In the gritty underbelly of global politics, a stark, unsettling reality lurks, one that mainstream narratives dare not touch. Today, we rip off the veil to expose the raw truth behind the Israel-Hamas conflict, a saga steeped in manipulation and deceit.
The year 1987 marks a critical juncture, where the roots of today’s chaos were planted. It’s a startling revelation: one entity birthed the other, a fact that shatters the conventional story fed to the masses. Fast forward to the October 7 attack, a day etched in infamy. But here’s the kicker: the Tel Aviv government knew about it beforehand. This wasn’t an oversight; it was a deliberate act in a grander, more sinister plan.
We’re spoon-fed a narrative of Islamic extremism, painting Hamas with the same brush as Al Qaeda and the Islamic Caliphate. But this is a smokescreen, a diversion from the real game being played. October 7 wasn’t just an attack; it was a staged drama, a ‘re-enactment of 9/11’, serving a purpose far more significant than mere terror.
The United States and Israel, portrayed as invincible, omniscient forces, are not just bystanders in global conflicts. When an attack occurs against them, the question isn’t just about the perpetrator, but about the possibility of a false flag, a strategic move to sway public opinion and justify otherwise indefensible actions.
The focus on massacres by “radical Muslims” is a one-sided story. What’s glaringly omitted is the larger-scale retaliation against Muslims that follows. These aren’t random acts; they’re calculated, strategic moves in a global power play, where only part of the story is revealed to the public.
Post-9/11, the world witnessed a cascade of wars, invasions, and occupations in Islamic countries, leading to the death of millions of Muslims. This wasn’t a series of unfortunate events; it was a meticulously orchestrated plan. The Arab Spring and the destabilizations across the Arab world were not spontaneous; they were part of a larger, more ominous strategy.
Before 9/11, Zionists were already plotting U.S. intervention in the Middle East. The 1996 Clean Break plan and the 2000 call for a “new Pearl Harbor” were not just policy proposals; they were the groundwork for a massive military intervention.
Netanyahu’s UN presentation was more than a speech; it was a bold declaration of a new Middle East, with Israel at its core. The Abraham Accords, hailed as diplomatic triumphs, were in reality strategic maneuvers, leaving Palestinians in the lurch.
But the game has changed. Israel, once the puppeteer, now finds itself isolated. Saudi Arabia’s pact with Iran, facilitated by China, and the shifting diplomatic landscape in the Arab world, mark a new era. The once perceived invulnerability of Israel and its allies is now being questioned, revealing miscalculations in a decades-long strategy.
Let’s cut through the diplomatic jargon and face the hard truth. Israel, amidst its internal chaos and corruption scandals, took its eyes off the ball. They were so embroiled in their own domestic squabbles that they underestimated the very real threat looming at their doorstep. This wasn’t just an oversight; it was a blunder of epic proportions.
The Israeli army, distracted by the threats from Hezbollah in the north, made a fatal tactical error. They shifted their focus from Gaza to the West Bank, leaving their flank exposed. This wasn’t just a misstep; it was a glaring sign of their arrogance, thinking they could juggle multiple threats without consequence.
Now, let’s talk about the so-called “Hannibal Directive.” This is where the Israeli military’s ruthlessness comes into full view. They would rather rain down fire on their own people than let them fall into enemy hands. This isn’t just warfare; it’s a brutal, cold calculation that speaks volumes about their desperation to maintain a facade of invulnerability.
But here’s where the plot thickens. Israel’s high-tech border defenses, touted as impenetrable, were torn apart. Not just by Hamas, but also by Hezbollah’s drones. This wasn’t a minor breach; it was a full-scale demolition of the myth of Israel’s technological supremacy.
Turning to Hamas, the story gets even murkier. Contrary to popular belief, Hamas wasn’t just a spontaneous militant uprising. It was a chess piece in a larger game, one orchestrated by Mossad. Yes, the very agency tasked with Israel’s security was playing both sides of the field. Sheikh Ahmad Yassin, the so-called founder of Hamas, was nothing more than a puppet in this grand play.
Israel’s strategy was simple yet sinister: divide and conquer. By pitting Hamas against the PLO, they aimed to fracture Palestinian resistance from within. But in a twist of fate, Hamas grew beyond their control, evolving from a pawn to a power player in the region.
Today, Hamas stands not as a rogue militant group, but as a key player in the Axis of Resistance, aligning with powers like Turkey and Qatar. Their refusal to recognize Israel or the Oslo Accords isn’t just defiance; it’s a declaration of their political maturity and strategic acumen.
In conclusion, the events of October 7 aren’t just another episode in the ongoing conflict; they’re a glaring example of intelligence failures, strategic miscalculations, and the unpredictable nature of geopolitical chess. This is more than a conflict; it’s a brutal game of power, where the stakes are nations, and the players are willing to sacrifice anything to win.