After the initial shock and tremors from the Hamas attack on Israel subsided, the first question asked by both those in the intelligence circles and ordinary people was, “How?” Given that Israel possesses one of the most effective intelligence agencies globally, equipped with cutting-edge surveillance and defense technologies, this was a legitimate question, deserving a swift and comprehensive answer. How did this happen? Where were Mossad and Shin Bet?
Mossad has built a formidable reputation over the years, often considered the agency that even the CIA and KGB turn to when missions seem impossible.
The Mossad is allegedly Saul that nations, private corporations, and even richer individuals call upon as their prime fixer. The agency is renowned for its unparalleled effectiveness in intelligence operations. Mossad’s capabilities are so extensive that it has been suggested they have eyes and ears everywhere, leaving nothing that moves either in bits or in mass unnoticed.
However, the event of October 7th raised doubts. Was Mossad’s reputation just hype, an illusion created by the Israelis to intimidate their enemies? While that’s a possibility, it’s unlikely given the documented success of Mossad in executing covert operations around the world. Their ability to infiltrate high-level circles in Iran and thwart terrorist attacks globally is well-documented. They even played a pivotal role in locating Qassim Soleimani before the U.S. strike that took him out.
The former Iranian general Suleimani was killed in 2019 in a US strike after stepping out of Baghdad Airport having just arrived from Syria. His killing became Trump’s main highlight in his short four years in office. Mossad’s infiltration into Hamas and other groups in the West Bank is even far deeper. There’s this joke in the Middle East in the past that half of Hamas’s soldiers are Jihadis and the other half Israeli spies. And often, the only rebuttal to this joke was, no, Israeli spies make up two-thirds of Hamas’ forces.
However, it’s beyond perplexing that Mossad and Shin Bet failed to detect Hamas’s long-term preparations for the attack and were unable to respond effectively to save Israeli lives. The flimsy excuses given that they were caught off guard or Hamas’ deployment of non-modern means was unmatched by modern technology are now being questioned, and people are rightly beginning to view it as a state-sponsored BS.
A maximalist Jewish Caliphate
So, what explains this uncharacteristic failure of intelligence and defense? For us to truly understand whether these catastrophic intelligence and defense failures were intentional or incompetent, we have first to understand Netanyahu and the long-term strategic objectives of the Jewish State regarding the occupation. What is Netanyahu’s core belief system? What is behind his animating ideology? Why does he describe every benign geopolitical tension in apocalyptic terms? Is he capable of evil– allowing Jews to be murdered for internal and geopolitical reasons?
Netanyahu, above all, is a radical extremist Jewish Jihadist whose worldview is influenced by Jewish thought leaders, particularly his father Benzion Netanyahu, and Ze’ev Jabotinsky. Both of whom coming from an older, militant, racist, and terrorist Zionist tradition, shaped Netanyahu’s doctrine: Maximalism and eliminationism. From his early years to the present, Netanyahu’s father fed him a diet of fear of the other, particularly of Palestinians. His rhetoric on antisemitism and irrational hatred for Palestinians can be traced back to his father. In a 1998 profile, David Remnick of The New Yorker noted that to understand Netanyahu, one must understand his father.
Benzion Netanyahu, after decades of work for the Zionist movement, became a “revisionist” historian. His writings, particularly on the Inquisition, were not for historical purposes but to revive medieval religious hatred, sowing animosity among Christians and Jews. According to Benzion, every tragedy faced by Jews results from hatred against them, irrespective of religious or territorial disputes. The elder Netanyahu conveyed the message that whether in medieval Spain or modern times neither conversion nor concession is the solution. Instead, the Netanyahus propose total elimination—kill them all before they kill us all. This approach has over the years been translated into major wars and mass massacres of Palestinians during Netanyahu’s terms as prime minister.
Benzion Netanyahu’s dark legacy has extended beyond his son, influencing NGOs, corporations, governments, and international bodies. It has become a religious tenet for organizations like the ADL, which insist that any criticism of Israel and Zionism is a form of Jew hatred for which the remedy is soft elimination– cancellation and disconnection from wider society. According to the Netanyahus and now the ADL, expressing concern about the horror scenes in Gaza is not a natural human emotion but a manifestation of Jew hatred. And the cure is the elimination of individuals from society, from finance, and even from God.
Few figures in the history of Zionism have been as influential as Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and the connection between him and the Netanyahus is profound. Born in Russia (now Ukraine) in 1880, Jabotinsky played a crucial role in establishing the intellectual tradition and political institutions that have given rise to current manifestations of Jewish Jihad extremism and supremacism. A product of the 19th-century culture of white intellectuals, Jabotinsky was an avid proponent of eugenics and envisioned a Zionist state founded on the principles of “racial purity” and religious fanaticism.
To achieve his vision, Jabotinsky proposed a Maximalist policy—a perpetual expansion of the racially pure state by eliminating Arabs and taking over their lands. Netanyahu’s supremacy ideology is deeply rooted in Jabotinsky’s Maximalism thinking. According to Jabotinsky, Maximalism envisions a greater Jewish state that controls not only all of Palestine but also half of Jordan, parts of Syria, and a significant portion of Lebanon.
Netanyahu, following in the footsteps of Jabotinsky, shares a belief in the concept of greater Israel and does not personally recognize Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. In his perspective, these lands are considered occupied Israeli territories, and he envisions a gradual reclamation of these lands by the Israeli state via Jewish jihad. Jabotinsky’s doctrine, known as Revisionist Zionism, has become Netanyahu’s doctrine as well. It asserts that the most effective way to end Arab resistance against Israel is not through a two-state or one-state solution but by building up massive defensive and offensive forces, strong enough to overpower the Arabs and force them into submission.
As long as remains of young Palestinian children daring to swing a sling at the Israelis, the solution is not near, therefore Bombs must be kept raining on them, morgues filled at optimum levels as a total shock and awe tactic of physical and psychological terror. The bombs and the relentless eliminationist policy will only be paused when every Palestinian and Arab in the neighboring countries abandons their dignity and accepts predestined subhuman function under Jewish Sharia Law. This is why you keep hearing these days in the media that if Hamas surrenders and releases the hostages the war will end. Defeating Hamas by exterminating every member is seen as a good target but the best would be if they surrendered, and Israel paraded their leaders in the streets naked and humiliated.
In his renowned 1923 essay, Jabotinsky asserted that “The only way to obtain an agreement is the Iron Wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure.” This concept birthed the actual Iron Wall—a missile defense system known as the Iron Dome, a physical barrier that separates Jews from Arabs, and the diplomatic Iron Dome, generously provided by the US to Israel. The Iron Wall strategy also includes other components including sanctions, where the US consistently imposes severe economic and political devastation on neighboring countries to weaken any Arab or Muslim opposition to the expansionist, racially purist Jewish Caliphate.
The outcome is that no matter the intensity of Palestinian uprisings or strong expressions of Arab anger at the UN, they are rendered ineffective as Israel remains shielded by both physical and non-physical Iron Domes, thanks to Jabotinsky’s apocalyptic vision. When Palestinian civilians attempt to cross into Israel for survival or jobs, the Iron Wall halts them. When they fire poorly assembled, ineffective rockets in response to Israel’s aggression and crimes, the Iron Dome intercepts them. Even peaceful resistance efforts, such as the formation of the BDS movement, are met with legislative Iron Domes that criminalize any action boycotting Israel in over 40 US states and major corporations worldwide. Seeking justice at the International Criminal Court for documented crimes against humanity is denied by a legal Iron Dome.
The Iron-Domized Maximalist policy and the violent eliminationist one must run in parallel for each to yield optimal results. The same sophisticated diplomatic minds that have propagated the illusion of a two-state solution for more than a quarter century are also the minds enforcing the eliminationist policies.
Israel kills its PM for making peace
Following the Oslo Accords, wherein Israel got all of its demands, Netanyahu, driven by his father’s and Jabotinsky’s uncompromising Jewish Jihad Maximalist doctrine, allegedly conspired with extremist Israelis to assassinate Yitzhak Rabin, the 5th prime minister of Israel and the architect of the peace agreement with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). Rabin’s murder wasn’t a personal vendetta; rather, it served as a perpetual warning to any future Israeli leader contemplating deviating from the core objective of the Zionists—to establish and expand a national homeland for the Jews from the Nile to the Euphrates. The implicit message was clear: anyone, Arab or Jew, who strays from this goal will face termination.
This commitment to exclusive Jewish occupation and control of the land has resulted in a systematic expulsion of Arabs, using any means deemed effective. Even Arafat, who had joined Rabin in signing the Oslo Accords, allegedly fell victim to poisoning a decade later. Consequently, the Oslo Accords, designed to pave the way for a peaceful coexistence, were never fully implemented. Instead, Israel systematically violated each of its commitments. Since Rabin’s assassination, no Israeli leader has dared to earnestly pursue real peace with the Palestinians, despite multiple attempts by successive U.S. administrations. Efforts by Presidents Bush, Obama, and Trump all faltered due to deceptive maneuvers by subsequent Israeli leaders.
George W. H. Bush, despite his flaws and penchant for war, initially displayed a serious approach to the Middle East. Early in his presidency, he expressed a genuine desire to broker peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Although he lacked a clear vision for the troubled region, Bush aimed to build upon the progress made during Clinton’s tenure, ultimately working toward a negotiated final status of a two-state solution based on the Oslo Accords. One driving factor behind Bush’s engagement was the increasing isolationist stance within his party, which threatened to withdraw all U.S. troops from the Middle East. Bush, while supportive of this isolationist idea, believed in stabilizing the region first by resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
However, the Israelis were not enthusiastic about Bush’s peace efforts. Although they refrained from a public confrontation with the new president during his early days in office, they privately expressed their displeasure through their established channels in Washington, D.C. Observers closely following the politics of the region anticipated that this discontent might surface openly, leading to a clash between Bush and Israel. The historical tension between Bush’s father and Israel’s supporters, which experts argue played a role in derailing Bush Sr.’s chances for a second term, seemed poised to repeat itself with his son if not handled delicately.
God works mysteriously
Then came the devastating events of 9/11, when terrorists attacked the United States, leading to a shift in Bush’s priorities. War took precedence over peace, interventionism supplanted isolationism. The entire focus and manpower of America shifted to combating terrorism and pursuing regime changes across the Middle East and Asia. The longest-running conflict in the world, the Israeli-Palestinian issue, faded into the background, a development that pleased the Israelis. Bush delegated responsibility for the Palestine-Israel peace initiatives to the Israelis themselves and told them that, as part of the war on terror strategy, the neocons’ focus was on spreading a democratic revolution throughout the Middle East via regime changes and coups. If the Israelis needed assistance in the West Bank and Gaza, they were to let the U.S. know.
The Israelis were like, thank God for Bush, we need democracy in Gaza, and this was how Hamas was born. Hamas’ control of Gaza was born out of the political version of a one-night stand between Israel and the neocons. The intention might not have been to create a monster Hamas, but the desire to do it anyway was mutual. Since then, both Israel and the U.S. have manipulated Hamas for various strategic reasons, including using it as a scapegoat for a lack of peace progress in the region. Additionally, Hamas has been positioned as a counterweight to the more moderate Palestinian Authority led by Abbas, which recognizes Israel. Israel and its supporters often cite the presence of Hamas as a reason for claiming a lack of a viable peace partner among the Palestinians.
When Barack Hussein Obama assumed office, propelled in part by public backlash against the endless war on terror and the financial crisis of 2008 resulting from the Bush administration’s eight-year rule, one of his early presidential steps was to travel to Cairo—the headquarters of the Arab League—to convey a message to the Muslim world. He presented himself as a new and benevolent sheriff in town, one who still wore the blue and white stripes of America but differed in both color and experience. As the son of an African and Muslim father, Obama pledged to serve as a new bridge between America and the Islamic world, aiming to repair the scars from years of strained relations.
However, this bridge would have to traverse Jerusalem, the heart of the decades-old conflict between Palestine and Israel, before reaching Cairo. Establishing such a bridge necessitated addressing the issue of occupation. In his now-famous “New Beginning” speech, Obama promised the Muslim world that he would work toward ending the occupation, a commitment that didn’t sit well with the Israelis. While American presidents are often lauded as staunch allies when providing aid, they face severe criticism when requesting something in return. The Israelis, utilizing their established channels in Washington, DC, expressed their vehement opposition to Obama’s aspirations for the Middle East.
Obama’s advisers and close aides were not only surprised by the intensity and assertiveness of the Israeli leaders but also by the internal pressure. Members of his own party in Congress, donors, former campaign managers, volunteers, and even close aides plainly communicated that this was a redline for them. Given the historical lessons learned from clashes between Israeli leaders and his predecessors, Obama was advised to abandon his Middle East vision entirely or, at the very least, shelve it until after his second term. This would allow him to make bold decisions without the constant fear of reelection hanging over his head.
Obama, heeding the advice to defer his Middle East plans to a potential second term, retreated from the region, assuring Arabs that he would revisit the matter later. While the Israelis were pleased to have thwarted Obama’s Middle East initiatives, they were still resentful that he had attempted them, and they sought to make him pay a heavy price. AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and other pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington DC, launched a massive, multi-fronted campaign to create a tumultuous environment during Obama’s time in the White House. Evangelicals, white supremacists, nationalists, right-wing racists, anti-Muslim bigots, and even Black activists converged on Obama in a coordinated effort. The Tea Party, fueled by anti-Obama sentiments, filled the streets and halls of Congress in protest. Conspiracy theories, including the notorious Birther conspiracy endorsed by Donald Trump, dominated the airwaves. Obama faced derogatory labels, ranging from being labeled a secret Muslim to accusations of being anti-American, anti-white, not Black enough, and a “Jew hater.” Even media figures like Alex Jones joined the anti-Obama chorus, portraying him as a satanic figure.
As a result of this coordinated assault, Obama was transformed from a formidable and determined figure, just four years prior, into a wounded, humiliated, and beleaguered leader by the 2012 election. Supporters of Israel saw this as an opportunity to put an end to his presidency. To further undermine Obama’s chances, Netanyahu personally interfered in the American election by endorsing Mitt Romney, the son of a former Dixiecrat. Netanyahu summoned Romney to Jerusalem to share his plans and expertise on how to put a Black man in his “right place.” Netanyahu based his calculations on the assumption that Mitt Romney’s family heritage and Obama’s race would resonate with the American public, leading them to vote the Black president out of the White House. However, this strategy failed, and Obama won re-election.
With no re-election fears influencing his decisions, Obama embarked on a peace offensive on both the Palestinian and Iranian nuclear fronts, both of which intimately concerned Israel. Netanyahu, facing the prospect of fighting Obama on these fronts and potentially losing while damaging Israel’s relationship with its strongest ally, America, was confronted with his worst fears all at once.
Netanyahu’s triumph over Obama and Arab rivals
To navigate these minefields without the risk of having Israeli legs blown apart, Netanyahu returned to the drawing board. He and his supporters in DC frantically sifted through contingency plans developed over the years for moments precisely like this. Netanyahu discovered that he could use one issue (Iran) to defend the other (the occupation). Mounting a coordinated attack, Netanyahu, along with AIPAC, aimed to sabotage Obama’s peace plans by redirecting the narrative to a familiar foe: Iran. AIPAC deployed its renowned lobbying skills, flooding Washington with foot soldiers armed with a singular focus on Iran while avoiding discussions about the occupation, Palestine, or the Middle East conflict.
Within a matter of days, Iran became the hottest item in the media –overshadowing other important topics such as gossip about which Black man were the Kardashians now dating, and terrorism framed as the primary existential threat to America’s national security and the existence of Israel. This expansive campaign reached its zenith when Netanyahu addressed Congress behind Obama’s back, receiving an unprecedented 29 bipartisan standing ovations, surpassing even wartime addresses by U.S. presidents. Obama, understandably angered, proceeded with his plans, signing the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) with Iran. Revenge on Netanyahu and serving the interests of his country became inseparable in Obama’s mind. As he signed the agreement, Obama was like, “Bibi, you SOB,” but Netanyahu was laughing, having successfully ensnared Obama in his trap.
For Netanyahu, the focus was never truly on Iran’s nuclear threat but rather on using it as a scare tactic to divert attention from the horrors of the occupation. While Iran may be a strategic regional rival, it is not considered an existential threat to Israel. Losing control over Palestine and settlements is on the other hand viewed as a greater concern. In fact, thousands of former Mossad agents and Middle East experts publicly admitted that the JCPOA was a significant win for Israel.
Netanyahu’s demonstration of influence in DC, manipulating Congress to applaud his every word, served two primary objectives. First, it sent a warning to Obama that while he may have executive powers, Netanyahu had Congress and the American people behind him. Second, it conveyed to regional rivals and wealthy Gulf monarchies that the path to DC ran through him—for business, peace, and war. The message to Arab leaders was clear: bypass the thorny issue of Palestine and make bilateral deals with Netanyahu, or risk losing access to America. This recognition of Netanyahu’s immense influence in DC ultimately paved the way for the Abraham Accords, a diplomatic slash bribery breakthrough taken credit by both Trump and Netanyahu.
The realization of the Abraham Accords only materialized after Trump’s team failed to achieve their primary goal. Trump’s pitch to the American people during the 2016 presidential campaign was that he was the master of the Art of the Deal, and to demonstrate this, he pledged to broker peace between Israel and Palestine—a feat that had eluded ten of his predecessors. He dubbed this ambitious endeavor the “Deal of the Century.” While some scoffed at his aspirations, others went to great lengths to thwart his pursuit of this goal.
Recognizing Trump’s stubbornness and his inclination to make everything about himself, Netanyahu and his allies in Washington took his promise seriously and devised various tactics to prevent its realization. These tactics included flattery, demonization of Palestinians, and Ivanka and Jared Kushner. Through conservative influencers and Q-Anon adherents, they played to Trump’s ego, comparing him to Cyrus, the Persian King from biblical lore who supposedly saved the Jewish people. The implication was that Trump was a great man chosen by God to serve and assist the Jewish State, and therefore, he must not make concessions to God’s enemies—the Palestinians. Trump, being the personality he is, blushed at this flattery and began parroting it. This is how the unfounded claim that he was the “best American president for the Jewish state” originated, despite previous U.S. presidents, including Truman, having done similar or better things for Israel. In reality, there was nothing Cyrus-like about Trump.
Netanyahu’s use of fake videos to manipulate Trump
During and on the eve of Trump’s first visit to Israel and Palestine, Netanyahu and his allies, particularly those in the media, orchestrated one of the most vicious and extensive demonization campaigns against Palestinians since the end of World War II. Even before Trump landed, the media had painted an ugly, irrational image of Palestinians as terrorists in his mind.
To put the icing on the cake, Netanyahu showed Trump faked videos of Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, apparently making some ISIS-like comments. Including threats of extermination of Jewish People, murdering babies, and burning people alive. Apparently, Netanyahu had access to AI way long before anyone else did and utilized it to dehumanize Palestinians in order to avoid making peace with them.
All of this enraged Trump, and during their crucial meeting in Ramallah–the day after Netanyahu had shown him the manipulated videos– he reportedly shouted and screamed at Abbas in anger for hours. Trump returned to America with a completely different perspective on the Palestinian leadership and their cause. While still grappling with the horrors he had seen in the fabricated videos and feeling somewhat hopeless about the entire “Deal of the Century,” Netanyahu and his allies swooped in, advising Trump to hand the Middle East process over to his son-in-law.
They argued that the Middle East process was too messy and beneath his stature, suggesting he should focus on grandiose diplomatic initiatives like meetings with Putin, Xi of China, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. They assured him that they would play their part, and any achievements by his not-so-experienced son-in-law, Jared Kushner, would be credited to him. Excited by the prospect, Trump gave Kushner his blessings to handle the Middle East.
The Deceptive Jihadi Son-in Law
With no prior experience in international affairs and lacking a background in tough negotiations beyond apartment leases, Kushner called David Friedman– Trump’s ambassador to Israel and a settler himself, and Netanyahu for help. Netanyahu instructed Kushner and his handpicked staffers from the U.S. State Department, whose assignments were not consulted with the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson–their task was not to make a deal but to sabotage the prospects of peace.
To achieve this, Netanyahu dictated to Kushner to propose a framework so absurd and unacceptable to the Palestinians that they would reject it outright without discussion. When the Palestinians inevitably rejected the plan, Kushner was to take it back to Trump, presenting it as evidence that the Palestinians were the obstacle to peace. This strategy aligned precisely with the final draft of Kushner’s two-year effort known as the “deal of the century.”
Kushner presented the Palestinians with an economic plan rather than the political solution they had sought for more than half a century. He bluntly told them to abandon their statehood dreams and, instead, accept financial assistance from the USA and wealthy Gulf states. In other words, take the money and leave Israel alone. The Palestinians rejected the proposal promptly, which was entirely expected. Netanyahu and Kushner then approached Trump, informing him that the Palestinians had rejected the peace plan he had invested significant time and energy into. Furious, Trump asked for a solution, and Netanyahu and Kushner, after a private discussion, returned with a new proposal: normalization deals with Arab countries. Despite Trump’s initial skepticism, Netanyahu and Kushner claimed to have a plan to convince Arab nations to abandon the Palestinians.
The plan devised by Netanyahu and Kushner to secure normalization deals with Arab countries had two components. The first involved outright bribery, offering financial incentives to Arab nations. The second part consisted of a veiled threat: the potential annexation of the entire West Bank. While Arab countries were not fond of the latter, they were certainly enticed by the promise of financial benefits.
Sudan, for example, enthusiastically accepted the deal, which included billions of dollars in annual funding, forgiveness of national debt by the World Bank, and commitments to substantial investments in the country by the American private sector. Donald Trump even offered to pay victims of the Sept. 11 attacks $700 million of U.S. funds to drop their pursuit of claims against the African country so that Sudan could sign normalization with Israel. The compensation was part of the conditions for Sudan’s removal from the list of state sponsors of terrorism and its signing of a normalization agreement with Israel. Interestingly, Trump framed the situation in a way that suggested Sudan had independently come up with the payment for U.S. terrorist victims. He tweeted, “GREAT news! The new government of Sudan, which is making great progress, agreed to pay $335 MILLION to U.S. terror victims and families. Once deposited, I will lift Sudan from the State Sponsors of Terrorism list. At long last, JUSTICE for the American people and a BIG step for Sudan!”
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) received the F-35 fighter jets from the U.S. as a precondition for its normalization agreement with Israel, becoming the second country to get its hands on the F-35 warplanes after Israel itself. Morocco, another Arab nation, secured territorial recognition from Trump in exchange for signing a deal with Israel. Collectively, these agreements are now known as the Abraham Accords, touted by Trump and his supporters as a historic foreign policy achievement.
While Trump claimed to be the master of the “Art of the Deal” in theory, it was Netanyahu who emerged as the ultimate beneficiary in practice. The plan’s successful implementation was orchestrated with the assistance of Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner.
A Providential Hand
So, what was Netanyahu trying to foil this time with the Hamas attack on OC 7? Well, it’s not hard to find his motive, we just need to rewind the clock back a few weeks before the attack.
Since Biden’s first visit to the region last summer, both Israeli and American media have been reporting dramatic progress in the normalization deal involving the US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia. Initially, Biden wasn’t enthusiastic about pursuing deals in the Middle East, let alone visiting Israel and Saudi Arabia. As a candidate, he called Saudi Arabia a “pariah” and accused its de facto ruler of killing Khashoggi. Before the trip to Israel, Biden admitted to the media that it wasn’t his choice; rather, Israeli leaders lobbied for the visit. This highlights how little the US administration regarded the importance of a normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, similar to the so-called Abraham Accords, which did not contribute to cooling down the region’s political problems.
However, since then, a lot has changed. Biden dispatched his chief diplomat, national security advisor, and other key players to Saudi Arabia and Israel, signaling an imminent deal. Just days before the Hamas attack, the media reported a framework being agreed upon among the parties, excluding Israel, which was not completely sold on the scope and details of the deal. The framework, accepted by both the US and Saudi Arabia, included the US guaranteeing Saudi security through a defense pact and a civilian nuclear arrangement for the kingdom, allowing uranium enrichment on home soil. It also involved a major concession by Israel to the Palestinians.
The Israelis expressed a strong desire for a relationship with Saudi Arabia but objected to the associated costs. Concessions to Palestinians were a non-starter, and they insisted that Saudi Arabia abandon its demands for uranium enrichment. Israel couldn’t allow its regional power dominance to be challenged by a far richer and more populous Sunni state. However, the Saudis explicitly told the American negotiating team that the Palestinian component was not up for discussion. If Israel wanted diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia, it had to make significant concessions to Palestinians, including “irreversible steps”, suspending settlement buildings, and reining in settler violence against Palestinians. Americans believed this was a reasonable request, given what Israel stood to gain from such a normalization deal with Saudi Arabia, and they pressured Netanyahu and his hardcore coalition to accept the Saudi terms.
If Netanyahu had said yes to these demands, he would not only risk the breakdown of his coalition but also put himself in danger of being assassinated, similar to Yitzhak Rabin. If he had said no, he would have been seen by Biden and his administration as an obstacle to peace and stability in the region, as Trump did in his final days in office. Although the latter carried minimal risk from Netanyahu’s perspective, the perception of Israel as the “bad guy” was something they had to avoid at all costs. So, to avoid all of this, Netanyahu again went back to the drawing board to see what he could use this time to get out of this unfavorable yet important proposed deal.
There was no 9/11 in America this time, neither was Iran a factor for Biden, nor the threat of annexation of territories would work as it did during Trump years, which provided some Arab countries an excuse for joining the Abraham Accords. The Palestinians themselves are begging to be annexed and given equal rights to Israelis and Arab nations are now in favor of this given the alternative is apartheid.
without divine intervention or drastic and shocking national security events, Netanyahu was going to have his back against the wall. To rub salt into Netanyahu’s nightmarish wounds, the Israelis were in their 8th week of massive protests against his unipolar proposed judicial reforms. With Netanyahu now pushed from one side by protestors and the other by the prospect of peace and no other way out, Hamas came to the rescue. An act that lends credence to the oft-used religious adage, “God works in mysterious ways.”
The Oc 7 Hamas attack on Israel was either allowed to happen by Netanyahu or was divine intervention by God to save Netanyahu, but it can’t be due to failure of intelligence. And Netanyahu has already used it to extricate himself and his extremist coalition from that corner. The protests have since stopped and Israelis rallied behind him. The Saudi deal paused and its survival hangs on what Netanyahu does or doesn’t.
Now Netanyahu might actually end up seeing through his threats of “cleansing of Gaza” and then reoccupying the ruins as it doesn’t contradict his apocalyptic vision, but not until he exhausts his other primary option. Which is to use the threat of genocide of Gazans to force Saudi Arabia to remove the Palestine and nuclear component from the proposed normalization deal. Saudi Arabia will most likely accept this to save the lives of millions of Palestinians while also using it as justification for its potential relationship with Israel, which it long sought. It’s a win for Israel, and the US, and less painful for Saudi Arabia but as always, a loss for the Palestinians. Palestinians coming out as the ultimate losers in any scenario has always been the strategic goal of the state of Israel and the Zionist movement.
This piece was written two weeks after the event of OC 7, if it seems a bit out of date with the current dynamics of the situation, we apologize in advance.
