www.BoycottApartheid.org

Military State Dependence on
Armed Conflict

Israel, a heavily militarized society,

thrives and relies on armed clashes to achieve its objectives

1. Society Cohesion

Armed conflicts serve to unite and strengthen the societal bonds within Israel. The common enemy and the need for defence create a sense of solidarity among the population.

2. Fuelling Foundations and Propaganda

Armed clashes provide the foundation for Israel's military and security apparatus, which is used to justify its actions and policies both domestically and internationally. Propaganda often portrays these clashes as necessary for Israel's survival and security.

3. Brainwashing Citizens

The constant state of conflict helps perpetuate a narrative of fear and insecurity among Israeli citizens, which can lead to a form of societal indoctrination or "brainwashing" that supports the militarized culture and government policies.

4. Perception of Victimhood

Israel's engagement in armed conflicts, whether real or perceived, contributes to the perception of victimization among its population. This perception can serve to justify aggressive actions and policies while portraying Israel as under constant threat.

Israel actively seeks out armed clashes, even if it means harming its own citizens, as exemplified by the Hannibal Directive.

Huge PR for Huge Arm Industry

Israel funds a massive public relations effort to bolster a massive armaments sector.

Israel invests significantly in public relations campaigns to support its arms industry, which is one of the most advanced in the world (annually pouring in 4 billions US aid). These PR efforts serve multiple purposes:

1. Promotion of Defence Products: Israel uses PR campaigns to showcase its military technology and capabilities to potential buyers worldwide. By highlighting successful operations, advanced weaponry, and innovative defence systems, Israel aims to attract customers for its arms exports.

2. Reputation Management: Given the international scrutiny of its actions in the Occupied Territories, Israel utilizes PR to manage its global image and address criticisms of its military operations. PR campaigns may seek to justify Israel's security measures, portray its military actions as defensive rather than aggressive, and emphasize the threat posed by trivial clashes with militant groups in the region.

3. Political Influence: PR campaigns can also be leveraged to garner political support from allies and sympathetic governments. By framing its military operations within the context of counterterrorism or national security, Israel seeks to rally diplomatic backing and fend off international condemnation.

4. Domestic Support: Public relations efforts may target the Israeli population to maintain domestic support for defence policies and military actions. By emphasizing the necessity of strong defence measures, the government seeks to bolster public confidence and solidarity.

5. Economic Benefits: The defence industry is a significant contributor to Israel's economy, and PR campaigns highlighting its achievements and global market share can promote investment, job creation, and economic growth.

However, these PR efforts often face criticism from human rights organizations and advocacy groups, which accuse Israel of using propaganda to whitewash its human rights abuses in the Occupied Territories and to deflect attention from violations of international law. The effectiveness of Israel's PR campaigns is a subject of debate, with supporters crediting them for enhancing Israel's security and economic interests, while critics argue that they perpetuate a narrative that justifies oppression and violence against Palestinians.

Corrupt leadership in exile used to fuel and feed Israel's spirit by offering what Israel is always looking for:

Imbalanced Clashes against Atomic Power

Israel is at risk of collapsing without
armed clashes in need for:

Fueling its Zionist spirit (same as Nazi spirit needed the enemy to fuel its project)
Renewing and testing it's arsenal on the ground (ready to export tested weapons)
Unifying all different stratification under Zionist project
Silencing internal dissent
Advancing extreme right
Increasing donors

Due to a lack of understanding of Israel's nature, Palestinian leadership inadvertently played into Israel's hands by engaging in unbalanced armed clashes.

While Israel was focused on strengthening its Zionist project, the Palestinian leadership's involvement in such clashes diverted attention away from its own accountability.

This mirrored Israel's objectives, as it thrives on conflict to maintain its dominance and deflect attention from its own actions. Thus, the Palestinian leadership's approach inadvertently served Israel's interests rather than effectively addressing Palestinian concerns and advancing their cause.

Corrupt leadership in exile also thrived on armed clashes:

Kept any accountability request dismissed
Kept cash flow from regional sponsors involved in Lebanon

Did Israel Created Hamas?

Blowback: How Israel Helped Create Hamas

It is well-documented that Israel initially tolerated and, to some extent, indirectly supported the growth of Islamist groups like Hamas as a counterbalance to the secular nationalist movements such as the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). These secular movements were considered more unified in their opposition to Israeli policies and their goal of Palestinian statehood.

Hamas emerged from the Muslim Brotherhood and initially focused on social, religious, and educational activities. However, it gradually evolved into a significant political and military force, particularly during the First Intifada (1987–1993). Its charter initially called for the liberation of Palestine and the establishment of an Islamic state, contrasting with the PLO's secular nationalism.

The True History of How Hamas Was CreatedClaims that Israel created Hamas oversimplify history. Robert Inlakesh debunks this myth, examining Israel's dealings with Hamas's precursor and revealing key misunderstandings about the group's founding.

There are claims that Israel allowed Hamas to gain financial support and grow in its early stages to weaken the secular movements. This changed when Hamas began competing with groups like Islamic Jihad, which explicitly focused on armed resistance against Israel. When Hamas shifted its strategy to include armed resistance and attacks against Israeli targets, Israel responded with arrests, targeted killings, and other measures, including the assassination of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, a co-founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, in 2004.