I'm not super educated in geopolitics and history. I think it should be easy to CMV. I just need to understand better because from the research I did it seemed pretty clear cut and obvious.

Hamas took control of Gaza in 2007. They provided some social services and now the care of the people who live there is under Hamas. Their safety and well-being is now in HAMAS's hands.

How did they take care of their people? Well by shooting missiles at a superior military for two decades. Then when they finally hit Israel a little too hard, and Israel dropped warnings to evacuate, HAMAS told their people it's a bluff and to ignore it... This seems super obvious that HAMAS has been doing this the whole time so that a big enough tragedy happens that they get attention and resources because of the tragedy. Public opinion shift was the goal.

I understand that whole area has a very complicated history. I mean since ancient Mesopotamia crazy events have been taking place in that part of the world. I'm sure if you ask either party who started it, their answers will go back indefinitely since the dawn of civilization.

Is it not rational to assign responsibility during the leadership shift in 2007? I mean if aliens invaded with superior technology, and warned us not to attack, and one of our leaders commanded us to attack... And we get wiped out... That's poor leadership no? As much as we cry that the land should have been ours, the new military might situation requires strategy adjustment to protect lives.

What am I missing here?

Final edit: Maybe a better question would have been "What is the strategic value of guerrilla warfare and ongoing resistance to Israel from the Palestinian people?"

Early resistance made sense to me (1948-1970ish). Once Israel had finally captured strategic locations and proved their power, I would have expected more treaties or appeasements like the one Egypt did.

I also understand the sentiment from many of you that picking a specific time in history to evaluate that leadership and it's strategic choices is arbitrary. Some of you think it makes much more sense to focus on the immediate pulling of a trigger version of cause and effect.

In the same way you should "expect" a certain response when attacking a superior military, in the 1940s the winners of world war II should have "expected" endless generations of resistance to that proposed occupation. And to be prepared for that cost is, somewhat, to be prepared for the full extermination of your enemy if they do not yield. And if you know they won't yield, then maybe that is genocide. Hindsight is 20/20 in this realm of fault being assigned to "should have known" future outcomes. I am now agnostic of fault here, and becoming increasingly solemn the more footage I watch.

PM me or reply again if I missed a deserved delta. It took me some time to let the responses marinate and think about it.