By Matt Underwood Target civilians, record the carnage: Yahya Sinwar’s 2022 memo planning Oct. 7. Let’s dive straight into the heart of this unsettling reality. The narrative paints a picture of a meticulously planned attack, a calculated campaign of violence aimed at civilians, and, chillingly, the deliberate documentation of the ensuing carnage. It’s a scenario that, even when presented as hard evidence, continues to be denied or twisted by some. There are those who will find justifications, rationalizing the targeting of civilians as some twisted form of “resistance,” a grim perspective that underscores the depths of the ideological divide. The scale of the brutality, particularly against civilians, is what shocks.
The question is, how can a nation tolerate a constant threat, a force perpetually plotting and scheming for its next act of violence, literally just across its border? The duty of any government is, first and foremost, to protect its people. Given the circumstances, how could Israel not respond to the actions of Hamas? The fact that a publication such as the NYT even publishes this information is almost shocking, like they are publishing it under duress. It’s an important step in revealing the truth but it is also clear that there is no clear consensus about how to move forward. The idea of Yahya Sinwar, the central figure in this narrative, is one that provokes a visceral reaction. The description of his final moments, throwing a stick at a drone while bleeding out, evokes a disturbing mix of horror and a certain twisted admiration for his unwavering commitment to the cause, whatever that cause may be.
The psychological aspect of extremism comes into play here. The willingness to sacrifice oneself, driven by a belief in eternal glory, is a dangerous weapon in the hands of those seeking conflict. When analyzing the memo, a critical question arises: If not explicitly ordering the killing of civilians, what exactly was the plan? It’s not as if the intention was to seek out military bases. Then, what exactly was intended? The sad reality is the vast number of people willing to defend such actions and deny the evidence.
The idea of documenting the attacks adds another layer of horror. It’s not just about inflicting pain and death; it’s about amplifying the terror. It becomes a form of propaganda, a deliberate attempt to spread fear and destabilize. The parallel to other forms of violent activity is difficult to ignore. One of the crucial aspects of this whole event is the constant barrage of information and misinformation. Some narratives suggest that all the dead Israeli civilians were killed by their own side and the opposite story is that all the dead Palestinians were killed by Hamas booby traps.
The footage, if released, could potentially shatter the facade of denial. But, the challenge comes down to what sources are considered to be trustworthy. The debate about the legitimacy of sources, especially those originating from the IDF, becomes a central point of contention. Accusations of propaganda and bias create a minefield of doubt. The question of civilian status is something which is also used as a form of justification. The idea that all Israelis have served in the military and therefore are not civilians is often used. It’s difficult to comprehend, and it’s a point that is not worth giving any additional time to.
One question is, if the situation were reversed, what would Israel have done differently? It’s a question that has never been answered. The historical context cannot be ignored. The deep-seated conflict is often framed by a selective understanding of history. It is common for those who see Israel as the aggressor to point to the history of how land was acquired. And then the discussions often get stuck in what-ifs and historical debates, while the actual lives lost and the ongoing conflict take a backseat. The political element is just as complicated. Are there politicians supporting Hamas? The thought is very unnerving. This extremism is clearly seen in the educational materials for children in Gaza, reflecting a pattern that has been repeated in other cases.
The motivations driving the violence are something to be considered. It’s a story of desperation and a refusal to give up. Perhaps the goal is to shift the support that the army has by terrorizing the civilian population. The goal is to make the population stop supporting the army. And it shows how even in moments of intense personal struggle, the extremist ideology can be the guiding force. The importance of the sources is important, too. Always scrutinize the information you are provided with, and ensure you get multiple sources.