-
Hamas duped Israel into thinking it cared more about economic stability than a war, Reuters said.
-
Meanwhile, it was practicing for an attack in plain sight, the report said.
-
Hamas trained its fighters on a mock Israeli settlement, learning how to storm it, Reuters added.
———
The Palestinian militant group Hamas built a mock Israeli town in Gaza and practiced attacking in plain sight — but Israel didn’t react, Reuters reported on Sunday.
Hamas militants launched a surprise offensive on Israel on Saturday, in what has been described as the worst breach in Israel’s defenses in decades.
The attack followed a careful campaign of deception by Hamas that ensured Israel was caught off guard over the weekend, an unnamed source, with connections to the group, told Reuters.
Despite convincing Israel that they had no interest in war, Hamas militants were practicing for the offensive in plain sight by setting up a mock Israeli settlement in Gaza to train its fighters.
This just further raises questions on whether Netanyahu was actually unaware or if this attack was allowed to happen to provide cover for his corruption charges.
With so many different blatantly apparent elements and the well known past efforts by the IDF and Israeli intelligence to prevent things like this, such a massive buildup toward the attack in plain sight seems impossible to have been missed.
Removed by mod
Deliberately fiddling with the dial on Palestinian tension for political reasons is like Netanyahu’s go to move. I admit I would be a bit surprised if it turns out he green lit this. It’s a lot of Israeli lives and at this scale it looks a lot like incompetence, which is probably not ideal.
But it’s totally reasonable to discuss the question.
Removed by mod
What a genuinely stupid take. There is absolutely no question that governments have ignored intelligence, or allowed attacks to occur in order to bolster support for military engagements from the general public.
Seriously, how naive do you have to be to suggest that is a conspiracy theory or misinformation? We know the Bush administration ignored warnings from the CIA of impending attacks by Al Qaeda prior to 9/11. Whether you chalk that up to malice or incompetence is ultimately irrelevant when it led to a quagmire that has shaped decades of US foreign policy and military action.
If you don’t think it is even worth discussing if far right crypto-fascist authoritarian like Benjamin Netanyahu is willing and able to let his own people die because the means justify the ends then you are not a serious interlocutor.
Removed by mod
There is a difference between QUESTIONING a narrative and ASSERTING a cause or motivation.
Are you actually suggesting that there is no appropriate time in which to question if there is institutional corruption or an organized conspiracy within the government?
Removed by mod
The difference is that you have absolutely zero evidence (circumstantial or otherwise) that would lead you to raise this question about me in good faith or engage in such loaded speculation.
The same cannot be said for government level inaction or malice that leads to the deaths of its own citizens in order to justify its own ends. We have MOUNTAINS of direct evidence that this can and does happen.
Just because SOME people make illogical leaps into conspiracy theory naval gazing does not mean that we just shouldn’t question the transactional nature of any government narratives when bad things happen.
Stupid people are going to have stupid ideas regardless, and that should not stop the rest of us from maintaining our skepticism and using common sense when evaluating the progression of history as it is unfolding before us.
You’re the only one here making that leap though.
My comment only highlights his history of doing things like this, and several times I say I don’t think he was involved.
@Silverseren only says that the obviousness of the build-up makes more people wonder if netanyahu knew - which of course it does. They don’t say he did either.
There will be conspiracy theories whether there is anything to base them on or not.
It’s definitely reasonable to discuss whether Netanyahu was involved in something that benefits him and he is known for. As I said, at the moment it looks unlikely to me that he was. But come on! He has motive, means, priors and it’s great timing for him personally. Acknowledging that all that is true doesn’t mean agreeing to a vast web of conspiracy. All that is true but it it can still be a legit intelligence failure.
Removed by mod
Uhhh, okay well which is it then? One second you say it is totally unreasonable to question, and the next you are actively agreeing that you would not be surprised if the government had allowed this to happen. I’m sure even you can see the hypocrisy in that.
I don’t recall ever suggesting that there was, nor did the OP of this chain.
I’m willing to give you a pass on this point because I think this is probably true. However, let’s not also act like the government doesn’t intentionally muddy the waters and paint anything that is counter to their chosen narrative as conspiracy theories anyway…
That is entirely the point isn’t it? The government & intelligence community are fully aware of this phenomenon, and use it to their advantage as one of their main tactics to either squash or foment dissent depending on their objectives.
The truth has already been eroded to such a degree that whoever controls the largest & fastest means of information dissemination is able to control the narrative. It takes people who are willing to entertain other perspectives to weed through the bullshit in order to eventually land at something that more closely APPROXIMATES the truth.
Wow, this is such a laughable conflation that I don’t even know what to say about it really. Yes, there are morons who think that way, but I don’t think anybody in this discussion is one of them as far as I can’t tell. So, let’s stick to higher level discourse that can be potentially productive.
Are you familiar with the old robot saying, “does not compute”?
Removed by mod
Ah, interesting! I personally have no moral qualms with discussing possibilities.