Angelamartinangel, thank you for taking the time to read the piece, think critically about its…
You’ve argued that the story’s documentation is “hasbara” already debunked, that Hamas’ very existence is the product of deliberate Israeli…
Angelamartinangel, thank you for taking the time to read the piece, think critically about its content, and engage with such a detailed reply. Even when we disagree, the willingness to articulate a position in depth is what makes public discourse worth having.
You’ve argued that the story’s documentation is “hasbara” already debunked, that Hamas’ very existence is the product of deliberate Israeli cultivation under Netanyahu, that the group has little genuine support in Gaza, and that many of the most shocking accounts from October 7 were fabricated to justify a pre‑planned campaign against Gaza. You further assert that Israeli forces themselves were responsible for some of the destruction and deaths attributed to Hamas, that certain audio and video evidence is suspect, and that even if Hamas committed atrocities, legal and moral liability rests with Israel for having enabled them over decades.
There are several points here that deserve unpacking. First, dismissing the entire body of evidence as “already debunked” without engaging with specific claims in the story sidesteps the burden of proof. If Mr. Price or any other source has produced verifiable counter‑evidence to particular incidents documented, that evidence should be cited and examined directly. Broad labels like “hasbara” function rhetorically to discredit without substantiating, which may persuade the already‑convinced but does little to inform neutral readers.
On the claim that Israel “created” Hamas, it is true that some analysts and officials have acknowledged that Israeli policy in the late 20th century tolerated or indirectly benefited Hamas as a counterweight to the PLO. However, the leap from historical policy missteps to sole authorship and ongoing operational control is not supported by the full record. Hamas’ ideology, leadership, and operational decisions have been internally driven for decades, and their documented attacks—including those on October 7—cannot be reduced to mere proxy action without erasing the group’s own agency and stated intent.
Regarding the alleged fabrication of atrocities, it is correct that some early battlefield reports in many conflicts prove inaccurate or exaggerated under the fog of war. That does not mean all accounts are false, nor that deliberate fabrication is the only explanation. The story you responded to focused on incidents with corroborating evidence from multiple independent sources, precisely to avoid the trap of relying on unverified early claims. To imply that the entire narrative collapses because some stories were later corrected is to commit a fallacy of composition—treating part of the evidence as the whole.
Your point about Gazan public opinion toward Hamas is important but also complex. Surveys and testimonies show a spectrum of views, from support to fear to pragmatic cooperation. Reducing that to “no respect except from a minority of Salafists” oversimplifies a politically and socially diverse population under extreme conditions.
Finally, the assertion that Israeli forces carried out significant portions of the October 7 killings under the Hannibal Directive is a grave charge that requires more than leaked snippets or anonymous claims. Extraordinary allegations demand extraordinary evidence, and until such evidence is independently verified, they remain allegations—not established fact.
If you are willing, I’d invite you to identify one or two specific incidents from the storye you believe are factually wrong, and present the strongest evidence you have for that position. That kind of focused exchange allows both of us—and any reader following along—to weigh competing accounts on their merits rather than on sweeping generalizations. I’m committed to a discussion grounded in verifiable facts, and I welcome you to continue in that spirit.
