.

As for your question, does it help them? We don't know what will be the long-term consequences of this war, but at the moment, Gaza is going to be destroyed, with overwhelming civilian deaths.

If I were them, I do no know how I would react. The options on the table are all horrendous.

I think for Hamas the idea may be the same: by launching this attack, they note to their people and to the World that they exist. Now for them it's only the part of enduring the Israeli counterattack. Because ending the open prison of Gaza for Bibi will be a very costly thing, hence likely they will make this retaliatory operation and possible free or get freed the prisoners. — ssu

I think this is right. It's a high price to pay in terms of lives, but it's a desperate situation. Ironically, I do believe that if the blockade on Gaza was lifted and the people there had a decent life, violence would go way down. Collective punishment just leads to retaliation.



Yes, these threats are not existential. Few of them are actually, despite Israel's constant fear. The one big scare they had was the 1973 war, the other ones weren't particularly existential for them, though of course, things could have gone differently.

If Hezbollah gets involved, it's impossible to guess how this will turn out. I tend to think that the fact that Israel has moved so far to the right, makes compromises or deals more difficult and costly.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not.

This was perhaps true in the 1990s and very early 2000s, and maybe has some truth to it in the median preferences of "people on the street," but those weilding political power in Israel absolutely do not seem to care about peace. I'd say the ruling coalition is quite similar in Hamas in that the war has become more about bludgeoning domestic opposition and building up patriotic support for the ruling government to paper over corruption and failure to deliver on domestic goals.

Both sides have become intransigent and unable to bargain in good faith.



That's not why I think it's delusional and nihilistic though. It's delusional because its believes in some great millenarian struggle that solves the problems. But it's completely unclear how even destroying Israel's military and genociding its people would fix the problem (not to mention the problem posed by their large nuclear arsenal).

What happens next then? Syrians aren't under Israeli rule, and yet when they came out to protest they were met with belt fed machine guns firing into crowds. Cities in revolt were shelled into dust. Egypt has been more stable, but the last time large scale popular protest occured, after the government was deposed by the military, you also had security forces firing indiscriminately into crowds. Abductions, disappearances, and torture continue.

It's nihilistic in the sense ISIS is. Sure, Assad absolutely deserves to be violently resisted, but the ISIS success plan was fairly fantastical and they kept doing things (e.g. all the gorey videos) that obviously hurt their odds of winning, and of setting up a functional peace even if they did win.

There does come the question of: "the men parading naked women through the street in jubilation and who have made their peace with shooting young children, what sort of state do they lead and how do they deal with internal dissent and minorities?"

You see this sort of result in the Taliban now facing multiple renewed insurgencies within Afghanistan. They have the same two fold problem of the career criminal element having been empowered and the true radicals continuing a sort of "eternal war," within the state. But the Taliban, for all its many flaws, is a good deal more pragmatic and visionary than Hamas. They might have an ugly vision of "what comes next," but they had a vision.

I say "nihilistic," because there isn't this focus on "what comes next." How you win a war matters as much as thatyou win it, sometimes more (recall, the Soviets "won" the Winter War). The retreat from any sort of coherent strategy into "the apocalyptic struggle will come upon us, many, maybe most will die, and destiny will carry us through," is nihilistic in that it doesn't seem to ask what comes next or particularly to align to a big picture strategy.

Maybe it's there and hidden? This is one of the problems with running your war in a way that is very opaque, even to your own populace. And Israel has forced this opacity on them to their own detriment.

And this is where I think you see the short term successes of Israel's assassination campaign truly backfiring. They have certainly been successful in destroying Hamas' leadership, but that's resulted in two groups coming to the fore. Died in the wool radicals set on total, explicitly genocidal victory, and your mafioso types. It's a conundrum. On the one hand, more quality leadership could do a lot more to organize resistance, but on the other, quality leadership gives you someone to bargain with who can actually control their own side and has a vision for the future.

But then, Israeli politics have done this same thing to their side, so...

Edit: BTW, it's not just the violence that makes me say this. The PVA did some pretty atrocious things in Vietnam, much larger massacres at times. But the larger actions of Giap an Ho always had a clear focus.

My belief is that the Israelis want peace and their enemies do not. — tim wood

There are extremist elements within both sides.

Certain zionist and nationalist elements such as ones found in Netanyahu's party Likud, view Israel as a strictly Jewish nation state, and see little to no place for the millions of Palestinians that live in Israel. Aggressive settlement policies and discriminatory laws are clear examples of that.

Note for example that on the West Bank Palestinians aren't allowed to move freely through Israeli settlements or areas under Israeli control, and thus Israeli settlements have over time cut off entire Palestinian communities or made life impossible and driven them from their homes by settling near them.

West Bank Map

In the West Bank you will literally find lone Palestinian homes amidst Jewish streets, completely boarded up. These are people who refuse to leave. They're not even allowed to do groceries freely. They're policed by the army, while Israelis are policed by regular police forces.

One could argue that Israel adopted these policies with the express purpose of bullying the Palestinians until they would leave.

Tehran might want a conflict to distract from their domestic woes, but Russia? This seems like nothing but risk for Russia.

What happens if Tehran decides to support Gaza by having Hezbollah or its forces in Syria attack Israel? One obvious way to punish Iran would be to offer more air support to Syria's various rebels, something the IDF has tacitly done to some degree. That could be enough to throw off the stalemate and throw the SAA back on the back foot.

And what does Moscow do then? Deploy scarce air defenses to Syria to inflict higher costs on Israel? But they already don't have enough in Ukraine and when Ukraine gets the F-16 they will be facing a much increased sortie rate. Plus, if the air defenses are destroyed, do they admit defeat at the hands of a nation with a population the size of a large city or do they have to double down?

Already, Armenia is demonstrating that security assurances from Russia don't mean a whole lot right now. A shift in Syria would be an even larger blow.

Plus, weapons Iran sends against Israel can't go to Ukraine. I'd imagine the Russians are actually pressuring Tehran not to attack from Syria quite a bit.

I agree with you that from a humanist perspective it is a crazy strategy. But I guess close to a century of oppression changed some people's view of what is rational.

I think this is right. It's a high price to pay in terms of lives, but it's a desperate situation. Ironically, I do believe that if the blockade on Gaza was lifted and the people there had a decent life, violence would go way down. Collective punishment just leads to retaliation. — Manuel

Or perhaps Hamas could get much restock and replenishment for attacking Israel. Unfortunately many good meaning initiatives have backfired. Basically you have to have truly strong politicians that can make peace in the Middle East. Far more easier it is to be there a hawk.

And it hasn't been an all out war. Israeli's do understand that opinion is on their side when Hamas kills civilians. But that can change if the death toll rises to Ukrainian levels in Gaza. Hence still the Israeli Defence Forces do often announce what buildings they are going to destroy (and give minutes for people to evacuate them).

Both understand the punitive nature of the game of escalation: if let's say Hezbollah attacks with mortars, Israel counter-attacks with artillery. If Hezbollah attacks with longer range rockets, Israel does airstrikes. And note I think this has just happened in Lebanon. Hezbollah did strike Israel, but obviously hadn't planned a major assault (otherwise they just lost the crucial moment of surprise). But they don't want to stay as indifferent, hence I can believe the Hezbollah leader that said they did the attack out of solidarity. If they continue fighting, then it's different.

If Hamas really has thought this out, it should have trained well for the natural response from the IDF. To go and kill a lot of civilians will simply make the IDF make at least a punitive operation into Gaza. Now if you now have new tricks in your sleeve (drones, well trained forces, huge IED effort done), then it is a genuine plan (at least purely militarily). If the this was it just, then it was more of a political move. Because this is the time when poorer Hamas could use the advancement of drones etc. to their advantage. The IDF itself is very accustomed to using drones: basically the Bekaa Valley "turkey-shoot" of the Syrian Air Force in the 1980's and the destruction of the heavy air defenses in the valley was much because of extensive use of drones by the Israeli Air Force. But drones aren't yet used in infantry warfare, as they are started to be used in Ukraine.