Circle of Curses – II

Summary of Thoughts on Israel and Hamas –

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 summarizes what happened, what is currently unfolding, and what kind of future our enemies envision for us.

If you recall, initially, we had planned the Circle of Curses in two parts with four sections, and we had written and presented the first two sections in the first part. In this part, 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 Circle of Curses,” 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 these events for many people began with the action taken by Hamas against Israel on October 7 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 right but 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 cannot take effective action. Many of us don’t have a clear idea of ​​what is happening. 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 recklessly as they do now? What should be our attitude 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 inaccurate and can lead to discrimination and unfairness. Guiding emotional reactions and retaining only the Jews who determine and implement Israeli policies accountable may be a fairer approach. Is Hamas 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 frankly 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 7, this is generally how these events are viewed. However, the same ordinary person cannot continue the reproach that has reached this point. If what needs to be said is said after this point, the answers to the questions will be found gradually.

All this reproach represents only “a file of uncertainties” for someone who thinks the events started on October 7. 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 grasp what needs to be done, and, as a result, we sometimes end up doing nothing or making mistakes when we 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 in the first place reveals itself. We need to reduce uncertainties or even eliminate them entirely. As uncertainties decrease, how we should position ourselves and what we can do will become more apparent.

The reason we want to open these contexts is precisely due to such a necessity.

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 current events.

Hamas, the organization that emerged as an extension of the Muslim Brotherhood (İhvân) in Mesopotamia and North Africa in the 20th century, appeared in 1988 as a political-military entity focusing on the 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), 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 weapons and armed members. They have carried out numerous armed and unarmed actions from the 1990s to the present. They are listed as a terrorist organization by ‘occupying’ Israel and countries that have supported the occupation from the beginning. The revised declaration 2017 aimed for a more mature and politically oriented image; however, following this declaration, more militant figures focusing 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. By requesting that the international public perceive this action as “unexpected,” Israel is 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 regarded 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, mainly 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. With Israel’s disproportionate and unjustified attacks, one of the most horrendous 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 primarily attempted to justify Israel’s actions, the United States, one of the world’s biggest and most ignorant bandits regarding human 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 its actions. Russia and China, while being careful not to support Hamas directly, have issued statements opposing the actions of Israel and the United States. In the region, Arab states are trying to find measures to prevent the brutality in Gaza, with a sense of unease. Meanwhile, Turkey, one of the region’s three most prominent countries, has adopted a “cautious” approach to seeking solutions. Turkey has firmly stated its opposition to any attacks on civilians and vulnerable individuals and has started to intensify its warnings toward 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.” Turkey, at the highest level, responded similarly, 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 under Hamas’s influence and later closed it 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 humanitarian efforts, Egypt temporarily opened this crossing. As mentioned earlier, Iran, another significant country in the region, has been in close relations with Hamas in recent years. Iran is very influential not only over Hamas but also in southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Amidst all this, Israel has started to expand its front. Thus, 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.

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 7, a Hamas action took place. On the same day, Israel began to conflict with Hamas, bombarding Palestine and making shipments to Lebanon.

On October 8, 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 role to lead the military, putting his domestic political work on hold. Israel, in essence, adopted a full 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 hefty 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 reaction 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 9, Netanyahu stated, “We will completely change the Middle East.” Israel imposed a total blockade on Gaza, blocking 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 10, Israel demanded the evacuation of Gaza. Hamas declared a mobilization and required 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, and water and electricity were cut off. President Erdoğan escalated his criticisms of the United States and Israel. In Greece, the Greek Navy is put on high alert.

On October 11, 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 circulating 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 to release 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 12, the U.S. Secretary of State visited Israel. Conflicts on all fronts continued to escalate. The dire situation in Gaza worsened. The 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 alleged President of the United States, Biden, stated that Turkey’s operations against the YPG in Syria, citing that they were complicating ISIS operations, pose an extraordinary threat to U.S. national security.

On October 13, 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 border. 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 choose between “E.U. and NATO” and “Russia, Iran, and Hamas.” Following Israel’s demand to evacuate 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 14, 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 once again carried out a civilian massacre 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 rockets, many hit their targets. The U.S. reissued threats, 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 said, “In Gaza, nobody, including civilians, is innocent,” demonstrating their disregard for criticism of the brutality in Gaza. Iran officially declared it would intervene in Israel for the first time if the brutality in Gaza were not stopped.

On October 15, 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 the war front would be expanded if the attacks on Gaza were not halted. Conflicts persisted between Hamas and Israel in Ashkelon. Iranian Revolutionary Guards were dispatched to the Israeli borders in Syria. Turkish Armed Forces struck 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 16, 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 was ready to release hostages but cited the bombardment as the reason that 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 Israeli hostages had died in Israeli bombardments.

On October 17, 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 the 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 multiple locations. Through contradictory statements and cover-ups, Israel 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 crucial events of the last few days. After the Al-Ahli hospital was struck, the alleged U.S. President Biden visited Israel and increased their support. Armed groups in the region carried out attacks on all U.S. 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 intercepted by U.S. defense systems. Then, the U.S. decided to send warships to Yemen. Iran deployed its missiles to Tehran. Putin issued a threat for the first time, warning that U.S. aircraft and warships with hypersonic missiles in the Black Sea were within range. In his address to the nation on October 20, 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 an explicit opposing equation.

The key highlights regarding the established scenario’s political, military, and legal aspects 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 points: 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.

Currently, all Western media, without exception, are engaged in whitewashing and manipulation activities in favor of Israel and the United States. The horrific massacre in Gaza by Israel has been made completely legitimate in terms of media coverage. 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 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 functioned differently than initially intended. However, the idea of a universal order has been promoted through its partial application in various places and the establishment of relative atmospheres. While numbing people’s minds, this unrealistic and illusive concept is the prevailing reality that 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 actual law of the jungle, which does not conform to the principles of a universal order. In essence, an ideal framework of universal legal and moral values exists, 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 put into practice hardly align with this framework regarding 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. Aligning the public with these actions and intentions.

The prevailing global law in the current world is 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, executed globally and becoming prevalent, did not exist before the 20th century. We won’t delve into a detailed analysis of this situation, which is one of our time’s worst, most dangerous, and hardest-to-fix problems. However, to better understand its relevance to our topic, we must highlight some critical aspects.

The need to align public opinion stems from the fact that public opinion is considered an essential component of the source of legitimacy. While public sentiment may not be the fundamental basis of this legitimacy, it is 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. Considering what’s happening right now, we can see clearly what it means. Because the actions of Israel in Gaza over the past ten 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. These actions are being officially justified within the framework of “legitimacy” worldwide. Public opinion’s response is, interestingly, aimed to be brought in line with it.

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 for starting the conflict).
• Emotional manipulation (e.g., highlighting that babies are killed and but Hamas abducted the elderly).
• Aggressive resistance (e.g., it’s said that you support terrorism or have an ISIS mentality because Hamas is identified with ISIS).
• Imposing definitions (e.g., labeling Israel as a legitimate state and Hamas as a terrorist organization, referring to tose kidnapped as “settlers,” etc.).

The desired legitimacy is intended to spread through these means. However, the spread of this legitimacy, i.e., the ability to manipulate people almost everywhere globally, is not considered an essential requirement for the intended purpose. Manipulating enough people is sufficient to achieve the desired objectives within the necessary timeframe. This is because once enough individuals are manipulated, they will naturally struggle with those who have yet to be manipulated or are influenced by opposing arguments. This struggle is sufficient to 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 their actions, then Israel may not be unjust.”

We are moving forward without delving into various crucial aspects.

Accommodating 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 the means to reach the public, it implies that the public is demanding intervention and eradication by 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 specific 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? Indeed, in this situation, public demand for intervention against ISIS would also shift towards addressing the sources that give rise to ISIS. But what is the source of ISIS? Let’s answer it: the origin of ISIS is whatever the individuals believe in. When causal relationships and conditions become entangled, only some people are inclined to investigate the source of a complex problem that requires immediate intervention, as it further complicates matters.

This is where the slyness 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 an origin 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 and 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, suppose it’s suggested that the creators of harmful entities like ISIS are linked initially to religious or traditional identities. In that case, 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 precisely how it unfolds. Note that this kind of public perception exists under the general assumption that religious and traditional identities are “outdated” more broadly. The public has been convinced that their conformist daily life provides pleasure, and they believe 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 enjoyment 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 produce 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 sustains.

Before delving into various other aspects, let’s return to the context; remember that channeling a sufficient number of people toward a specific open target or indirectly towards the origin 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 appreciated). 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 its origin. This hidden demand represents the secret request or expectation of the public, or at the very least, its support. Look at it more simply: if you create demand or support and establish a target environment that aligns with that demand and support, your actions in that target area will progressively gain legitimacy. The nature of the efforts led by the United States, the United Kingdom, and Israel is as follows. To make it straightforward for those who have understood the matter up to this point.

Currently, in the world, a ‘legitimacy’ environment has been created where Hamas is called the target, but Palestinians are also portrayed as the origin that generates Hamas. On October 7, establishing 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 7, Hamas was also associated with ISIS, and the sense of immediate demand within this public framework was 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 support in question is, in fact, the same as the demand. In other words, an invisible demand for the destruction of Palestinians has been established in public opinion. This hidden demand in the public opinion has not yet fully surfaced.’

The increasing ‘indifference ‘or ‘insufficient resistance’ in the face of a child’s shattered body and frightened eyes due to bombardment is facilitated by this hidden demand.

So, by officially targeting Hamas, the entire environment for attacks on Palestinians as a predetermined hidden demand was prepared to gain legitimacy in Western public opinion. At present, 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 is not their primary 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 understand what they want.

The brief and descriptive picture we’ve outlined has many implications for the events in the region over the past ten days chronologically . We can only delve into some of them in this text, but let’s conclude by addressing the most important one.

The massacre in Palestine, carried out in full view of the world, along with the violation of every right, serves as another step in forming a “hidden” demand or consent through media and official discourse, coupled with the indifference of the normalization psychology.

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

“If you don’t want 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, global public opinion is in preparation for the open target hidden in this subliminal command. We will continue to clarify its meanings more distinctly.