Did Israel Deliberately Allow the Hamas Attacks? A Devil’s Advocate Examination

The Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, have sparked significant controversy and speculation about Israel’s response and the broader geopolitical implications. The scale and coordination of the attack, coupled with Israel’s renowned intelligence capabilities, have led some to question whether Israel might have deliberately allowed the attack to happen to justify a decisive military response against Hamas and the broader Palestinian population. Additionally, there are theories suggesting that global actors, including the CIA or other globalists, might have had ulterior motives for instigating a conflict in the Middle East. This article explores these complex and controversial topics, striving to maintain a neutral and balanced perspective.

The Context of the Hamas Attack

On October 7, 2023, Hamas launched an unexpected and highly coordinated attack on Israel, involving thousands of rockets and hundreds of fighters infiltrating Israeli territory. The attack resulted in significant casualties, including the deaths of Israeli civilians and soldiers, and many Israelis were taken hostage.

In the wake of the attack, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared war on Hamas, vowing to use Israel’s military might to destroy the group. The ferocity of Israel’s response, coupled with questions about how such an attack could have caught Israel off guard, has led to speculation that Israel may have had motives for allowing the attack to occur—or at least not preventing it—despite its advanced intelligence capabilities.

Why Would Israel Want an Excuse to Wipe Out Palestine?

Several factors could be considered as potential motivations for Israel to allow, or even indirectly facilitate, the Hamas attack:

1. Strategic Elimination of a Persistent Threat: Hamas, designated as a terrorist organization by many countries, including the United States and the European Union, has long been a thorn in Israel’s side. The group’s control over Gaza and its repeated attacks on Israel have made it a significant and ongoing security threat. By allowing an attack of this scale, Israel could justify a full-scale military operation to eliminate Hamas once and for all.
2. Consolidation of Power in the Region: Eliminating Hamas could provide Israel with an opportunity to reassert control over Gaza, a territory that has been under Hamas rule since 2007. A military campaign could be seen as a way to weaken or dismantle Hamas’s infrastructure, thereby reducing the influence of militant groups in the region and potentially paving the way for new political arrangements more favorable to Israel.
3. International Sympathy and Support: A devastating attack on Israeli civilians, especially one that appears unprovoked, could rally international sympathy and support for Israel. This support could provide Israel with the political cover needed to carry out a more extensive military campaign in Gaza and potentially the West Bank, with less international condemnation.
4. The “Final Solution” to the Palestinian Question: While the term “final solution” is heavily loaded and historically associated with the Holocaust, some theorists suggest that Israel might seek a definitive resolution to the Palestinian issue. This could involve using a major conflict as a pretext to take more drastic actions against Palestinian territories, potentially including further annexation of land or displacement of Palestinian populations.

Israel and the CIA: A Nepharious History?

Israel and the CIA have a long history of cooperation, particularly in the realm of intelligence and counterterrorism. However, this relationship has also been the subject of numerous conspiracy theories, some of which allege that the two have been involved in covert operations that are not always in line with international law or ethical standards.

1. Historical Intelligence Operations: Both Israel’s Mossad and the CIA have been involved in covert operations around the world, some of which have been highly controversial. These operations have included everything from political assassinations to regime change efforts. The close relationship between the two agencies raises questions about the extent of their collaboration in the Middle East, particularly in relation to groups like Hamas.
2. Backchannel Funding Theories: There have been unsubstantiated claims and conspiracy theories suggesting that intelligence agencies, including the CIA, might have had indirect involvement in funding or facilitating Hamas in the past. The idea behind such theories is that by backing a militant group like Hamas, intelligence agencies could manipulate regional dynamics to their advantage. However, there is no credible evidence to support these claims, and they remain within the realm of speculation.
3. The Powerless Child Theory: Hamas, in comparison to Israel, is vastly outmatched in terms of military capability. The theory that Hamas, akin to a powerless child, would attack a sleeping lion (Israel) suggests a level of desperation or perhaps manipulation. Some speculate that Hamas might have been goaded or manipulated into launching such an attack, possibly by external actors with their own agendas. This could be seen as a way to provoke a conflict that would ultimately serve the interests of those who stand to gain from a destabilized region.

The Role of Intelligence: Mossad, the 10th Man, and the Five Eyes Alliance

Israel’s intelligence apparatus is among the most advanced in the world, with Mossad, Shin Bet, and Aman leading its efforts in national security. After the intelligence failure during the Yom Kippur War in 1973, Israel introduced the “10th Man” rule, which ensures that at least one member of a decision-making group must challenge the consensus view, acting as a devil’s advocate to prevent groupthink and overlooked threats.

Israel is also part of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, which includes the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. This alliance facilitates extensive intelligence sharing, making it highly unlikely that a major operation like the Hamas attack could have been planned and executed without being detected by one of these agencies. If intelligence was indeed available, the question then becomes why it was not acted upon.

The Geopolitical Chessboard: Could the CIA or Globalists Have Wanted a War?

Another theory posits that the attack may have been part of a broader geopolitical strategy, possibly involving the CIA or other globalist entities:

1. Destabilizing the Middle East: One possible motive could be to instigate a broader conflict in the Middle East that could destabilize the region, particularly targeting OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) member states. By dragging Israel into a conflict with Hamas, and potentially provoking a response from other Arab states, a broader war could disrupt the global oil supply, particularly from OPEC nations.
2. Economic Motivations: A war in the Middle East could drive up oil prices, benefiting non-OPEC nations that produce oil. This could be advantageous for certain globalist interests or nations that are seeking to weaken the influence of OPEC on the global energy market. If Israel were to engage in a broader conflict with its Arab neighbors, the resulting turmoil could lead to significant shifts in the global oil economy.
3. Manipulating Regional Politics: By using Hamas as a proxy, external actors could manipulate the regional dynamics in the Middle East. A conflict that pits Israel against multiple Arab states could weaken the unity and stability of these nations, creating opportunities for external powers to exert greater influence in the region.

Conclusion: The Devil’s Advocate Perspective

The idea that Israel might have deliberately allowed or failed to prevent the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023, to justify a larger military campaign is a theory that reflects deep skepticism and distrust in the complex geopolitics of the Middle East. While Israel’s advanced intelligence capabilities and its history of strategic military responses make it difficult to believe that the attack could have gone undetected, the theory also raises important questions about the broader motivations and consequences of the conflict.

The involvement of external actors, such as the CIA or globalist interests, adds another layer of complexity to the situation. The possibility that these actors could have used Hamas as a pawn in a larger geopolitical game underscores the intricate and often hidden dynamics at play in international relations.

As we consider these theories, it is important to remain informed, seek out credible sources of information, and strive for a balanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play. The ultimate goal should be to find a path toward peace and stability in a region that has seen far too much violence and suffering. While the theories explored here are speculative, they highlight the need for critical examination of all factors involved in such a significant and devastating conflict.