Category: The News And Times Blog

The potential perpetrators are selected, programmed, and “egged on” by these Intelligence Services, which may be closely related to the Organized Crime, the various Mafias.

Statistical correlation between the frequency, intensity, and mortality of the mass killings and the specific geopolitical events supports the Intelligence Services hypothesis.

AI Overview

Studies on mass killings have identified correlations between their frequency, intensity, and mortality and specific geopolitical events or conditions, potentially supporting a hypothesis that links these phenomena. Here’s a summary of the findings:

Risk Factors and Mass Killings: Research identifies specific factors that can heighten the risk of mass killings. These include, but are not limited to, geopolitical instability, a decline in democratic freedom, the presence of ongoing conflicts, and discrimination against certain groups. The Early Warning Project utilizes statistical models to assess the risk of new mass killings based on these factors.
Mass Killings are Rare, but the Risk Factors Persist: While mass killings are statistically rare, occurring in only a small percentage of countries annually, the Early Warning Project notes that a few countries consistently face high risk due to these factors. This suggests that the underlying conditions can be persistent.
Geopolitical Dynamics and Mass Atrocities: Research highlights that geopolitical dynamics, alongside factors like radicalization and nationalism, can exacerbate the risk of mass atrocities. Geopolitical events and tensions can fuel terrorist narratives and recruitment efforts, further potentially contributing to violence and extremism.
Limitations of Current Models: It’s important to note that predictive models like the Early Warning Project’s focus on intrastate mass killings and may not encompass all forms of mass violence, such as civilian fatalities in interstate conflicts. These models are also correlational, meaning they identify associations but don’t establish causality.
Ongoing Research and the Need for Better Data: Continued research is crucial to fully understand the relationship between mass killings and geopolitical events. There’s a particular need for more in-depth analysis of the proximate drivers and triggers of mass violence.

In conclusion, a growing body of research supports the existence of statistical correlations between mass killings and specific geopolitical events and conditions. While models can identify countries at risk, further investigation is needed to fully understand the causal mechanisms and develop effective prevention strategies.

“Reports by US intelligence and research organizations often highlight correlations between mass killings and geopolitical events, though they may not always explicitly state a “hypothesis” in the way a scientific paper would”.

“Some sources suggest a relationship between geopolitical events and the risk of mass killings and atrocities, which might align with an Intelligence Services hypothesis.”

Full article: The Relationship between Violent Political Rhetoric and Mass Shootings

Google Images

“Fort Stewart shooting suspect was a hard worker who had been bullied over his stutter, Army soldiers say. “He got bullied a lot,” said a soldier who trained with Sgt. Quornelius Radford in 2018. “It was very bad to the point where he could barely talk.”

The “egging on” can be performed online or by the special (including unsuspecting and unaware) handlers, specifically trained for these purposes. These handlers can be the family members or the “loved ones”, and their influence can be complex, not just one-dimensional.

Radford “described the loved one [whom he lost – M.N.] as a safe haven and someone who cared deeply about his present and future.”

More details and particulars are needed in his case.

This is a rare case when the perpetrator was left alive, and all the circumstances have to be studied carefully, as they may have clues to the problem and the process of the mass shootings in general.

The possibility of the two or more shooters, with the “designated perpetrator” acting as a patsy and subsequently killed by these shooters – controllers, sometimes with killed by them victims, has to be considered also. The FBI does not pay enough attention to this hypothesis, in my opinion.

Fort Stewart shooting (Ford Steward, the lead at the crossing point)

Mass Shootings as the Message Delivery System: Fort Stewart – Steward (GS):

The “three-way bargain” hypothesis.

Recent news reports suggest a different dynamic regarding the relationship between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu, and the possibility of a “three-way bargain”:

https://x.com/mikenov/status/1953429855908843631,

https://x.com/mikenov/status/1953427659104375113,

https://x.com/mikenov/status/1953248733014982841.

Fort Stewart (Steward – GS) shooting Interpretation:

https://x.com/mikenov/status/1953224256780943689,

https://x.com/mikenov/status/1953221320835006871.

Quornelius Samentrio Radford:

Quornelius – GS

Cornelius (Name): The name is of Latin origin, possibly derived from “cornu” meaning “horn” – GS: horn, penis, penetrating Power.

Samentrio – GS

This unusual name is the key in this interpretation.

Samentrio name meaning – GS:

Samuel + trio, the same trio: Trump, Putin, Netanyahu.

Trump, Putin, Netanyahu three way bargain: annexation of Gaza in exchange of the more pro-Russian strategic realignment of Ukraine

Recent news reports suggest a different dynamic regarding the relationship between Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin, and Benjamin Netanyahu, and the possibility of a “three-way bargain”:

Differing Agendas: There is no evidence of a “three-way bargain” involving the annexation of Gaza in exchange for a pro-Russian realignment of Ukraine.
Gaza and Ukraine Treated Separately: Recent discussions indicate that Gaza and Ukraine are being addressed as distinct issues in the context of international diplomacy.
Trump and Putin’s Relationship: While a meeting between Trump and Putin has been suggested to discuss Ukraine, there is no evidence to suggest it involves a deal for Gaza annexation.
Netanyahu and Gaza: Netanyahu faces internal and external pressure regarding Israel’s actions in Gaza, and annexation remains a possibility. However, there is no indication it is linked to a deal on Ukraine’s alignment with Russia.
Trump’s Focus on Ukraine: Reports highlight Trump’s desire for a quick resolution to the war in Ukraine and the imposition of sanctions on Russia if progress isn’t made.

In conclusion, the idea of a “three-way bargain” seems to be a speculative claim without supporting evidence. The leaders are currently involved in separate discussions concerning Gaza and Ukraine, and their respective agendas do not appear to be intertwined in the manner suggested by the “bargain” theory.

–

In the first Google AI note on “Samentrio name meaning” the connection with the name Samuel was present, and later it was omitted.

Samuel – GS

Samuel ^[a] is a figure who, in the narratives of the Hebrew Bible, plays a key role in the transition from the biblical judges to the United Kingdom of Israel under Saul, and again in the monarchy‘s transition from Saul to David. He is venerated as a prophet in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. In addition to his role in the Bible, Samuel is mentioned in Jewish rabbinical literature, in the Christian New Testament, and in the second chapter of the Quran (although the text does not mention him by name). He is also treated in the fifth through seventh books of Antiquities of the Jews, written by the Jewish scholar Josephus in the first century. He is first called “the Seer” in 1 Samuel 9:9.

“Samentrio” can also be viewed as the reference to the so called “Abraham Accords”.

Radford

Redford name meaning – GS

Radford name meaning – GS

The name Radford, of Old English origin, generally means “from the reedy ford” or “red ford”, referring to a shallow river crossing. It can also be interpreted as a place name, specifically designating a ford near red soil or a ford that can be crossed on horseback.

Also:

“Rad” in Russian means: “Glad”.

and the “Radford” allusions to Redford – the actor is evident.

The overall interpretation of the telling name

Quornelius Samentrio Radford:

The (geopolitical) Power (Quornelius, “horn” – “Взять быка за рога”, the power of taking the bull by its horns”

belongs to the same trio – Samentrio: Trump, Putin, Netanyahu. Just like the Biblical prophet Samuel, it signifies the transition of the modern Israel to the fully fledged State entity.

Radford: Glad – “Rad” is the Fort – ford! This is the crossing for them (Redford like actors): from the Trump’s low approval ratings to the higher ground, and for Putin (another Redford like actor) to solution on Ukraine. And of course for Netanyahu, it is his political salvation via the Gaza annexation.

The allusion to the name Ratcliffe is also present, with the sub-allusion of the rats on the cliff vs rats crossing the fort – ford.

The Power belongs to the same trio of actors, but behind them is the Power of Samuel! This is the message of the Fort Stewart (shooting).

This interpretation suggests the hypothetical role of Mossad in this incident. It loves the Biblical references, and the overall meaning fits their conceptual philosophy.

On the basis of the chronological comparison of the incidents of the mass killings as the messages, the hypothesis can be formed that they are the dueling and competing series of arguments between the two leading contenders for the roles of the Stewards: these two frenemies are the GRU and the Mossad.

The FBI should explore this hypothesis, if they have some intelligence and broad outlook in their usual and so easy and undemanding tunnel vision approach. They need a collective brain transplant.

Some final notes on the stylistic and differentiating aspects of the GRU vs Mossad hypothetical messages: these differences are present, they are complex, and they should be professionally and carefully studied.

Michael Novakhov – Mike Nova,

Blogger

10:08 AM 8/7/2025

Links – Fort Steward – 8.7.25

For Putin, Trump Summit Is Key to Securing Ukraine Goals – The New York Times
Trump Tells European Leaders He Intends to Meet With Putin and Zelensky – The New York Times
Fort Stewart shooting: Shooter in custody after 5 soldiers shot at Georgia army base
U.S. Army sergeant suspected of shooting, wounding five soldiers at Fort Stewart in Georgia | Reuters
Samentrio – Google Search
samentrio name meaning – Google Search
radford name meaning – Google Search
redford name meaning – Google Search
Redford : Meaning and Origin of First Name | Search Family History on Ancestry®.
Fort Stewart shooting – Google Search
Quornelius – Google Search
Trump, Putin, Netanyahu three way bargain: annexation of Gaza in exchange of the more pro-Russian strategic realignment of Ukraine – Google Search
Fort Stewart shooting – Google Search
stewart name meaning – Google Search
Steward – Google Search
Mass Shootings as the Message Delivery System – Google Search
Samentrio: Samuel + trio – Google Search
Samuel – Google Search
Samuel – Wikipedia
Mass Shootings as the “Message Delivery System”: My interpretations of the 7.28.25 mass shootings in the US: these are the messages from Putin and the GRU.
Mass Shootings as the Message Delivery System: Fort Stewart shooting (Ford Steward, the lead in the crossing point)
ratcliffe – Google Search
cliff – Google Search
Michael Novakhov on X: “https://t.co/hwk5zKgGpx – #NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times #World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #DOD #ODNI #Trump #TrumpNews #TRUMPISTAN #Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu #Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT #Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин #Россия #Bloggers #Opinions #SouthCaucasus – https://t.co/84MYzpzily” / X
Michael Novakhov on X: “#FBI FBI #CIA CIA #Mossad Mossad #ODNI ODNI #Trump Trump Mass Shootings as the Message Delivery System: Fort Stewart shooting (Ford Steward, the lead in the crossing point) https://t.co/xj5ZUAigE8 Samuel – W Post Link https://t.co/xj5ZUAigE8 Mass Shootings as the Message https://t.co/jQ3YDdPPwI” / X

–

To FBI – #FBI, Kash Patel – #KashPatel #MassShootings:
There is a pressing need to look into this issue:
“Mass shootings as the Message Delivery System orchestrated by the Intelligence Services”.
In my opinion, the GRU and the Mossad are in the front row of suspects.
See… pic.twitter.com/38pLk0hmgB

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) July 30, 2025

Updates

Fort Stewart shooting suspect was relentlessly mocked for stutter, soldiers say | Georgia | The Guardian https://t.co/jcpE9Es16j
M.N.: It is more complex than the simple teasing.
“The battalion’s commander, Lt Col Mike Sanford, said on Thursday that he’s unaware of any problems…

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) August 8, 2025

–

The News And Times Blog

“Agent Melania”: The growing influence of Melania on Donald Trump … South Caucasus Washington Summit 2025: Assessments, Analysis, Predictions – News Review

Post author By aazlou090878452
Post date August 11, 2025

The growing influence of Melania on Donald Trump

Post Link

Articles and Tweets

“Agent Melania”https://t.co/eUFuK11Bu4
–#NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times #World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #DOD #ODNI #Trump #TrumpNews #TRUMPISTAN #Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu #Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT #Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин #Россия #Bloggers #Opinions… pic.twitter.com/PibMH87jMo

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) August 10, 2025

The News And Times Blog

Putin worries about the signatures… Foreign support and the legitimacy of leaders

Post author By aazlou090878452
Post date August 11, 2025

If Putin worries about the signatures (Validity) on the future agreement with Ukraine, the foreign leaders: Trump and the Europeans, as one of the, and very important, sources of Zelensky’s legitimacy, may to cosign these accords. Furthermore, the cosigners as the guarantors are appropriate when this war is seen by many as the one between Russia and the “collective West” and the NATO. If the agreement is acceptable to Zelensky, it will be acceptable to them. This situation also raises the issue of the “foreign support as one of the sources of the leaders legitimacy” in general.

Post Link

Foreign Support and Leader Legitimacy

Created with 2.5 Pro August 4, 2025 at 05:12 PM Published August 4, 2025 at 05:13 PM

Foreign Support: A Double-Edged Sword for Leader Legitimacy

Foreign support can be a critical lifeline for a nation’s leader, offering the resources to stabilize a country, stimulate economic growth, and enhance international standing. However, this external backing is a double-edged sword that can just as easily undermine a leader’s legitimacy, fostering perceptions of puppetry and eroding public trust.¹ The impact of foreign support hinges on a delicate interplay of the type of aid, its source, the domestic context, and the perception of the citizenry.

Bolstering Legitimacy: The Upside of External Backing

Foreign support can significantly enhance a leader’s legitimacy in several key ways. Economic aid, for instance, can provide the capital for crucial infrastructure projects, improve public services, and create jobs, leading to tangible improvements in citizens’ quality of life. This can translate into increased approval for the incumbent leader, who is credited with delivering prosperity.

Military assistance can be vital for leaders facing internal insurgencies or external threats.² By providing training, equipment, and intelligence, foreign partners can bolster a state’s security apparatus, enabling the leader to project an image of strength and competence in safeguarding the nation.

Diplomatic recognition from influential global powers and international organizations is a powerful tool for legitimization.³ It confers a sense of validity on a leader’s rule, especially after a contested election or a period of political instability. This international endorsement can strengthen a leader’s hand domestically and open doors to further cooperation and development.

A prime example of foreign support initially bolstering a leader’s legitimacy is the case of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan. Following the U.S.-led intervention that ousted the Taliban in 2001, Karzai, with significant international backing, was seen by many as a unifying figure who could lead the country toward a more stable and democratic future. The influx of foreign aid and military support was crucial in establishing his government and initiating reconstruction efforts.

Undermining Legitimacy: The Perils of Foreign Dependence

Conversely, the very same mechanisms of support can severely damage a leader’s standing. The most significant risk is the perception of being a “puppet” of foreign powers. When a leader is seen as overly beholden to external benefactors, their decisions can be viewed as serving foreign interests rather than those of their own people. This narrative can be a potent weapon for political opponents and can lead to widespread public resentment.

The case of the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, serves as a stark warning. His close ties to the United States and other Western powers, particularly after the 1953 coup that restored him to power, were a central grievance for the opposition. Critics portrayed him as a Western puppet, and this perception, coupled with his authoritarian rule, ultimately contributed to his overthrow in the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Foreign aid often comes with conditions, such as economic austerity measures or political reforms, that can be deeply unpopular with the domestic population. When a leader implements these policies at the behest of foreign donors, it can fuel accusations of sacrificing national sovereignty and erode their popular support.

Military intervention, even when invited, can be a particularly fraught form of support. The presence of foreign troops on a country’s soil can be a powerful symbol of diminished sovereignty and can incite nationalist sentiment against the leader who permitted it. Over time, the association with a foreign military presence can tarnish a leader’s legitimacy, as was increasingly the case with Hamid Karzai, who in the later years of his presidency grew publicly critical of the international military presence in Afghanistan, in part to distance himself from his foreign backers and shore up his nationalist credentials.

The Decisive Role of Public Perception

Ultimately, the impact of foreign support on a leader’s legitimacy is filtered through the lens of public perception. If the population views foreign assistance as a genuine effort to help their country and trusts their leader to manage it effectively and in the national interest, it can be a significant political asset. However, if it is perceived as a tool of foreign domination or a source of corruption that benefits only the elite, it can become a powerful catalyst for dissent and a lasting stain on a leader’s claim to legitimate rule. The successful leader is one who can navigate this fine line, leveraging foreign support to deliver tangible benefits to their people while fiercely guarding their autonomy and the sovereignty of their nation.

Foreign support as one of the sources of the leaders legitimacy – GS

AI Overview

International actors and their support can indeed be a source of legitimacy for leaders, though the dynamics are complex and can have varied impacts

Here’s how foreign support can play a role in a leader’s legitimacy:

International Recognition: When a leader or their government receives formal recognition from other states and international organizations, it enhances their standing and perceived legitimacy on the global stage. This can open doors to diplomatic relations, treaties, and participation in international forums, further solidifying their position.
Foreign Aid and Development: Foreign assistance, whether for economic development or humanitarian relief, can be strategically leveraged by leaders to demonstrate their ability to provide for their population, thereby potentially bolstering their domestic legitimacy.

However, the impact of foreign support on a leader’s legitimacy isn’t always straightforward or positive:

Attribution Dilemma: If citizens perceive that crucial services are being primarily provided by foreign donors rather than their own government, it can undermine the perceived competence and relevance of the domestic government, potentially eroding legitimacy.
Risk of Undermining Democratic Processes: Some argue that foreign intervention or support can interfere with or distort democratic processes by favoring certain leaders or factions, potentially hindering the development of genuine, internally-derived legitimacy.
Dependence and Erosion of Sovereignty: Over-reliance on foreign support can raise concerns about a leader’s independence and autonomy in decision-making, potentially leading to a perception of external influence that might diminish their legitimacy in the eyes of their people.
Potential for Undeserved Blame: While leaders may claim credit for donor-provided services, they can also face blame for negative consequences or failures in aid delivery, even if they aren’t directly responsible.

In essence, while external backing can offer a leader avenues to strengthen their legitimacy, it’s a delicate balance. Effective leadership necessitates navigating these dynamics carefully, ensuring that foreign support is integrated in a way that maximizes benefits for the populace and reinforces, rather than erodes, the government’s perceived capacity and accountability.

5 hours ago

foreign support as one of the sources of the leaders legitimacy

Foreign support can play a role in

legitimizing a leader’s authority, both internationally and domestically.

Here’s how:

External Recognition: International recognition from other states or international organizations can confer legitimacy on a leader or government, according to law.unimelb.edu.au. This is particularly important for leaders seeking to participate in international affairs or secure their position on the global stage.
Foreign Aid and Assistance: Foreign aid can contribute to a leader’s legitimacy by supporting the provision of public services and infrastructure projects. When citizens attribute these improvements to their government, it can enhance their perception of the government’s competence and effectiveness. Some studies suggest this can happen even if the aid is channelled through non-governmental organizations, with citizens still attributing some credit to the government for attracting the aid.
Intervention and Support for Stability: In some cases, foreign intervention and assistance may be intended to establish or re-establish legitimate political authority in a country. Examples include the US’s emphasis on democracy-building in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the support for the French intervention in Mali to affirm democracy and effective government.

However

Risk of Undermining Legitimacy: If citizens perceive their government as overly reliant on foreign aid or if foreign aid projects are poorly managed, it can undermine the government’s legitimacy and be seen as a sign of weakness or incompetence.
Attribution and Expectations: The impact of foreign support on a leader’s legitimacy can depend on whether citizens accurately attribute credit for aid projects to the government and on their expectations regarding the government’s role in service provision.
Varying Effects Across Contexts: The effects of foreign support can vary depending on the specific circumstances of the recipient country, the type of foreign support, and the existing level of government legitimacy.

AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

Articles and Tweets

The News And Times Blog

Netanyahu and October 7

Post author By aazlou090878452
Post date August 11, 2025

Netanyahu and October 7https://t.co/VVjn0rEmAP
=#NewsAndTimes #NT #TNT #News #Times #World #USA #POTUS #DOJ #FBI #CIA #DIA #DOD #ODNI #Trump #TrumpNews #TRUMPISTAN #Israel #Mossad #Netanyahu #Ukraine #NewAbwehr #OSINT #Putin #Russia #GRU #Путин #Россия #Bloggers #Opinions… pic.twitter.com/x4JpS82pRk

— Michael Novakhov (@mikenov) August 5, 2025

Netanyahu tries to turn the October 7 Defeat and the historical lapse of security, which is ultimately his responsibility, into the “Gaza victory”. He does not want the proper State Committee Investigation of October 7, because it will reveal the Putin’s hand in it. He wants the cover-ups and the whitewash.

Remove Netanyahu from power in the next election or earlier!

The Jewish People are not suited to be ruled by the wanna be dictators!

Michael Novakhov | 8.5.25

Netanyahu and the October 7 – GS

Post Link

Haaretz.com

@haaretzcom

In a rare joint appeal, former Mossad, Shin Bet and IDF heads call for an immediate end to the Gaza war, warning it now serves “messianic and extremist goals” and is leading to “the loss of Israel’s security and its freedom”

3:45 AM · Aug 5, 2025

88.9K

Views

Gemini

Netanyahu and October 7 Fallout

Created with 2.5 Pro August 5, 2025 at 11:12 AM Published August 5, 2025 at 11:16 AM

Netanyahu’s Leadership Under Scrutiny Following Catastrophic October 7 Attacks

Jerusalem, Israel – The surprise and devastating attack by Hamas on southern Israel on October 7, 2023, has cast a long and critical shadow over the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The events of that day, which resulted in the deaths of approximately 1,200 people and the abduction of around 250 others, have triggered a profound national crisis and led to intense scrutiny of the preparedness and policies of the Israeli government under his command.

In the immediate aftermath of the assault, a visibly shaken Netanyahu declared that Israel was “at war” and vowed to exact an “unprecedented price” from Hamas. He announced two primary objectives: the complete elimination of Hamas’s military and governmental capabilities and the return of all hostages. To oversee the conflict, a war cabinet was formed, bringing key political rivals into a unity government to project an image of national resolve.

However, as the initial shock has given way to a prolonged and grueling war in Gaza, questions surrounding the intelligence and operational failures that allowed the October 7 attack to occur have intensified. A civilian commission of inquiry, established to investigate the catastrophic events, has placed direct responsibility on Prime Minister Netanyahu for the failures leading up to the attack. The commission’s findings have added significant political pressure on the long-serving leader.

Parallel to the civilian probe, the Israeli military has conducted its own investigation, acknowledging a “complete failure” to anticipate and thwart the Hamas assault. The military’s report detailed a fundamental misunderstanding of the enemy’s intentions and capabilities, pointing to a systemic breakdown in intelligence assessment and border security.

The political and public fallout for Netanyahu has been substantial. His approval ratings have plummeted, and he has faced widespread protests demanding his resignation and calling for new elections. The families of the hostages have been a particularly vocal and potent force, holding regular demonstrations to pressure the government to secure the release of their loved ones. Recent images of emaciated hostages have further fueled public anger and increased the urgency for a resolution.

Internationally, Netanyahu’s government has faced mounting criticism for the scale of the military response in Gaza and the ensuing humanitarian crisis. The handling of the war has strained relations with key allies and led to a decline in global public support for Israel’s actions.

Despite the immense pressure, Netanyahu has remained defiant, insisting that he will continue to lead the country until “total victory” is achieved. The ongoing war, the unresolved hostage situation, and the damning conclusions of multiple inquiries have created a deeply precarious political landscape for one of Israel’s most dominant political figures. The full political and historical repercussions of October 7 on Benjamin Netanyahu’s legacy are still unfolding, but it is clear that the events of that day have irrevocably marked his premiership.

–

Michael Novakhov

@mikenov

Netanyahu and October 7
x.com/haaretzcom/sta
Netanyahu tries to turn the October 7 Defeat and historical lapse of security, which is ultimately his responsibility, into the “Gaza victory”. He does not want the proper State Committee investigation of October 7, because it will reveal Putin’s hand in it. He wants cover-ups and whitewash. Remove Netanyahu from power in the next election!
Netanyahu and the October 7 – GS
AI Overview
The October 7th attacks and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s role, and the aftermath: Intelligence Failures and Warnings: There were significant intelligence failures leading up to the October 7th attacks by Hamas. Warnings about a potential attack were reportedly delivered to Netanyahu and other officials, but were not acted upon effectively. Netanyahu’s office acknowledged that his intelligence officer received a memo detailing suspicious Hamas activity hours before the attacks, but did not pass it on, according to The Times of Israel.
Netanyahu’s Response and Responsibility: Netanyahu has faced criticism for deflecting responsibility for the security failures, blaming intelligence and security chiefs. Public opinion polls indicate a majority of Israelis believe Netanyahu should take responsibility. There have been calls for an independent investigation into the events surrounding October 7th, but Netanyahu has resisted establishing a state commission of inquiry, claiming it would be biased.
Controversies and Allegations: A civilian commission of inquiry concluded that Netanyahu’s “quiet for cash” policy, which involved allowing Qatari money into Gaza, played a role in strengthening Hamas. The New York Times reports that Netanyahu ignored repeated warnings about a potential attack and deflected blame in the immediate aftermath of October 7th. His team reportedly moved to prevent the leak of potentially problematic conversations and altered official records of his earliest calls on that day. An aide to Netanyahu is reportedly being investigated by police over the timing of phone calls Netanyahu received as the attack was unfolding.
Political Implications: The October 7th attacks and their aftermath have significantly impacted Israeli politics, with public dissatisfaction and calls for accountability. Netanyahu’s government is perceived as having failed to protect the populace, shaking the confidence in the state’s ability to safeguard its citizens. The ongoing conflict and Netanyahu’s handling of the situation have led to increased scrutiny of his leadership.
International Response: Many countries condemned the Hamas attacks and supported Israel’s right to self-defense. However, there has been growing international alarm and condemnation of Israel’s military actions in Gaza, particularly concerning civilian casualties and the humanitarian crisis. Amnesty International, for example, concluded that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
–
AI Mode
Netanyahu and the October 7
Netanyahu and the October 7 attack: Fallout and responsibility
Following the devastating Hamas attacks on October 7, 2023, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced intense scrutiny and blame regarding Israel’s preparedness and response.
Key points of contention regarding Netanyahu’s role include:
Policy towards Hamas: Critics point to Netanyahu’s long-standing policy of containing and allowing Qatari funds into Gaza, which some argue enabled Hamas to strengthen and prepare for the attacks.
Ignoring warnings: Reports suggest Netanyahu ignored repeated intelligence warnings about a potential attack, particularly in the months leading up to October 7, according to a New York Times investigation.
Deflection of responsibility: Netanyahu has publicly deflected blame onto military and intelligence officials, claiming he wasn’t sufficiently informed or that security chiefs underestimated Hamas.
Delaying an official inquiry: Netanyahu has resisted establishing a state commission of inquiry into the failures surrounding the attacks, despite public pressure and the creation of an unofficial civilian inquiry.
Impact of judicial overhaul: Some argue that Netanyahu’s controversial judicial overhaul plan exacerbated divisions within Israeli society and weakened the military, potentially contributing to the perceived vulnerability that emboldened Hamas.
Responses and counterpoints:
Netanyahu acknowledges some responsibility: While initially deflecting blame, Netanyahu has acknowledged bearing some responsibility for the intelligence failures, according to ABC News.
Blaming security chiefs: Netanyahu’s office has stated that his intelligence officer received an alert hours before the attack but didn’t pass it on, implying a failure within the security establishment.
Shin Bet and military investigations: Investigations by Israel’s internal security agency (Shin Bet) and the military have acknowledged their own failures in anticipating the attack but also pointed to government policies as contributing factors.
Supporting an “objective” inquiry: Netanyahu has expressed support for an “objective” commission of inquiry while opposing what he terms a “biased” or “political” investigation.
Overall:
The October 7 attack remains a deeply sensitive and impactful event in Israel, with ongoing debates about accountability and the roles of various actors, including Prime Minister Netanyahu. Public opinion polls indicate that a significant majority of Israelis believe Netanyahu should take responsibility for the failures surrounding the attack. The long-term political ramifications for Netanyahu and Israel are still unfolding.
AI responses may include mistakes. Learn more

What were the main findings of the Shin Bet investigation regarding Netanyahu’s policies and actions before Oct 7?

What warnings did Netanyahu ignore before October 7th?

What are the main criticisms against a state commission of inquiry into the October 7 attacks?