You’re doing more than explaining his motivation, you’re asserting the premise of his motivation as true. You’re not saying “Bin Laden thinks America is threatening Islam so he wants jihad”, you’re saying “America threatens Islam; that’s why Bin Laden wants jihad”. This makes any subsequent discussion premised on the threat and centers the question of what is the best way to counter it, jihad or something else. It’s a loaded premise that centers the counterfactual.

I really don’t care about the alternate timeline of the woulds and the ifs. In this timeline, that alternate timeline is used to justify genocide. The factual is more important than the counterfactual.

Edit, responding here to not fracture the thread. That your don’t think Hamas is in a position to carry out the threat is irrelevant. It still centers the counterfactual, loads the premise of any subsequent discussion with the concern of what Hamas might or might not do, when Israel is actively pursuing genocide.

I repeat: here’s your way out of this argument: reformulate to say “Netanyahu believes Hamas would do X, so he makes analogy Y”, as opposed to “Hamas would do X. This is why Netanyahu makes analogy Y”.

Subtle logical point but important.

Stop supporting zionazi terrorism.