Revealed to us by WikiLeaks:
"Israel would be happy if Hamas took over Gaza because the IDF could then deal with Gaza as a hostile state.”
—Israeli Defence Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin in 2007
To this day, mainstream media outlets simply omit any mention of Israel aiding Hamas’ rise to power, so that it could have an excuse to stop negotiations and prevent a pathway to a unified Palestinian state.
🚨🇵🇸 Israeli forces have killed 10 Palestinians across Gaza on Thursday, including a boy and 3 women, as attacks continue nearly a year into the ceasefire. Fresh Israeli strikes and gunfire killed 8 people. Two others died of wounds from earlier attacks.
➤ A strike on the Al-Sawafiri family home near the Abdullah Azzam Mosque in Gaza City's Sabra neighborhood killed a boy, Hussam Abu Asr, and a woman, Intisar Abu Asr. Ten others were wounded, some critically.
➤ An Israeli strike on a tent for displaced people at the Egyptian-built shelter camp in al-Tawam, northwest of Gaza City, killed Mohammed Rajab and Rasha Agha.
➤ A drone strike on a car near the Jordanian field hospital on Industry Street in southwest Gaza City killed Majdi al-Ayoubi and Hussam Abu al-Atta.
➤ Israeli shelling near al-Khazindar station, northwest of Gaza City, killed Ahlam Shaaban Mubarak, 30, on Thursday morning and wounded others.
➤ Israeli forces shot and killed a man near Kissufim, east of Deir al-Balah in central Gaza.
➤ Ahmed Khamis Abu Naja of Nuseirat refugee camp died of wounds from an Israeli strike about a week ago. Another Palestinian also died of earlier wounds.
➤ Israeli warplanes fired several missiles at a home in Shujaiya, east of Gaza City, destroying it. In Khan Younis, airstrikes hit two homes, including a three-story building, and Israeli forces blew up residential buildings in the city's northeast.
➤ Israeli vehicles fired heavily toward shelters for displaced people east of Jabalia, including the al-Wusta and al-Mushtaraka "B" schools, and fired on displaced people's tents in the al-Mawasi area of Rafah. A young man was shot in the foot in the Dutch neighborhood of western Khan Younis.
Hebrew-language media reported that the Israeli military issued evacuation orders for several areas of Gaza shortly before the evening strikes, Shehab News said.
Seriously, does anyone think for a second that if Hamas had been waiting in tunnels with the kind of fire power capable of doing this to cars that the IDF would have been running around Gaza the way they have been for the past 3 years?
The truth is that if Hamas had weapons capable of doing this, Hamas would be sitting in Tel Aviv today.
John Mearsheimer is asked if he believes Hamas are pure evil irrational spawns from hell whose attack on October 7th was motivated by anti-Semitism. He responds: That's absurd Israeli propaganda, they did it to resist the occupation and brutal treatment of Palestinians
Here is a test.
Take any headline about violence in Gaza.
Swap the nationalities.
Read it again.
"Israeli forces face heavy casualties in urban fighting" becomes "Palestinian fighters face heavy casualties in urban fighting."
"Hamas uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes" becomes "IDF uses civilian infrastructure for military purposes."
"Rockets fired from Gaza terrorize Israeli communities" becomes "Airstrikes from Israel terrorize Palestinian communities."
Feel how the second sentences land differently.
Feel the resistance in your nervous system, if you were raised on Western news, to the second versions.
That resistance is not your moral instinct.
That resistance is your conditioning.
Malcolm X told you where it came from.
He told you in 1964.
The test still works.
There is a sentence that almost never appears in Western coverage:
Under international law, a people under military occupation have the right to resist that occupation.
This is not a controversial claim.
It is in the United Nations Charter.
It is in the Geneva Conventions.
It has been affirmed repeatedly by the UN General Assembly, explicitly referring to "all available means, including armed struggle."
It is the same principle invoked to describe French resistance to Nazi occupation as heroic rather than terrorist.
It is so uncontroversial that it doesn't need to be stated when applied to almost any other occupied people in history.
When applied to Palestinians, it disappears.
Not because it became false.
Because the people who control which sentences appear in the news made a decision about which populations are permitted to have legally recognized rights that are spoken aloud in prime time.
That decision is political.
The silence around it is also political.
The pretense that both are journalistic is the lie inside the lie.