el-Baghdadi put a few comments about this on his threads:
Hamas's stated objectives for their Oct 7 operation were:
- Release Palestinians in Israeli prisons
- Stop normalization pacts between Israel & Saudi
- Punish Israel for violations/attacks on Palestinian holy sites
- (there was a fourth objective I can't find rn)
Most coverage of Hamas's attacks in Western media have focused on the atrocity factor (the mass killings & kidnapping of civilians). Virtually none have actually covered it from a military strategy standpoint. But it's important to look at that to get a full picture.
Hamas's attack was very well coordinated and meticulously planned. They first used drones to take down surveillance systems on the border fence, rendering them "blind", then moved bulldozers to knock down sections of the fence. Other fighters used tunnels. Others used paragliders
Israel had relied upon high tech surveillance including tunnel detection systems for the security of the Gaza border fence. Hamas seems to have dug deeper than these systems can detect. The tunnels they dig across the border seem to be one-use only and are abandoned afterwards
Their first targets were intelligence posts, police stations, and IDF points. They knew exactly where to hit and how long it'll take them to encounter a response. Their fighters were able to operate within enemy territory for > 24 hours, meaning they were well supplied
Why is this important? Because we want to understand what Hamas was expecting as an Israeli response. Was it expecting or planning on a ground invasion? Or did they think this will be a kidnap operation that will be followed by bombing and then negotiations and a prisoner swap?
There are indications & early statements suggesting that Hamas's attack was more successful than they had expected. In one statement I came across: "The army collapsed as we attacked, what do we do in this situation? So we just pressed forward as far as we could"
Other statements suggested that the wanton massacres and atrocities that followed as being the result of them running out of targets and trying to just gain as many hostages as possible. Basically a coordinated military op descended into an unimaginably bloody massacre.
And then later in another thread
There were questions about whether Hamas political leadership would have known about the attack.
On this I generally deferred to this interview by a respected researcher who thinks the political leadership did not know and were only informed shortly before
(There's a link to tweet with newsnight section on this but I can't link from my phone).
That link goes on and uses this:
https://ecfr.eu/special/mena-armed-groups/hamas-palestine/
It an EU analysis of Hamas's structure and goals. Basically there's moderates
This makes the point that
Broadly, Hamas has three main factions: hardliners, who adhere to a strict Islamist ideology and are more willing than others to resort to violence; moderates, who seek engagement with the international community by softening the movement’s positions and prioritising non-violent resistance; and pragmatists, who try to do what works in the here and now, including both violent and non-violent activity.
el-Baghdadi continues:
There was also this illuminating additional context by a Palestinian commentator who talks about how the military wing of Hamas has really been the one in charge since 2006.
In response to the newsnight analysis
Hamee Attar AT hamattar
This isn't the case; I'm sorry. Hamas, the political movement, became entirely a follower of its military wing in 2003 (Yassin & Rantisi's Assasi.,). Al Qassam brought Hamas to power in 2005 and saved them in 2007 against the PA. There was a chord that syncs the political and military actions, and it faded away.
Hamas was excluded from the operational level that is meant to serve a political aim, and the timing, tactics and red lines of the attack on the 7th of October were drawn by Al Qassam. Now, Hamas leaders in the diaspora need to find solutions.
el-Baghdadi also says:
Several questions about the atrocities committed on Oct 7. I'm preparing another thread on this but there are now many reports by credible journalists that make it impossible to deny that horrific atrocities were committed on that day.
Israel says Hamas planned every single atrocity from the start. Hamas says some of the worst atrocities were done by other opportunistic parties from Gaza that used the border fence breach to go on a rampage. They also say that at least some of the civilian deaths were due to a disorganized and heavy-handed IDF response.
Like I said I have another thread coming on this but at this point I don't think anybody who's objective can doubt that Hamas committed serious war crimes that day.
So various opinions on this, but Hamas had several strategic goals.
Further to this basic point, there are a range of voices even within Hamas, not everyone in Hamas approved the attack, the attack was better executed than anticipated and Israeli resistance smaller which let to some poorly disciplined / hardliners going on a rampage rather than stick to the plan. Hamas isn't necessarily as cohesive as people might think and may have various players with their own goals and agenda.
All of which makes the whole thing make a lot more sense rather than 'hamas decided and planned a rampage of brutal war crimes' as per the Israeli narrative.