Even CNN is less affirmative, Ryan…

https://www.wsj.com/world/middle-east/gaza-chiefs-brutal-calculation-civilian-bloodshed-will-help-hamas-626720e7?st=nfc8w6o3c2k52ce&reflink=desktopwebshare_permalink https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/gaza-chief-s-brutal-calculation-civilian-bloodshed-will-help-hamas/ar-BB1nYU8f?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=2e11251a354e41bc951713a8432d737f&ei=37

CNN Newsroom, June 12, 2024 – Transcript (excerpt) :

“ “We have the Israelis right where we want them.” Sinwar allegedly said in recent messages. These stunning messages, which CNN cannot independently verify […].” (my emphasis)

And their greater cautiousness has probably less to do with the fact the authors of the WSJ article haven’t read the “Report of the detailed findings of the independent international Commission of inquiry on the protests in the Occupied Palestinian Territory A/HRC/40/CRP.2”…

… , which, among other things, states that “[t]he Commission found that the content and the application of the Israeli forces’ rules of engagement contributed to [an] unlawful approach. The rules permitted status-based targeting of the legs of individuals deemed to be “key inciters/key rioters”, defined by conduct such as burning tyres, cutting or breaching the fence, or exhorting/leading the crowd. Under these rules, 4,903 persons were shot in the lower limbs – many while standing hundreds of meters away from the snipers, unarmed.

Unless undertaken lawfully in self-defense, intentionally killing a civilian not directly participating in hostilities is a war crime. Serious human rights violations were committed which may amount to crimes against humanity.” (my emphasis again), than with the misinformation and propaganda that have characterized this “war” more than any other, since its very start.

I’m not saying what is reported about Sinwar in the article is beneath him. I’m just saying nobody seems to be asking any of the fundamental questions the article should raise, for instance, aside from the most obvious one, pertaining to the authentication process, …

1/ Who are its actual sources ?

The article states that “[t]he messages were shared by multiple people with differing views of Sinwar”. That is a very wide and imprecise array of people, which might even include some within the U.S. government or its Israeli counterpart.

Later, it successively mentions “Arab and Hamas officials familiar with Sinwar’s thinking”, “Ehud Yaari, an Israeli commentator who has known Sinwar since his days in prison” and “Hamas’s political leadership”, which is said to have begun “privately […] distancing themselves from Sinwar” by November of last year. But we aren’t told whether those constitute any indications of who provided the materials.

2/ Did the sources directly hand the documents over to the WSJ ?

The article states that, in January of this year, “Sinwar began to change the way he communicated [according to Arab officials]. He used aliases and relayed notes only through a handful of trusted aides and via codes, switching between audio, messages spoken to intermediaries and written messages […]”.

Is it the recipients of those various messages who contacted the newspaper ? If so, why the WSJ ? What or who, if anyone, prompted them to do so ?

Or were the messages obtained indirectly, through a third party ? If so, which one, what are their motivations, and how did they get a hold of the messages ? Were (at least some of) those messages obtained by covert means ? If so, how were the “codes” deciphered ?

Does “through a handful of trusted aides and via codes”, including audio, mean said “aides” were entrusted with the audio as well, or were there also communications via, i.e., satellite phones which didn’t involve them ? In the latter case, were those phones hacked ? If they were, why weren’t they triangulated ? (read Small World News’ Guide to Safely Use Satphones, March 2012, 3.2 and 3.3). Or were they, and did bombings ensue ?

Knowing those “trusted aides” and “intermediaries” couldn’t possibly leave the Gaza strip, it’s hard to imagine they didn’t resort to one form of telecommunication or another (as do the fighters on the ground in order to be able to post their combat videos with the red arrows)…

And it’s equally inconceivable the U.S. and Israel didn’t sweep the airwaves and the bitflows in and over the entire strip.

3/ When were those messages respectively issued ?

For instance, “We have the Israelis right where we want them” is said to be a “recent message” Sinwar sent “Hamas officials seeking to broker an agreement with Qatari and Egyptian officials”, but what is “recent” ? Was it before or after Biden laid out his the Israeli government’s three-phase proposal ?

Other messages are far less recent. Why are they all being divulged now ?

https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/cnr/date/2024-06-12/segment/19

4/ What conclusion to draw from them ?

A definitive schism between the Hamas leadership at large and its Gaza leadership ? An attempt by a third party to instigate one at this critical juncture ?

The article states that, in February, “Sinwar in a message urged his comrades in Hamas’s political leadership outside Gaza not to make concessions and instead to push for a permanent end to the war. High civilian casualties would create worldwide pressure on Israel, Sinwar said. The group’s armed wing was ready for the onslaught, Sinwar’s messages said”.

What concessions was “Hamas’s political leadership outside Gaza” willing to make Sinwar wasn’t, which would have contributed to avert “[h]igh civilian casualties” ? And does this mean Sinwar, contrary to what has been said in Western media, wanted this war to end many months ago, whereas the Hamas leadership abroad didn’t ?

With so many questions left unanswered unasked, shouldn’t these revelations be taken with the proverbial grain of salt ?…