Netanyahoo Knew The Attack Was Coming - He Let It Happen On Purpose
From Moon of Alabama - Oct 7, 2023
Link: Netanyahoo Knew The Attack Was Coming - He Let It Happen On Purpose
AI Paraphrase:
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, faces significant controversy as new accusations emerge, including criminal allegations against him. Reports suggest individuals within Netanyahu’s office leaked classified information from Israeli military intelligence. This intelligence, obtained from a low-level Hamas leader, included proposed actions, but before leaking, it was manipulated.
These altered documents appeared on foreign websites, which Israeli media could cite. The leaked content suggested that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, along with hostages, planned to escape to Egypt and continue to Iran. Despite the implausibility, Netanyahu used these claims to halt hostage release negotiations.
Arrests have followed the leak, with several individuals involved detained. Another controversy now centers on events preceding the October 7 Hamas attack. On October 6, a large number of Hamas fighters activated Israeli SIM cards, allowing their phones to operate within Israel. Multiple security systems detected this and raised alerts. Meetings involving top security officials, including the prime minister, occurred, but no action was taken. According to documents, at 2:58 a.m., the Shin Bet warned several security agencies of unusual Hamas SIM activity, implying potential offensive plans. Despite this alert, no preventive measures were enacted, as shown by the Nuba party in southern Israel proceeding as scheduled.
This suggests that Netanyahu and decision-makers were aware of a potential attack but opted not to act, potentially to exploit the incident for political ends. As more information surfaced, Netanyahu faced criticism, having initially blamed security services for failing to alert him, though he was reportedly aware.
All discussions from the night of October 6-7 were documented in National Security Council protocols. Under pressure, Netanyahu’s aides allegedly sought to modify these records. However, control over these protocols rested with a high-ranking military officer, whom Netanyahu’s aides attempted to blackmail. They reportedly threatened to disclose the officer’s relationship with a female subordinate unless he altered the records.
Media reports claim Netanyahu’s aides used compromising footage and private messages to coerce this officer. The footage, initially obtained by taking the woman’s phone under the guise of a confidentiality breach, was later used to investigate her connection with the officer. Despite Netanyahu’s attempts to deflect responsibility to security forces, he has resisted establishing a formal inquiry into the events.
Israeli media have extensively covered these scandals, though international outlets have largely refrained, with the notable exception of Seymour Hersh. From the beginning, there were suspicions that Israeli authorities knew of the October 7 Hamas attack in advance but chose not to act. Though previously unsupported, evidence now implies Israeli authorities, including Netanyahu, knowingly allowed the attack, intending to leverage its aftermath for broader agendas.
Published on November 13, 2024.
Paraphrase of a comment posted by Patroklos on Nov 13 2024 that echoes my own views, translated from the academic-ese.
This situation must only scratch the surface of a much larger scheme. Isn’t this the standard operating manual for modern states where public opinion matters? Control the narrative! Mold it thoroughly! To do that effectively, you need to know the story’s conclusion in advance. It’s a version of the rule: don’t make a move unless the outcome is predictable. Nowadays, events are almost entirely discursive; that is, for 99% of the population, any international event exists solely as something reported, even if they are present. But let’s be honest: all historical events are discursive; indeed, any ‘event’ may only be directly experienced by a few, who play no part in shaping its story for others. The notion that an event could ever be fully recovered or exist independently of narrative—as if it somehow endures elsewhere—is an idea Nietzsche effectively dismantled (in On Truth and Lies in an Extra-Moral Sense). This grates on me as a historian, but we can’t afford to be naive: history is not about ‘what really happened’ but about how people interpret and act on what they think happened.
The takeaway here is that we don’t need proof that the events of October 7 were foreknown. What matters is how the actual events were framed and conveyed. And that, we can observe. ‘Debunking’ simply means replacing one narrative with another, whose success hinges on how well it matches the audience’s sense of plausibility. To the extent that Netanyahu can be viewed as a calculating opportunist willing to consider LIHOP (Let It Happen on Purpose), such a narrative might stick. Yet mainstream readers resist believing world leaders are that corrupt, even as their own experiences show daily that only ruthless, self-serving types seem to rise to power. This disconnect leads to a kind of collective cognitive dissonance: people struggle to reconcile images of democratic leaders with actions like genocide, each narrative contradicting the other.
I believe it was Lacan (correct me if I’m mistaken) who suggested that all psychological disorders are fundamentally narrative disruptions—a split between one’s personal narrative and an objective storyline. But what is this ‘objective’ narrative? As a historical materialist, I cannot dismiss narratives as entirely relative. Nonetheless, the past is like a braid, woven from both subjective and objective strands of existence. On one side, real people act based on their understanding; on the other, there are objective contradictions—forces they barely recognize but which ultimately determine outcomes.