for what its worth i appreciate the good faith engagement and the apology.

on 'liberal optics framing': for me this is shorthand for 'what looks good to western observers'. you said hamas was 'represented poorly', this centers how palestinians are perceived rather than material reality of occupation.

even if israel does try to create a 'strategy of tension' (ie provoke/allow funding of violent response to justify crackdown) that doesn't mean the oppressed are wrong for resisting. it's just part of the standard playbook for colonial powers because it allows them to paint themselves as simply defending against unreasonable actors.

the logic of 'don't resist violently because that's what they want' leads to: don't resist at all, because any resistance will be used to justify more violence. that's paralysis, not strategy.

colonial powers will use any resistance, be it violent or nonviolent, to justify violence. the great march of return (2018) was explicitly nonviolent and israel still shot medics, journalists, children, all of them unarmed protesters. they'll justify crackdowns regardless.

from my perspective the question isn't 'does resistance give israel pretext' (it always will), it's 'does resistance materially challenge occupation and build toward liberation.'

armed resistance does that: it makes occupation costly, ties down military resources, and demonstrates that colonization won't be accepted peacefully.

calling palestinian armed resistance 'violent terrorism' accepts israeli/US framing. armed resistance to military occupation is legitimate under international law. the framing 'terrorism' vs 'self-defense' is itself colonial, resistance to colonization is treated as terrorism while state violence is treated as legitimate.

on netanyahu/qatar money: yes, it's documented that he allowed qatari money into gaza and exploited hamas/pa divisions. but my issue is that the framing surrounding 'israel created/funded hamas' removes palestinian agency and treats resistance as israeli puppet show. hamas emerged from material conditions of occupation. netanyahu exploited existing divisions for divide-and-conquer, a standard colonial tactic

your isis comparison isn't wrong either, the US didn't create isis but created conditions (iraq invasion, destabilization) that enabled it. they also helped fund it. israel also supported isis as it was a useful wedge to destabilize syria

on what's 'effective': resistance isn't just one front. it requires action on every axis. armed struggle adds material cost to occupation. BDS and legal challenges such as ICC/ICJ adds economic/diplomatic pressure. countering propaganda shifts societal opinion against the occupation. the goal isn't just military victory, it's making occupation unsustainable politically, economically, diplomatically.