top of page
Search
  • Writer's picture738

Israel versus Hamas



*


Kittens—Zelensky is having. The main beneficiary from the Hamas assault on Israel is Vladimir Putin. He benefits from fortuna—because the Ukrainian cause relies on “eyes on Ukraine”, but those eyes will be turned to the Middle East for the foreseeable future.

The powerful American Jewish interest has been harmed, and that will take priority over all other causes—even if Zelensky is a Jew himself. Hence his rather desperate and histrionic accusations that “Russia backs Hamas”.


For Putin, it could be his “Kolberg” moment—Kolberg being a battle in the Napoleonic Wars where the Prussians managed to turn the tide against outrageous fortune (Hitler himself held out for just such a moment at the close of WWII). It’s why people never give up—they hope for a Kolberg moment.


Now, it can’t save Putin altogether—the aid to Ukraine will not stop. However, it might cause enough confusion that he can manage to stalemate the situation, especially through his upcoming presidential election (and, for that matter, the US election—who knows what that will bring?).


Even better, media attention will shift to the massive Palestinian casualties (soon to be inflicted) and that will provide a propaganda stick with which to beat the West, and also distract from any dubious Russian actions.


As for the West, while I doubt the Americans will “run out of arms”, there may come a moment, especially if the crisis in the Middle East deepens, when the West comes to regret hurling away its military kit willy-nilly into Ukraine (turns out you might want some of that stuff for, you know, some unknown contingency).


Overall, it’s all to Putin’s benefit—Zelensky will find his requests for aid pushed to the back of the queue while Israel is catered for. It’s a psychological blow, not to be “victim number 1” anymore—and, from Putin’s perspective, the ideal would be for the crisis to deepen and widen so entrenching the West on another front (and prompting embarrassment).


**


The Hamas attack on Israel is not significant for any military reason in the sense that Hamas can defeat Israel in a conventional way. It is significant in the psychological sense that the Israelis have long cultivated the impression that they are “invulnerable” and have a security service that “sees everywhere”. This myth of invulnerability has been punctured; and, insofar as war depends on psychological factors, it is impossible to regain—so in that respect the Israelis have lost.


This is what Khamenei meant when he said that the “Zionist dictatorship” will never recover from this blow. The IDF will retake Gaza, but it may only retake it at a considerable cost. The psychological sense of security and superiority will never be restored and that’s a critical aspect to morale in war-fighting.

Further, Israel will not hold the moral high ground—because their assault on Gaza will lead to tremendous civilian causalities (and these will be intentional), broadcast around the globe, and this will erode any initial sympathy people felt for Israel.


***


There have been those who say that this is “Israel’s 9/11”—this is incorrect and demonstrates an inability to think in symbolic terms. The events have had a quantitative aspect that is similar to 9/11 in casualty numbers, but there has been no symbolic element. No kibbutz attacked had any symbolic association with Judaism, or even with secular Zionism. The twin towers, meanwhile, were avatars for New York itself—and, by extension, America.


If the Palestinians had driven all Orthodox Jews from the Old City of Jerusalem (killed hundreds at the Wailing Wall), if they had seized the Knesset, or if they had taken Orthodox Jews prisoner in the Tomb of the Patriarchs then there would be symbolic parity with 9/11. There is no symbolic element to this event—it is a large-scale atrocity, but it is without symbolism.

Hence, whatever it heralds, it will not have the same impact as 9/11—even if it opens up into another war, it does not herald “a new epoch” in that sense. Indeed, the event is so diffuse, spread over so many towns and villages, that it has no centre—you can’t sum it up in a single phrase “Tel Aviv”, for example; perhaps the date will become important, but no more memorable than the attempt to copy 9/11 in Britain “7/7” (which never caught on, because, again, no symbolic targets were hit in that attack—just transport infrastructure).


The Jews are anti-fragile as a people, so, like women, they gain from disorder—the more you hit them, the stronger they get. However, this is not true in this war because here the Jews act like a conventional army—here it is Hamas that has the anti-fragile guerrilla advantage. Here the Jews fight in a conventional army and have all the vulnerabilities found in a conventional army—hence the attack on Gaza will cost them more than it gains.


It is typical of our world, at its almost most inverted point, that the people who through most of history never had a home—the Jews—have a home, while the world itself has become “Judaised”, the world itself is homeless. This itself points to Satanic inversion—when only the homeless have a homeland, the end is at hand.

So, in this context, the Jews are at a disadvantage—despite immediate and unreserved support from America—for the massacres to come in Gaza will only aid the Palestinian cause in the long run.

What this whole escapade demonstrates is that the Jews control America—for a carrier strike group was at once whisked up to defend Israel, inconceivable for any other American “ally”. Indeed, there is about $2bn worth of American munitions sequestered in Israel for their use—should the need arise.


****


Netanyahu: portrayed as a no-nonsense, competent, and tough man from “the far-right” he nonetheless has overseen total disorder in his country over the judicial system—he is embroiled in corruption scandals and has supervised the greatest national security disaster in his nation’s history (only Yom Kippur is comparable—and Israel was led by a woman then).


Could it not be that Netanyahu is a useless man and a terrible leader for his people? The record speaks for itself.


*****

Could the war widen? It’s possible—Israel might choose to strike Iran, Hezbollah might strike Israel from the north to alleviate the stress on Gaza. Much is uncertain—how competent is the Israeli army, just recently humiliated? Just as we saw with Russia in Ukraine, with its apparently formidable refurbished army, appearance belies reality.

Have the Israelis become complacent over the years, relying too much on technology to take the load and forgetting practical and basic skills?


For all their high-tech defences it turns out “electronic fences” will not stop…a bulldozer.


For years we have heard that the Israelis have Hamas penetrated by intelligence agents from tip to toe—but clearly this was all propaganda. What lies in wait for them in Gaza? Are they ready?


Despite all our technology, much that we do in war is still basic—men lifting heavy boxes and moving them from one place to another (sometimes they contain ammunition, sometimes bodies).


******


How did the Arabs, usually so incompetent, pull off this remarkable coup? Could it be that a certain magician, not one week before, placed some magical symbols on an Israeli flag and did something antagonising to it? In life, we need our mysteries…and time will keep this one.


To surprise, to blindside—that is the way known to Alkaid, destroyer-of-nations. God of smoke-and-mirrors, of the samurai. He smiled on the Palestinian operation, for whatever reason…





162 views

Recent Posts

See All

Dream (VII)

I walk up a steep mountain path, very rocky, and eventually I come to the top—at the top I see two trees filled with blossoms, perhaps cherry blossoms, and the blossoms fall to the ground. I think, “C

Runic power

Yesterday, I posted the Gar rune to X as a video—surrounded by a playing card triangle. The video I uploaded spontaneously changed to the unedited version—and, even now, it refuses to play properly (o

Gods and men

There was once a man who was Odin—just like, in more recent times, there were men called Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha. The latter three, being better known to us, are clearly men—they face the dilemmas

Comments


Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page