So, they left the most secure border in the world wide open as bait so they jump early and throw off the plan. In a way this prevented a real bloody WW. I can see how Israel could sustain an attack on one front. Why wouldn't the other borders not go ahead? They have since attacked Israel, but not with nearly the impact it could have. I'm not a mil strategist, obviously, so what's the real story?
Glenn's head researcher, former DoD intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, spent a week in Israel to mark the first anniversary of the Oct. 7th Hamas attack. And he discovered a shocking connection between the United Nations and Hamas. Jason reveals what he currently can about the situation: The IDF has loads of evidence, recovered from Gaza, that the UN has been supporting high-level Hamas leaders, including by giving them apartments.
This fits with Israel's recent verification that a bodyguard for the deceased Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, worked as a UNRWA teacher. So, why hasn't the IDF released this yet? Jason has a theory. Plus, he describes what else he noticed during his trip: Israel is "preparing for something major," they view Oct. 7 very differently than we do in the U.S., and it's quite possible that Hamas attacked too early. Were Iran and Hezbollah supposed to join in?
Yes they went too early. It was supposed to be a coordinated effort. They needed a relatively strong country onboard. They failed with all of the neighbors. They were close with Turkey, but hadn’t closed the deal.
It was supposed to be a massive rocket attack from the three terrorist groups with Iranian nukes slipped in. Turkey was supposed to engage and preoccupy the Israeli military. This would allow the terrorist groups to come in via the tunnels and exterminate everyone that survived the nuclear attack. Total genocide.
Is this meant to make me think that slaughtering babies is OK?
So, they left the most secure border in the world wide open as bait so they jump early and throw off the plan. In a way this prevented a real bloody WW. I can see how Israel could sustain an attack on one front. Why wouldn't the other borders not go ahead? They have since attacked Israel, but not with nearly the impact it could have. I'm not a mil strategist, obviously, so what's the real story?
Glenn's head researcher, former DoD intelligence analyst Jason Buttrill, spent a week in Israel to mark the first anniversary of the Oct. 7th Hamas attack. And he discovered a shocking connection between the United Nations and Hamas. Jason reveals what he currently can about the situation: The IDF has loads of evidence, recovered from Gaza, that the UN has been supporting high-level Hamas leaders, including by giving them apartments.
This fits with Israel's recent verification that a bodyguard for the deceased Hamas leader, Yahya Sinwar, worked as a UNRWA teacher. So, why hasn't the IDF released this yet? Jason has a theory. Plus, he describes what else he noticed during his trip: Israel is "preparing for something major," they view Oct. 7 very differently than we do in the U.S., and it's quite possible that Hamas attacked too early. Were Iran and Hezbollah supposed to join in?
Yes they went too early. It was supposed to be a coordinated effort. They needed a relatively strong country onboard. They failed with all of the neighbors. They were close with Turkey, but hadn’t closed the deal.
It was supposed to be a massive rocket attack from the three terrorist groups with Iranian nukes slipped in. Turkey was supposed to engage and preoccupy the Israeli military. This would allow the terrorist groups to come in via the tunnels and exterminate everyone that survived the nuclear attack. Total genocide.