Possibilities and Plausibilities in Palestine

Okay. I've been too preoccupied over the last few days just following the events in Palestine to actually put my thoughts together for a video. Now we have been discussing the situation in the Middle Nation Telegram group. So if anyone is interested in my thoughts over the last few days or in in the future on any topic, you can join that that Telegram group and you can participate in the discussion because we have talks on there on a daily basis. And I may not always have time to upload a video in a timely manner.

Now, first of all, with regards to the Al Aqsa flood operation by Hamas, there is an there's a theory going around that the incursion may not have constituted an intelligence failure on the part of the Israelis, but rather that there's a conspiracy on their part to allow Hamas to infiltrate their border and cause havoc just to create a justification for Israel to obliterate Gaza. That's a relatively popular theory that's going around. The thinking behind it is basically that it's unimaginable, they say, that Israel with its advanced technology, its, you know, sophisticated and total surveillance system, their surveillance apparatus, their intelligence apparatus, their highly trained intelligence and security personnel, it's just unthinkable that such a lapse could actually take place. So it must be therefore deliberate on the part of the Zionists that they let Hamas come in because they have some kind of a plan. Now I understand this thinking, but I disagree.

It is of course entirely plausible that Hamas successfully infiltrated the border undetected. That could definitely happen. Look, the fact is the Israelis do not live in fear. They're not hyper vigilant. They are arrogant and complacent people.

And many, if not most of them, particularly those who are in the military, are frankly dumb as a bag of hammers. So it's entirely possible that this could happen. I think we vastly underestimate their incompetence. There are sort of two tropes in Israeli propaganda that we've all sort of collectively accepted as true even though both of them are completely inaccurate. One of them is that the Israelis are in a constant state of existential fear thinking that they're, you know, always on the precipice of a second holocaust.

They don't feel that way. That's a lie. And the other is that the Israelis are hyper capable and effective. Neither one of these tropes is actually true. Now, I'm just talking about plausibilities here.

The idea that the incursion was allowed is plausible. It's a possibility. But the idea that the incursion occurred because of an intelligence failure is equally plausible. There's no reason to dismiss that as a possibility. So if we look at both possibilities, like if it was allowed by the Israelis, the thinking behind that, for most people who advocate that theory, is that the Israelis wanted to create a justification for a full blown war against Gaza and maybe beyond Gaza.

But the problem with that is when did they ever need a justification? I mean, they attacked Gaza on a regular basis. It's routine that they attack Gaza and no one ever questions their justifications for that. I mean, Hamas could launch a firecracker over the wall and the international community would fully back Israel blowing up an entire city block in response, in retaliation, so called retaliation. No one ever asks Israel for a justification for what they do against Gaza.

Even Hamas wouldn't have to do anything. They wouldn't have to launch a firecracker over the wall. Israelis could just say that they did that or they could say that they blew up a city block preemptively to prevent Hamas from doing something that they believe that they plan to do. So they've always been able to do against Gaza whatever they wanted to do with complete impunity. So the idea that they did this or that they allowed this to construct a justification is not particularly convincing to me.

Now the other idea is that they allowed the incursion to take place so that they could distract from their own internal political strife and political divisions and to divert attention away from the opposition and protest movement in Israel against who is their most unpopular prime minister in history. That's also plausible. I mean, up until forty eight hours ago, I don't think there was anyone in Israel who was more detested by the Israelis than Netanyahu. Now is it also possible that they did it to breathe new life into the ideological rationale for Israel's existence? That's also possible because the rationale for Israel's existence has always been that their existence is under constant threat.

Israel has always justified its existence by the supposed existential threat faced by Jews. And the trend of normalization undermines the idea that Israel is in any sort of danger whatsoever. So perhaps they wanted to provoke some danger because peace in the Middle East makes Israel weak. It weakens their position. They need conflict in order to justify their existence.

That's a plausible rationale for the conspiracy idea that the incursion was allowed by Israeli intelligence. I said back when the Abraham Accords were first signed that we would likely see an intensification of Israel's conflict with Hamas because Hamas is quickly becoming the only enemy that the Israelis can point to as a potential threat. And they need this threat to continue in order for them to be able to continue justifying Zionism. So yes, that is a possibility. So if we're gonna take the position that the Israelis allowed the incursion to take place, you would have to look at a more plausible reason why they would do that.

And I don't think that justification building for an attack on Gaza is a convincing reason for why they would do that because they can always do whatever they want to Gaza and no one ever questions them. So there would have to be some other reason why they would do it. For example, to distract from their own political problems domestically, their political problems internally, the problems that Netanyahu's government is facing with an unprecedented number of protests an unprecedented size of protests against the government of Netanyahu, that would be a plausible reason. And another plausible reason would be that they just want to breathe new life into Zionism itself because it is quickly losing its appeal, it's losing its rationale for why this ideology even makes sense in the twenty first century. Now, another possible angle to this.

If we're gonna believe that they allowed the incursion, then it's possible that they would have allowed the incursion because they want to change the facts on the ground in advance or in the context of negotiating a normalization deal with the Saudis. Because the Saudis have said that the prerequisite for any normalization deal would be Israel returning to the nineteen sixty seven borders and the creation of a Palestinian state. Now typically, the Israelis, ahead of any negotiations, ahead of any settlement negotiations, the tip the the Israelis will typically seize land, intensify violence, and create new atrocities ahead of any negotiations, ahead of any bargaining, so that it changes what's being negotiated. They change the conditions so that the what what what is being negotiated is the new terms, the new situation, the new conditions. So if you have asked them to return to the nineteen sixty seven borders then they will advance beyond those borders even further where they are now so that now you have to ask them to just return to the 22 to twenty twenty two borders.

If you want them to move 50 steps back, then they will advance 100 steps and then agree to move 50 back. So it looks like they made a concession when actually they've gained 50 steps. This is a tactic that they always do. It's a tactic for negotiations. Now another angle is, as I have said before, Zionism is on its last legs.

The relevance of Israel to The United States is diminishing. The pivot to the global south, is shifting the paradigms of the global order, of the international order. And Israel wants to keep things the way they've always been, particularly, dinosaurs like Netanyahu. So this is a last ditch effort to hold on to the previous system. Lunatic Zionists like Benjamin Netanyahu, they can't accept for Israel to behave like an actual normal country.

And he's like a crack addict with regards to US sponsorship and funding. So perhaps, if you want to believe that they allowed this incursion, then perhaps it was to create a reason for Washington to not cut the umbilical cord. Obviously, all of this is speculation. But if we're going to believe that the incursion by Hamas was actually deliberately allowed by the Israelis, then it seems to me some of these, what I've talked about here, are the more plausible reasons why that could possibly be the case. Now, if the incursion was as it seems, and it was just actually a successful infiltration by Hamas undetected and that it was an intelligence failure on the part of the Israelis, which is what the Israelis are claiming by the way, then of course it's not just an intelligence failure, it's a technology failure.

It means Americans should start asking exactly what has Israel been doing with all the money that they've been sending them for all these years. Their surveillance system doesn't work. Their iron dome doesn't work. Their soldiers are unprepared for fighting. They're untrained apparently, and they surrender, in their hundreds when confronted, in combat.

So where was all that money going? What did you spend that money on? And why on earth should any more money be sent to Israel? If anything, this should intensify demands by the international community for Israel to normalize its relations with the Arab world, with the Muslim world, and to integrate into the region. And they should give up just being an instigator of conflict in the Arab world, in the Middle East, because they're clearly not up for it.

Even after taking hundreds of billions of dollars to prop them up as toy soldiers, they need to face the fact that their only option is to either, go back to their countries of origin or make peace. It's just absurd for Netanyahu to ask for more money and even more absurd for anyone to actually send him more money. That's just throwing good money after bad. Just like pouring endless amounts of money into Ukraine, just for them to then endlessly lose. Americans should start to consider at what point they need to activate the stop loss on their investment.

Now with regards to the Al Aqsa flood operation itself, assuming that it is as it seems and that it wasn't allowed by the Israelis, there are several questions or several angles that I think are interesting. It's interesting, for example, that I think this operation demonstrates a level of sophistication and capability that we have never seen from Hamas before. And in fact, their capabilities have drastically improved quite recently. And they have improved while Gaza has been under complete isolation and blockade. So how exactly does that happen?

How exactly has that been possible? Not only have weapons reached Gaza, weapons which, by the way, some of which are from Ukraine, some of which are from, the weapons that were, untracked and sent to Ukraine supposedly to be used by them, but then redirected through the black market and reached Gaza, which was of course entirely predictable, which is, what I've been saying all along, which is why they removed the clause, from their, Ukraine funding and Ukraine arming bills. They removed the clause for, tracking those weapons precisely because the intention was for proliferation of those weapons. The intention was to make sure that those weapons reached all sorts of places and caused and armed all sorts of conflicts. So not only have weapons reached Gaza, but apparently training has reached Gaza.

Either that means that Hamas fighters have been able to leave Gaza and receive training elsewhere, or it means that trainers have been able to infiltrate and be brought into Gaza to train Hamas fighters or it means that trained fighters have entered Gaza. Because let's face it, the current generation of Hamas fighters have almost no experience whatsoever in guerrilla warfare. Yet somehow they have executed an incredibly effective operation that eclipses anything that they ever did before. Where did that expertise and ability come from? And I personally, I can't help but feel that this is somehow connected with recent events and recent changes in relationships in The Middle East.

For instance, Saudi Arabia's rapprochement with Iran, Mohammed bin Salman meeting with Hamas leaders in Saudi Arabia, meeting with Hezbollah leaders in Saudi Arabia, Hamas leaders meeting in Russia with Russian officials in Moscow in July. And then we have Saudi Arabia telling its citizens that they should leave Lebanon last August for no disclosed or explicable reason. And then suddenly, Hamas demonstrates a level of capability and sophistication greater than anything we have ever seen from them. I mean, is all of that coincidental? Maybe.

Maybe not. I mean, Saudi Arabia and The UAE have extensive connections to private militias, including Wagner, including Blackwater, the RSF in Sudan, and so on. And they have employed those militias in multiple countries, from Yemen to Somalia to Mali to Sudan. I remember that the Pregocean, the now dead former head of Wagner, had meetings in Egypt just a couple of months ago. So it's not inconceivable to me that Mohammed bin Salman and Mohammed bin Zayed have been making a play to involve themselves in the so called resistance axis in The Middle East.

Perhaps coordinating, training, arming, and funding militant groups for the purpose of gaining control over the most disruptive actors in the region, including Hamas and including Hezbollah, to recruit them into their own power networks. I wouldn't be surprised if you start to see headlines claiming whether it's true or not, but claiming that Wagner, for example, was maybe training Hamas fighters in Sinai or that RSF or Wagner fighters claimed to be identified as participants in the Aqsa flood operation. It wouldn't surprise me if that sort of information or those sorts of headlines start to come out. I mean, have seen one or two videos of the Hamas fighters who looked more or less Sudan. Now, obviously, there are black people in Gaza.

There are black Gazans. But it isn't impossible, that members of militias in Africa who were organized under the auspices of Saudi Arabia and The UAE and Russia have been transferred into the Gaza Strip. And Allahu Alam. Now the question remains, what is the endgame here? Whether this is part of some coordinated agenda, between Saudi Arabia, between Saudi Arabia, the Emiratis, Iran and Russia and so on, whether or not it was a coordinated effort or whether it's just Hamas acting on their own.

The question is: what's the actual objective? Well, if Hamas actually undertook this operation on their own then presumably the objective would be to derail any normalization talks between Saudi Arabia and Israel. And possibly to derail the Abraham Accords themselves. I mean, of course, part of the motive would be just to inflict some sort of damage and some sort of vengeance against the Israelis. But obviously everyone knows that the outcome of the Aqsa flood operation is not going to be the destruction of Israel.

I mean the fact of the matter is that most armed conflict is actually just undertaken with negotiations in mind. It's a tactic to influence how negotiations will go. You know, what demands will be met, what concessions will be made and so on. You know, what is one side willing to agree to if it means avoiding continued armed conflict? That's really what is the motive behind most armed conflict.

It isn't for a military victory, it's for a victory at the negotiating table. This would more or less be the same reasoning if the Hamas incursion was a coordinated operation involving external players like Saudi Arabia, like Iran and potentially Russia. You know, just trying to control the dynamics that will impact future negotiations. Just like I said earlier, the Saudis could potentially agree to normalization in exchange for Israel suspending attacks against Gaza or in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip if they reoccupy Gaza instead of demanding a two state solution or instead of demanding a return to the nineteen sixty seven borders. Now as I said, Saudi Arabia told its citizens to leave Lebanon in August for no apparent reason, for no reason that was ever given.

So that could potentially indicate that they foresaw conflict in Lebanon. And we have seen Hezbollah getting somewhat involved in the current conflict with missile strikes against Israeli occupied Lebanese territory along the border in the South. Now if we see the Israelis reaching into Lebanon proper, into Beirut for example, beyond the southern occupied territories, then I would be more inclined to believe that there is some sort of Saudi coordination going on between Saudi Arabia, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran. The Saudis are very interested in increasing their influence in Lebanon and trying to bring Hezbollah under that sphere of influence. They're trying to mitigate Iran's influence in Lebanon.

So an expanded conflict that would engulf Lebanon would provide them opportunities to do that. Now I'll repeat, this is all speculation on my part. And frankly it's too early on for me to tell what's the most likely explanation for what's happening. These are just the possibilities that I see. And inshaAllah things will become clearer over time.

Now I'll repeat here something that I said the other day on Twitter. And that is that I don't think that any Muslim should make any public statement criticizing the Palestinians for their tactics or for their strategies. Regardless of what your personal opinion might be. And regardless of whether or not any disapproval that you might feel for their strategies or for their tactics might be based on your concern for the consequences of their tactics in terms of what the people of Gaza will suffer from the inevitable cowardly Israeli retaliation. The appropriate venue for you to express your concerns for the Palestinian people is dua for Allah to protect them.

Not in the form of criticism in a public forum. We need to advocate, support, and display total solidarity with the Palestinians without concession, without hesitation, don't give an inch. Now that doesn't mean that you have to try to morally justify any wrongs that may be committed by the Palestinians in the midst of armed conflict, but it means not allowing any wrongs that they might commit in the midst of armed conflict to divert discourse away from the absolute moral justification that they have for their resistance.