Another way to read the situation:

The Charter was at the time meant seriously, at least by a certain faction within Hamas.

But with intervening events -- such as the appallingly harsh response to the 2018-2019 border protests; the storming of Al-Aqsa; and the election of the 37th Government (which brought on board not just an unsavory cast of characters, but specific plans for the continued expansion of the Settlements) -- the view took hold that Israeli society was plainly not interested in such overtures.

So as a result, the Charter got flagged and downvoted.

OK, but the reporting at the time of the charter was that Mishal had lost a power struggle with the hardliners --- these are events that occurred before the 2018 "protest". People wrote about the new charter when it happened! There's a bunch of analysis you can go read. You don't need to axiomatically derive this stuff, including the notion that the Al-Qassam wing rejected the 2017 charter.

Acknowledged that there were additional factors and events involved.

Since you prefer not to be centered on the Charter itself: if we are to understand why the decision was made to launch Operation Al-Aqsa Flood; an in particular how they were able to recruit so many people to agree to what was apparently promised as a suicide mission -- then I submit that is necessary to consider the whole background of events up until that time.

The 2018 "protest"

Can we just acknowledge the cruel and unduly harsh nature of the military response to the protests (which by all accounts did at least start peacefully, and from within sectors of society independent of Hamas) without having to allude to the Israeli government's snide, mocking ("fake protest") narrative of it?

As if these people have nothing to protest or be unhappy about.

I don't know where we go from "Gazans have nothing to protest or be unhappy about". I would disqualify from conversation immediately anybody, whether or not they supported Israel, who claimed Gazans don't have grave and legitimate grievances. Hamas, I contend, is one of them, but you can think otherwise.

We have reporting on the motivation behind the Al-Aqsa Flood. That reporting suggests:

* Sinwar and the Gazan hardliners siezed control of Hamas; political leadership of Hamas (on the "other side", the "Sinn Fein" types in the movement, if you want) allegedly were forced to flee.

* Sinwar held a conference more than a year ago to plan out the aftermath of the attack, in which he expected to gain complete control Israel's territory, and had worked out down the level of which exact Israeli Jewish professionals he would allow to leave versus which he would force to stay to help build up the Palestinian state --- some of that reporting is sourced from Hamas people in attendance who were freaked out because Sinwar had become a messianic lunatic. This reporting, as I remember it, actually precedes October 7.

* Apparently, Sinwar expected the October 7th attacks to immediately ignite solidarity attacks from the West Bank, unifying Gaza and the West Bank behind Hamas (this is, of course, one of the most salient conflicts in the region; they literally fought a "civil war" after the 2007 "elections").

* Further, it was apparently Sinwar's expectation that Iran would directly and forcefully back these attacks, committing Hezbollah to full scale northern front.

* Thus: the decision to launch the attacks on October 7 were based on a long-term belief that Hamas was poised to destroy the state of Israel outright.

I was aware of some of this chronology, but not as much as you are, apparently.

So if you'd care to pass along some of the sources you've been drawing from, I'd be happy to give them a close read.

The post above mine was perfectly reasonable; there's absolutely no reason it should have been flagged.

I am unable to vouch, so hopefully someone who is reading this will please do so.

It's not dead, so there's nothing to vouch. It's best to just proceed without reference to things like votes; they work themselves out over time.

Anyways: one such report, about the conference, is via MEMRI. MEMRI is itself not really all that trustworthy! I would steer away from any analytical results! But this piece is largely direct quotes. Maybe they're fabricating them. Seems a little unlikely, though?

https://www.memri.org/reports/hamas-sponsored-promise-hereaf...

Notably, a bunch of more mainstream sources corroborated this report (just Google for the name of the conference). I think it's very likely to be legitimate.

Yup, they're pretty freaky. But if their quotes pan out with other sources, they may be useful. Thanks for posting.