WalkThePath (@WalkThePath)

OK, so there are various types of International conflicts that can arise. A "State of War" is where two Sovereign Nation States declare that they are at war with each other. The purpose of the declaration is to be able to demark "combatants" from "civilians." This State of War allows for certain breaches of basic human rights to "combatants" (as they are under Martial Law) while protecting all human rights of "civilians" (who remain under Civilian/International Law). Breaching civilian human rights opens up negative sanctions from other nations against the perpetrator(s), under International War Crimes Law. The expected "result" of a State of War is an eventual Peace Settlement, wherein often the victor will seize "value" from the surrendering nation "as compensation" for the "costs of the War," which can take the form of land annexation, economic debt, etc. Willing combatant Nations prosecute their case until the other surrenders, but if a nation surrenders (by definition their combatants become civilians), the remaining Nation must not over-prosecute their case least they run afoul of War Crimes. A "Policing Action" is indicated when two Sovereign Nations are in conflict, but one Nation is seemingly unable to be a credible combatant; thus a proxy is brought in to fight on their behalf. It is _supposed_ to be the case that the Sovereign nation using a proxy is actually independent of the proxy, and is exclusively answerable to its own peoples' best interest. The will of the people must be represented by their own independent leadership to continue/end the involvement of the proxy, and negotiations between the combatants should/must NOT include the desires of the proxy to determine final outcomes. A "Failed State" is where there is no clear leadership that can represent the people, so that the peoples' wishes cannot be determined by consensus; and there is either the lack of capability or will to hold meaningful elections to locate those wishes (i.e., Ukraine, clearly a Failed State at this point, but maybe even since 2014). A Failed State is supposed to fall under the guardianship of the UN to revive it back to self-determination and NOT to have it fall prey to annexation by anyone (neighbor, combatant, or proxy), unless it is the clear consensus will of the people themselves (i.e., Crimea clearly a break-away State that chose annexation by the peoples' will). Keen readers are invited to become acquainted with The Law of War (https://dod.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/DoD%20Law%20of%20War%20Manual%20-%20June%202015%20Updated%20Dec%202016.pdf?ver=2016-12-13-172036-190) So what exactly do we have with Palestine? Are the people of Palestine conducting Sovereign War by using Hezbollah/Hamas as their designated "combatants" directly? I.e., are Palestinian civilians joining the ranks of Hezbollah/Hamas to become combatants and thus subject to Military Rules of Engagement? Is Hezbollah/Hamas the actual elected leadership of Palestine's people? Are Hezbollah/Hamas conducting a Policing Action on behalf of the Palestinian people according to Palestine leadership's wishes? I.e., are other nations supplying proxy support to Palestinian leadership to fight according to Palestinian leadership's direction? And if so, who are the designated by Palestinian people leadership that can continue/end the proxy combat? Or is it something else? It does SEEM to be something else. There are MANY documented instances where we find that Hezbollah and Hamas are funded/supplied by MOSSAD operations. The ongoing "conflict" has the appearance of a very large scale Agent Provocateur to ensure the persistence of a conflict that only one party wants (it normally takes two individuals to tango, NOT one and their shadow). The "genesis of the genocide" trigger seems to be Oct. 7th. The very idea that the most heavily surveilled and most rigorously defended borders on the planet can be mass-breached by some para-gliders on exactly the day of multiple failures of redundant checks and balances (training exercise, drills, "standdown" orders, and confusion) and have them run amok for hours is beyond silly... And if it DID actually happen, where are the military tribunals, convictions, and executions of almost ALL IDF leadership for their gross incompetence, dereliction, and utter negligence? Anyone? MOSSAD is one of the most heavily funded, motivated, and active intelligence agencies on the planet, they have agents literally everywhere. They have surveillance within the deepest levels of ALL global: Network layer, Operating Systems layer, Tech applications, Companies, NGOs, Governments, and Military... just fucking everywhere... You're telling me that not one agent in the vastest/strongest global intelligence empire caught one wiff of it and didn't run it up the flagpole? Cause one single peep would have blown the whole "operation" like shooting fish in a barrel. It's the same in the USA, where between the FBI, ATF, DEA, DHS, etc. there are more Federal Agents LARPing as "domestic terrorists" than there are "terrorists" by a factor of 10. I postulate that there are more MOSSAD direct/indirect agents LARPing as Hezbollah/Hamas than there are actuals by a factor of at LEAST 10... so much so that it is a solid argument to say that Hezbollah/Hamas IS MOSSAD. The difference being that MOSSAD could end Hezbollah/Hamas instantly, if that was its wishes... which it clearly isn't. And now we come to Trumps speech with Benjamin Mileikowsky (Aka Bibi "The Gift of Yahweh" Netanyahu) Trump talks about the elimination of Hezbollah/Hamas, but as described above, Hezbollah/Hamas are overwhelmingly MOSSAD assets... If MOSSAD completely knew about it, and allowed [directed] Oct. 7th to occur, then it was by literal definition: a MOSSAD false flag operation. This means that "the perpetrators of the Oct. 7th attack" as the subject indicates MOSSAD again. So go back and listen to speech again, but replace Hezbollah/Hamas with MOSSAD and all of the "perpetrators of the attack" as MOSSAD, and then see what that indicates. Look... love him or hate him, Trump is actually _very_ precise in his choice words. He is very precise and specific when he wants to be, and more vague and nebulous when he wants to be. Previous administration was always identifying the combatants as Palestinians vs. Israelis, Trump is very specific in NOT specifying Palestinians as combatants, only as civilian victims... don't you find that interesting? I don't pretend to know what exactly is going on, but it sure as SHIT is NOT as it seems.