Israel and Hamas - Summary Thoughts 2

III. Hamas

When this article was first prepared, we provided a more general description of the conditions that led to the emergence of Hamas, delving into religious, cultural, military, political, legal, and geopolitical contexts. However, due to developments since the initial publication of the Damned Circle, we felt the need to update the content with a more current framework, giving more weight to another aspect that is crucial for understanding these contexts. Today, we have prepared this text that simply summarizes what happened, what is currently unfolding, and what kind of future our adversaries envision for us.

If I recall, initially, we had prepared the Damned Circle to be in two parts with four sections, and we had written and presented the first two sections in the first part. In this section, we were going to write the remaining two sections. One of these sections was titled "III. Hamas".

In this context, our original plan was to briefly discuss the key aspects we could identify on this subject in a written form and conclude it for now. However, we have reconsidered this idea. Under the title "The Damned Circle," we will continue to engage in ongoing discussions and examinations of regional developments for an extended period. We are now starting to explore the avenues of this long-term analysis by delving into the context of Hamas. All of these events for many people began with the action taken by Hamas against Israel on October 7th and have gradually escalated into a growing catastrophe. If we were to speak about this situation in a way that would resonate with many people's emotions, we would say the following. We are individuals who have been exposed to and have witnessed these events. We believe we are in the right, but we feel utterly powerless to make any significant impact. We watch in horror as innocent men, women, and children are mercilessly killed before our eyes, yet we find ourselves unable to take meaningful action. In fact, many of us don't even have a clear idea of ​​what it is going on. Hamas, who is Hamas, is this incident an organic Palestinian action, or is something else going on behind the scenes? And, if we look at it from the most basic perspective, what is Israel doing here, and how can it act so indifferently?

What should our attitude be towards Jews? Are all Jews responsible for this massacre, or should we control our emotions and only hold the Jews who determine and implement Israeli policies accountable? So, what are the main reasons and conditions for all of this? It's clear that Palestinians are suffering injustice, but why do those who support Palestinians and their cause seem so helpless?

Our attitude towards Jews should be based on the beliefs and actions of individual people. Holding all Jews responsible for a massacre is not accurate and can lead to discrimination and unfairness. Guiding emotional reactions and holding only the Jews who determine and implement Israeli policies accountable may be a fairer approach. Is Hamas really the only option for Palestinians? Looking at it more generally, even when we employ analytical skills to address these issues, why do we often remain unsure and sometimes feel powerless? So, something happens there, Hamas takes action, and we find ourselves pausing to question what will happen, what's behind this, whether it's genuinely part of Palestinian resistance, or if we are witnessing another one of these Middle East intrigues. On the other hand, Israel, under the pretext of responding to Hamas, openly and in the presence of the entire world, with the support of many so-called developed countries, disregards all kinds of laws, even threats, and openly kills innocent people, scattering the broken bodies of babies around, leaving women and the elderly in distress. Yet, we find it hard to make sense of all these events. How can this be? Where did all these disasters come from? How can everything spiral out of control so easily? For someone who thinks that events escalated after October 7th, this is generally how these events are viewed. However, from the perspective of an ordinary person, it might feel like the grievances have reached this point, yet the continuation is missing. It's at this very point that if what needs to be said is articulated, the answers to the questions can gradually become apparent. For someone who believes that events began on October 7th, all these complaints essentially express a "file of uncertainties." At first glance, ordinary people who witness all of this are merely faced with a sack of uncertainty. Due to this uncertainty, we can't always grasp what needs to be done, and, as a result, we sometimes end up doing nothing or making mistakes when we do take action. This chain of indifference and mistakes is our only balance sheet. So, in the end, what we see as the most prominent thing we have in our hands in this situation is "uncertainties."At this point, what we need to do first is revealing itself. The first thing we need to do is to reduce uncertainties, or even if possible, eliminate them entirely. As uncertainties decrease, it will become clearer how we should position ourselves and what we can do.

In this case, our desire to clarify these contexts arises from such a need.

Now, let's try to eliminate these uncertainties as much as possible by briefly discussing the formation of Hamas from a recent chronological perspective and its position in recent events.

Hamas, the organization that emerged as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood (İhvân) in Mesopotamia and North Africa in the 20th century, came into existence in 1988 as a political-military entity with a focus on armed struggle against Israel in Palestine. In 1988, under the title "Covenant," it described its formation and stated its objectives in four chapters. In 2017, Hamas revised the Covenant with a 42-article declaration. It is considered one of the most significant organizations in present-day Palestine, alongside the initial formation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), which was one of the first manifestations of Palestinian resistance. While the PLO is internationally recognized as the sole legitimate representative of Palestine, Hamas' representation of Palestine has been limited to recognition by some regional countries. In recent years, and particularly in the past few days, Hamas has gained worldwide recognition through its actions. It holds influence in the city of Gaza in Palestine. The political leadership's affiliations and presence shift over time according to various changes in countries such as Jordan, Syria, Qatar, and Iran. While there has been a recent closeness to Iran, these affiliations can also change. Hamas' armed wing, the Izzeddin al-Qassam Brigades, is recognized to have a significant presence with various types of weapons and armed members. They have carried out numerous armed and unarmed actions from the 1990s to the present and have been listed as a terrorist organization by ‘occupying’ Israel, as well as countries that support the occupation from the very beginning. The revised declaration in 2017 aimed for a more mature and politically oriented image; however, following this declaration, more militant figures with a focus on armed struggle gained prominence in the leadership. After their most recent action, they are currently in the world's spotlight. This action, which Israel cited as a pretext to begin one of the most horrific massacres in history by exerting disproportionate force on Gaza, is a highly complex and troubling event that raises many questions.

It is evident that this incident will lead to long-lasting conflicts both in the region and beyond. Israel, by requesting that the international public perceive this action as "unexpected," is actually attempting to escalate its long-standing systematic oppression. On the other hand, Hamas officials expect this action to be interpreted as a "natural" consequence of historical causal links and to be seen as part of the Palestinian resistance. While attempting to assess the political and strategic implications of the unfolding events and the subsequent dark developments, people in a wide geographic area, largely in a passive observer role, have been primarily concerned about the loss of innocent lives and property. Given Israel's grey history, this concern has naturally proven to be justified, and with Israel's disproportionate and unjustified attacks, one of the most abhorrent human tragedies in history has begun unfolding before the eyes of the entire world. While the so-called developed countries and international corporations supporting the occupying Israel have largely attempted to justify Israel's actions, the United States, one of the world's biggest and most ignorant bandit in terms of human’s truth, has resorted to moves that aim to turn the region into a battlefield. The United Kingdom, a more "deep" and "veteran" bandit on the international stage, has closely followed, if not sometimes preceded, the United States in their actions. Russia and China, while being careful not to directly support Hamas, have issued statements opposing the actions of Israel and the United States. In the region, Arab states are making efforts to find measures to prevent the brutality in Gaza with a sense of unease. Meanwhile, Turkey, one of the most three prominent countries in the region, has adopted a "cautious" approach in seeking solutions. Turkey has firmly stated its opposition to any attacks on civilians and vulnerable individuals and has started to intensify its warnings towards Israel in response to Israel's growing recklessness. Recently, the United States viewed Turkey's operations against the PKK in northern Syria as a "threat." In response, Turkey, at the highest level, responded in a similar manner, stating that the U.S. assessments are a "threat" to Turkey. Following these consecutive developments, after the United States announced the deployment of its largest aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean for Israel, in recent days, the Turkish Navy has commenced a "live-fire exercise" in the eastern Mediterranean. Egypt had kept the Rafah crossing into Gaza, which is under Hamas influence, and later closed because it considers Hamas a terrorist organization due to its affiliation with the Muslim Brotherhood. However, in the wake of the brutality, and with Turkey's efforts for humanitarian purposes, Egypt decided to temporarily open this crossing. As mentioned earlier, Iran, another significant country in the region, has been in close relations with Hamas in recent years. Iran holds significant influence not only over Hamas but also in southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

In the midst of all this, Israel has started to expand its front, and the war drums have begun to beat louder with the dangerous positions taken by the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Iran, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and armed groups in the region. To better understand this situation, let's provide a very brief chronological correlation network:

Before proceeding, let's remind ourselves that in 1948, Israel declared its statehood, commencing the imposition of its de facto existence…Reading the sentences below without reading this sentence can mislead individuals. Therefore, we'll start as follows:

In 1948, Israel occupied Palestinian territories by declaring itself a "state." Many events, both internal and external, have led to the following incidents in October 2023:

On October 7th, a Hamas action took place. On the same day, Israel began to engage in conflict with Hamas, bombarding Palestine, and making shipments to Lebanon. On October 8th, the United States announced its support for Israel. On the same day, Hamas declared that they had placed Israeli captives all over Gaza, Hezbollah decided to unite its forces in Syria and Lebanon, Egyptian police fired on Israeli tourists, Hezbollah carried out mortar attacks on Israel, Hamas continued to seize and advance in some Israeli military positions, and Israel declared war. As a result, the so-called Prime Minister Netanyahu assumed a position to lead the military, putting his domestic political position on hold. Israel, in essence, adopted a fully military policy position. It declared a state of mobilization, closed some cities, deactivated diplomatic channels in favor of military ones, and toughened its official rhetoric. (For example, Israel's so-called Defense Minister stated, "The price Gaza will pay will be a very heavy price that will be recounted for generations.") With the Pentagon's preparations to provide military aid to Israel, Iran-backed elements threatened to strike all of the United States and Israel's assets in the Middle East. In response to the escalating situation, a U.S. senator declared that a response should be given to Iran if Hezbollah becomes involved in the war. Eventually, the United States began to assist Israel with military shipments. The world's largest warship, the USS Gerald R. Ford, was announced to be sent to support Israel. Ukraine also declared its support for Israel. Hamas continued intensive rocket attacks, and Israel carried out heavy bombardments.

On October 9th, Netanyahu stated, "We will completely change the Middle East." Israel imposed a full blockade on Gaza, taking measures to block electricity, water, and food resources. Iran continued making threats through indirect sources. Israel began to strike Lebanese Hezbollah. They also started using white phosphorus bombs in Gaza. Hezbollah issued a mobilization order for its Syrian wing. The United Kingdom, Germany, France, and Italy declared their support for Israel.

On October 10th, Israel demanded the evacuation of Gaza. Hamas declared a mobilization and demanded the evacuation of Ashkelon. Later, they launched an attack on Ashkelon. Israel conducted heavy bombardments in Gaza, used white phosphorus bombs, and attacked civilians. Hamas threatened Israel with hurricane missiles. Israel's so-called Defense Minister began making statements, such as "we've lifted all rules of war; we won't judge our soldiers for whatever they do," signaling a call for brutality. Terrifying massacres began to take place in Gaza, with water and electricity being cut off. President Erdoğan escalated his criticisms of the United States and Israel. In Greece, the Greek navy was put on high alert.

On October 11th, Israel continued its simultaneous attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. The brutality in Gaza intensified, and images of children, the elderly, and vulnerable individuals killed by white phosphorus bombs began to circulate worldwide. President Erdoğan increased his warnings, stating, "If Israel continues to act not as a state but like an organization, it will be treated as such." Meanwhile, Yemen's Houthis threatened Israel. Conflict with Lebanon escalated. The U.S. withdrew its embassy in Lebanon. The Turkish Armed Forces' mission in Lebanon was extended for another year, approved by the Turkish Grand National Assembly. Turkey increased its operations against the YPG. President Erdoğan reported that contact had been made with Hamas for the release of Israeli hostages. Hamas released footage showing the release of some hostages. Israel declared its intention to destroy Hamas and continued heavy attacks on Gaza. On October 12th, the U.S. Secretary of State visited Israel. Conflicts on all fronts continued to escalate. The dire situation in Gaza worsened. Iranian President stated that a "crime against humanity" had been committed in Gaza. Israel attacked and rendered Damascus International Airport unusable. It invited Syria and Iran to war. The United Kingdom decided to send its navy and spy planes to support Israel. The U.S. President, Joe Biden, stated that Turkey's operations against the YPG in Syria, on the grounds that they hindered ISIS operations, were an exceptional threat to U.S. national security.

On October 13th, President Erdoğan responded by reminding the U.S. of the downing of a Turkish UAV and stated that the U.S. policies towards the PKK-affiliated elements in Syria posed an exceptional threat to Turkey. Israel announced that 1 million people in northern Gaza had 24 hours to leave Gaza. Iran initiated a heavy military buildup near the Iraq borders. The Lebanese Foreign Minister stated, "Any Israeli invasion of Gaza will lead the world to an unprecedented catastrophe." The Iranian Foreign Minister said, "If the U.S. doesn't want a regional war, it should stop Israel." The European Commission urged Turkey to make a choice between "EU and NATO" and "Russia, Iran, and Hamas." Following Israel's demand for the evacuation of Gaza, people from Jordan and Lebanon marched towards Israeli borders. Israel's so-called Defense Minister blamed Iran for everything that has occurred. In Beijing, Hamas stabbed an Israeli diplomat.

On October 14th, a Russian diplomat was found dead in a hotel in Istanbul. The U.S. warned Armenia by stating that Azerbaijan would occupy it. The Turkish Armed Forces struck PKK positions in Iraq. Saudi Arabia announced that it was suspending the normalization process with Israel. Hakan Fidan met with the President of Egypt in Cairo. Israeli citizens armed themselves and attacked Palestinian villages, resulting in the martyrdom of many unarmed Palestinians and the evacuation of villages. Israel carried out a civilian massacre once again by attacking the "safe route" it had created for Gazans to leave the city with warplanes. Hamas launched rocket attacks on all of Israel. While Israeli defense systems intercepted some of the rockets, many hit their targets. The U.S. issued threats again, citing Hezbollah as a reason. Rockets were fired from Syria towards the Golan Heights. Israel carried out airstrikes in Syria. Israel's so-called President Herzog made a statement saying, "In Gaza, nobody, including civilians, is innocent," demonstrating their disregard for criticism of the brutality in Gaza. Iran officially declared that it would intervene in Israel for the first time if the brutality in Gaza was not stopped.

On October 15th, Israel rendered Aleppo airport unusable. Iran displayed images of its long-range hypersonic missiles called "Fattah" on posters in Iranian streets with the caption "400 seconds to Tel Aviv." Israel continued to attack Lebanon. The Lebanese government officially announced that they would respond to Israel. Iran's Foreign Minister stated that if the attacks on Gaza were not halted, the war front would be expanded. Conflicts persisted between Hamas and Israel in Ashkelon. Iranian Revolutionary Guards were dispatched to the Israeli borders in Syria. Turkish Armed Forces striked the PKK terrorist organization positions in al-Bab. The Turkish Navy set sail for exercises in the Mediterranean. Hezbollah conducted artillery strikes on Israel's Metula town. Israeli warplanes also flew over the skies of Beirut.

On October 16th, Israel continued its civilian massacre in Gaza. They attacked search and rescue teams and firefighters with warplanes. Hamas launched rocket attacks on Israel again and even took control of an Israeli military intelligence office. Germany warned and threatened Iran not to inflame Hamas and Hezbollah. The Israeli parliament did not approve a ground operation, but Netanyahu did not heed that decision. Iran stated that Hamas were ready to release hostages but cited the bombardment as the reason it couldn't be done. Israel continued to escalate its aggression by subjecting all of Gaza to bombardment, even hitting the Rafah border crossing. Simultaneously, they maintained intensive bombardments in Syria and Lebanon. In response, Syria activated its air defense systems. Kuwait's Minister of Interior stated, "We are at war with the Zionists." The Kassam Brigades announced that 22 of the Israeli hostages had lost their lives in Israeli bombardments.

On October 17th, Israel used white phosphorus in Lebanon. Lebanon retaliated with artillery fire on Israel. It was announced that U.S. Navy landing ships set sail to support Israel. A website was launched in Iran to gather volunteers for war against Israel, with reports of 2 million volunteers registering. Israel bombarded al-Ahli Hospital in Gaza with a high level of destruction and a sinister incident pattern. The situation continues to escalate with military actions and preparations by various actors. This incident sparked outrage worldwide and led to protests against Israel in various locations. Israel, through contradictory statements and cover-ups, denied its responsibility for the hospital incident. This incident dealt a significant blow to the extensive media campaigns in favor of Israel. Egypt called for international intervention in response to the situation, and President Erdoğan expressed similar sentiments. The event had a notable impact on the public perception of the conflict.

I think many readers have followed the events more closely after this incident. So, without further ado, let's conclude this section by recounting the important events of the last few days. After the Al-Ahli hospital was struck, the so-called US President Biden visited Israel and increased their support. Armed groups in the region carried out attacks on all US bases. Protests and attacks on Israeli embassies occurred worldwide. Israel deactivated many of its embassies and recalled its diplomats from Turkey. Houthi rebels in Yemen launched missile attacks, which were intercepted by US defense systems. Then the US decided to send warships to Yemen. Iran deployed its missiles to Tehran. Putin issued a threat for the first time, warning that US aircraft and warships with hypersonic missiles in the Black Sea were within range. In his address to the nation on October 20th, Biden established the initial framework for a long-lasting conflict by drawing a parallel between Ukraine and Israel on one side and Putin and Hamas on the other. In this context, the United States officially declared its support for Israel and Ukraine while simultaneously opposing Hamas and Putin, creating a clear opposing equation.

The key highlights in terms of the political, military, and legal aspects of the established scenario can be summarized briefly as follows. The economic dimension is also encompassed within this framework. To briefly describe this aspect, it is sufficient to mention the following point:

To briefly describe this aspect, it is sufficient to mention the following: In the context of all these events, a shift to gold has begun worldwide. The implication is clear; preparations for a wartime environment have commenced. Intensive propaganda through conventional media outlets accompanies this entire process. In other words, through media and official statements, along with the guidance of so-called expert analyses, there is an effort to establish this legitimacy in the public eye. This aspect is crucial because this particular propaganda has interesting and even alarming implications for the public. To briefly touch on it, let's continue from here.

Many international legal frameworks and universal laws established during the 20th century never truly functioned as originally intended. However, the idea of a universal order has been promoted through its partial application in various places and the development of relative atmospheres. This unrealistic and illussive concept, while numbing people's minds, the prevailing reality has consistently been the law of the jungle. Efforts have been made to achieve the practical harmony of this duality by adapting the public to the real law of the jungle, which does not conform to the principles of a universal order. In essence, there exists an ideal framework of universal legal and moral values, which is even formally upheld (with its principles explicitly documented). And for those relatively less powerful and influential, this framework is apparent in many incidents. However, this is like a sword hanging over the world, regulating rights and duties, while the actual powerful actors often act outside of this order. Non-compliance with the order is considered a cause for exclusion or, at the very least, marginalization for those with relatively less power. However, surprisingly, most of what those with relative authority and power actually put into practice is hardly aligned with this framework in terms of their primary sources, intentions, and the outcomes they produce. In this scenario, resolving this discrepancy has necessitated harmonizing public opinion. In other words, the source of legitimacy has become divided into two parts:

1. The actions and intentions of those in power.

2. Bringing the public into alignment with these actions and intentions.

The prevailing global law in the current world is effectively based on these two principles. This practical situation, which has no connection to the nature and principles of law, is a product of the 20th century. Such an understanding, which was executed on a global scale and became prevalent, did not exist before the 20th century. We won't delve into a detailed analysis of this situation, which is one of the worst, most dangerous, and hardest-to-fix problems of our time. However, to better understand its relevance to our topic, we need to highlight some important aspects of it.

The need to bring the public into alignment stems from the consideration of public reactions as an integral part of the source of legitimacy. While public sentiment may not be the fundamental basis of this legitimacy, it is indeed a factor. Therefore, manipulating and aligning the public is crucial for the legitimacy framework of the 20th century. In fact, there is currently no need to analyze this situation from a theoretical perspective. If we look at what's happening right now, we can see very clearly what it means. Because the actions of Israel in Gaza over the past 10 days, without effective international sanctions, serve as the most glaring example of what this horrible ground signifies. Currently, Israel is engaging in civilian casualties, including child fatalities, without concern or fear. They are taking actions that will cause significant economic, psychological, ecological, and political damage and deep wounds. Strikingly, these actions are being officially justified within the framework of "legitimacy" worldwide, and public opinion reactions are interestingly being desired to be aligned with this.

Right now, for example, the public's response to Israel is being manipulated and redirected through the following means, in brief:

• Manipulative argumentation (e.g., blaming Hamas having started the conflict).

• Emotional manipulation (e.g., highlighting that babies were killed and the elderly were abducted by Hamas.).

• Aggressive resistance (e.g., it's said that you support terrorism or have an ISIS mentality because Hamas is equated with ISIS.).

• Imposing definitions (e.g., labeling Israel as a legitimate state and Hamas as a terrorist organization; referring to those kidnapped as "settlers," etc.).

Through these means, the desired legitimacy is intended to spread. However, the spread of this legitimacy, i.e., the ability to manipulate people almost everywhere in the world, is not seen as an essential requirement for the intended purpose. Manipulating a sufficient number of people is sufficient to achieve the desired objectives within the necessary timeframe. This is because once enough individuals have been manipulated, they will naturally engage in conflict with those who have not yet been manipulated or are influenced by opposing arguments. This conflict is sufficient to at least demonstrate that the "objectives" embedded within the manipulation are not necessarily "illegitimate."For example, the following idea has been instilled: "If a sufficient number of people trust Israel in what they are doing, then perhaps Israel may not be unjust. We are moving forward without delving into various crucial aspects. Shaping public opinion is a multifaceted process, and comprehending the context in which it unfolds is not. Let's provide an example for clarity. For instance, a world frightened by ISIS and similar organizations cannot avoid hating ISIS and demanding intervention. When the public despises ISIS and if ISIS has a means to reach the public, it implies that the public is demanding intervention and eradication by the powerful entities, such as states. By taking such actions, states can even be perceived as heroes. In pursuit of this, incurring certain losses and softening certain rules can be deemed "acceptable" or, in fact, vigorously advocated for by the public. By fulfilling this "duty," the state mechanism aligns with its intended purpose. This is the basic arithmetic of the matter. However, there is a more sinister side to this issue.

Let's continue with the same example. Of course, the public demands the elimination of ISIS. However, if ISIS is a persistent problem that keeps reemerging, what will be the course of action then? Certainly, in this situation, public demand for intervention against ISIS would also start to shift towards addressing the sources that give rise to ISIS. But what is the source of ISIS? Let's answer it: the source of ISIS is whatever the individuals believe in. This is because when causal relationships and conditions become entangled, few people are inclined to investigate the source of a complex problem that requires immediate intervention, as it further complicates matters.

This is where the subtlety comes into play because in a situation where no one is interested in dissecting the source of a problem, someone will step in to identify that source. They will meticulously attribute a source to it or craft causal argumentation frameworks, and then assert to people, "This is the source of it."(The source of this thing could even be themselves, although we are currently excluding this option). The public will look and say, "Yes, the source of ISIS is..."The public will look and say, "Yes, we've seen the source of ISIS, now it's time to deal with this source, so take action." Supposedly, this stage gives the public the authority and duty to create the demand for intervention against the “target”. This stage is about pointing out the "target" to the public, creating a demand for intervention against the target. If this target is highly layered and continuously updated, ISIS will serve as a visible "valid" and "justification" for any concealed target.

There are various ways to approach these considerations. For example, if it's suggested that the creators of harmful entities like ISIS are inherently linked to religious or traditional identities, it may lead to the gradual establishment of a negative perception, not only towards ISIS but also towards identities indirectly "associated" with ISIS as sources. This could include negative perceptions towards Islam, for instance. Indeed, this is exactly how it has unfolded. Note that this is a public perception that exists under the general assumption that religious and traditional identities, more broadly, are considered "outdated." They have been convinced that their conformist daily life provides pleasure, and they hold a belief that the source of this pleasure is essentially rooted in the fundamental principles of the Western world. The widespread belief that religious and traditional identities, albeit indirectly, threaten the pleasure or the framework of minimum peace (within narrow confines such as work, leisure, and voting) directly implies that the "real target" placed very indirectly as “the real problem” is not ISIS or a similar terrorist organization but the entire world of conditions that produces it. So, the idea of the "real problem" to be instilled in the public implies that the established factor directly disrupting the framework of peace, let's say a terrorist organization itself, is not the issue. Instead, it is the "established" and "natural" source from which it draws its sustenance.

Before delving into various other aspects, let's return to the context: remember that channeling a sufficient number of people towards a specific open target or indirectly towards the source of that target creates an unspoken "demand" or "expectation" environment. So, when a sufficient number of people say, “We’re fed up with this ISIS,” the actions of the powerful individuals to eradicate ISIS become legitimate (even appreciate ). If you have carefully crafted an environment where entities like ISIS can seemingly emerge spontaneously in the Islamic and Arab regions, or if you've facilitated this perception (supported by numerous real experiences ), you've also created a hidden demand environment that legitimizes interventions against this source. This hidden demand represents the hidden request or expectation of the public, or at the very least, its consent. Look at it in a simpler way: if you create demand or consent and establish a target environment that aligns with that demand and consent, your actions in that target area will progressively gain legitimacy. The nature of the actions led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel is as follows. To make it clear for those who have understood the matter up to this point:

Currently, in the world, a 'legitimacy' environment has been created where Hamas is directly designated as the target, but Palestinians are also portrayed as the source that generates Hamas. On October 7th, the establishment of this legitimacy environment is just one piece of the puzzle. This environment has developed over many years. In other words, over these many years, a public belief has been cultivated that Palestinians are responsible for producing Hamas. With the action on October 7th, Hamas was also associated with ISIS, and the sense of immediate demand within this public framework has been shaped accordingly. In other words, to rephrase the previous sentence, Over these many years, a public belief has been cultivated ‘that Palestinians produce ISIS (Hamas).’ This is the essence of the matter.

In this way, intervening in Hamas and eradicating Hamas has been legitimized, while at the same time, Palestinian losses have been, at the very least, linked to consent. But concerning the hidden public demand, this consent isn't just a mere consent. Let's express this very unsettling situation more explicitly. This consent is the current face of it.

‘This consent in question is, in fact, the same as a demand. In other words, in the public, an invisible demand for the destruction of Palestinians has been established. This hidden demand in the public has simply not yet fully surfaced.’

Increasing current 'indifference' or 'inadequate resistance' in the face of a child's shattered body and terror-stricken eyes is due to this hidden demand. So, by officially targeting Hamas, the entire environment for attacks on Palestinians as a predetermined hidden demand has been prepared to gain legitimacy in Western public opinion. At present, the existence of a contrary public opinion only creates some obstacles in the intervention environment of powerful states, but it is not a complete barrier. Because they already have enough public support to achieve what they want. Whether the public supports them or not is not their main concern; their main concern is what those in power want.

The nature of their desire is related to their identity. Therefore, those who do not know their identity fundamentally cannot know what they want.

The brief and descriptive picture we've outlined has many implications for the events in the region over the past 10 days. We can't delve into all of them in this text, but let's conclude by addressing the most important one.

The massacre taking place in Palestine, in full view of the world, along with the violation of every right, serves as another step in the formation of a "hidden" demand or consent through media and official discourse, coupled with the indifference of the normalization psychology.

Let's just say this : In all these events, there is a highly effective message being conveyed to all the peoples in the region, including us:

“If you don't want all of your people, including your children, the elderly, the sick, and your city, to end up in this condition, you must not resist us. If you choose to resist, then observe what's happening to the Palestinians to understand what awaits you.”

Currently, the global public opinion is being prepared for the open target hidden in this subliminal command. We will continue to clarify its meanings in a more distinct manner.

Ahmet Turan Esin

October 2023