The case builds that Israel may have invoked its infamous 'Hannibal directive', which requires the army to kill Israelis rather than let them be taken hostage
Another important perspective on the Palestine crisis that no one is yet discussing. Comparing Gaza's attack on Israel to similar strategies used by the Allies, and in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, in World War II.
The new directives seem to advise safeguarding the (potential) captive, but do you think this is actually being done? The evidence in this post suggests otherwise.
There's no such thing as a "right to exist". No country has a right to exist any more than a fried egg sandwich does. Countries, and fried egg sandwiches, either exist or they don't.
Palestine exists, Israel too. No country in the world has a "right" to exist because there's no such concept in law. Countries are recognized, or not, by the UN, and Palestine is recognized by 138 of the 193 United Nations.
The "right to exist" is a propagandistic obfuscation. As far as I know Israel hasn't recognized any other country's "right to exist" and certainly not Palestine's.
But next time I eat a fried egg sandwich I will solemnly affirm its right to exist.
What is difficult to understand is that Western politicians are calling the present Israeli politicians democratic which means that they execute the will of their electorate. Does it follow that the present slaughter of civilians is the will of the people? The Palestinians have lived in
Palestine for 1500 year whilst the Israeli politicians came mostly from Europe since the late 1940s. Of course history has shown that it is not uncommon for the indigenous population to get removed by new comers as examples show in the US, Australia, New Zealand.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …(Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022)
The Democratic Party’s commitment to backing the genocide by “Israel” against Gaza has accelerated a transition within our political culture that was already taking place; it’s forced the imperialist narrative managers to find a new strategy for preventing the emergence of an effective popular movement against war and austerity.
Up until the developments of this last month, it was expedient for the U.S. empire to use “wokeness”—which here means posturing about wanting to rectify systemic injustices—as its primary means for narrative control. Since the empire’s pivot towards Obama-style “humanitarian intervention”; and the solidification of the Democratic Party as the primary driver of the new cold war; the traditional jingoism of American militarism has been substituted with the idea that U.S. foreign policy exists to advance social progress. Now that Biden is supporting a genocide which the mainstream elements of the left can’t ignore (like they could ignore the Donbass genocide which Biden backed), that idealistic image of the Democratic Party can’t be maintained.
The Americanos are all corrupt, but so are the Klanadians and EuroTrashLandians and Inbred United Kingdom freaks.
The US military are mostly republicans, and these two parties are manure pile sops, so, no, I am singling out the demon-crats. Re-pubic-craps are equally disgusting.
As the Israel-Hamas war continues, John Oliver has noticed that some members of the media “seem way too comfortable with” the war. One of the people who caught the “Last Week Tonight” host’s attention was a retired U.S. brigadier-general who advocated for a “war crime” while being interviewed by CNN.
During a segment on the news network, retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, an analyst who has appeared on CNN multiple times, said that Israel needs to circle Gaza and apply pressure to the region using the blockade they’ve established. “The people are going to suffer,” Anderson said, before noting that the Palestinian people would eventually give up Hamas.
“Does that mean starve the Palestinian people?” an incredulous Victor Blackwell asked on the air. “Because they will be so hungry and so desperate for water and medicine that then they will give up Hamas?”
“It sounds callous, but, I mean, this is a war,” Anderson said in the clip.
John Oliver Explains Why 'Last Week Tonight' Didn't Go In-Depth on Israel-Hamas Violence in Somber Show Opening
“It is a war, but what you’re describing is a war crime and one thing does not justify the other,” Oliver said at the top of Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight.”
The late night host also asked his audience to “spare a thought” for Blackwell, noting that he “probably didn’t get up that morning thinking he’d have to gently explain you can’t starve people to a former U.S. military official.”
Oliver then spent the rest of the episode mocking the Republican party in their ongoing search for Speaker of the House, breaking down the federal corruption charges around New Jersey senator Bob Menendez and diving into management consultant firms like McKinsey.
Fun fact: The US military is NOT mostly Republican. Hasn't been since at least 2016. A plurality of them actually voted Libertarian then. Combine the Libertarians with the ones who didn't bother to vote, and there's your military majority.
I think they may already be in a prerevolutionary stage.
Ahh, I disagree, and when I think Republican, I think conservative, too. Voting? That's not political affiliation. How many registered voters did not vote for Trump and BIden? Yep, the majority.
In 2023, the United States had the largest number of military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost 1.35 million troops.
With more than 330,000 employees, Army Civilian Corps is one of the largest, busiest, and most successful organizations within the Department of Defense.
Today the aerospace and defense industry supports more than 2.1 million jobs across the United States, with the highest concentrations of workers in California, Washington, Texas, Connecticut, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Georgia, and Virginia.
These people are reactionary, conservative, dirty dealing patriotic in many cases, proto-fascists.
So, a democrat or republican, in terms of actual political affiliation, nah, same old nuts and bolts.
The politics of military service
Military veterans have always been a distinct group of voters in the United States, of interest to pundits and politicians alike. Each election year brings a new set of polls, seeking to predict the impact that veterans might have. In recent years, those with prior service broke heavily in favor of Mitt Romney in his 2012 race against President Obama, voted 2-to-1 for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, but more narrowly sided with President Trump over Joe Biden in the 2020 election. These numbers suggest that most who serve in the United States armed forces are right leaning, which is largely consistent with both conventional wisdom and previous polling. While those who have served in the military do seem to be systematically different in their political views from those who have not, it is less clear why this is the case.
In the modern era, there are two general schools of thought about the relationship between military service and political attitudes. The first draws upon Republican “ownership” of the national defense issue and the fact that military service has been voluntary for the past five decades. It holds that the individuals most likely to join the armed forces are those that hold conservative political views and are predisposed to voting Republican. We call this the selection hypothesis.
The alternative point of view suggests that there is something special about the experience of military service itself, which can change an individual’s attitudes. The argument here is that individuals may not be particularly conservative or Republican when entering the military, but that they shift rightward because of their service. This may be because the armed forces tend to inculcate patriotism and deference to authority into its members, because recruits seek to emulate their more-conservative leaders within the officer corps, or as we argue, that veterans draw upon this service to establish a unique identity over the course of their lifetime. This proposed phenomenon is known as the socialization hypothesis.
Jonathan cook, John Steinbeck is one of a few good reasons I don't write novels AND YOU, Edward Said, Chomsky, Zinn, Chris Hedges, Naomi Kleine & a few others...Democracy Now & Mondoweiss... are why I don't WRITE political analysis. I rant & rave, while you & these all too few others do the real work. I thank you. And like their work, I share yours with the world. I pray that it helps! I ran into an old friend this morning. He said "Hey, Whatcha been doing... besides ranting & raving?" I stopped & thought a minute. I said sadly, "Not much, that's what I do, rant & rave, it's what I do." But I also hope, pray, join people @ the demonstrations & possibly most importantly do the work I want to do better than I can. Thank you. Ps. I've been meaning to say this for awhile.
I'm sorry. I meant possibly most importantly, I SHARE the work of those who DO the work better than I can, not "most importantly do the work I want to do better than I can." Sometimes my head is faster than my pen or uh, thumb.
It’s a crying shame that this kind of reporting and information is not available to more people via their preferred media. They are ignorant of much more than they know.
Hamas’s stated reason for existence is to destroy the Israeli state. Long term peace and negotiation is not on the table for them. Until they accept the existence of the Israeli state, you comment that they are “willing to negotiate peace” is just nonsense
I'm not going to host time-wasting hasbara here. Engage in good faith, debate properly with real arguments, not long debunked Zionist talking points. If not, you're heading towards a ban.
I have debated in good faith. I have not made personally disparaging comments as you have. If you can’t handle a contrary opinion in your Substack comment please ban me. I will view it fondly.
Hamas may want to destroy but they know they cannot….Israel wants to prevent a Palestinian autonomous state and loves to destroy the small region that’s left GAZA The difference between Hamas and the Israeli IDF the latter have been and are actually destroying what they promised to do
Israel has absolutely made poor decisions and taken action to the detriment of Gaza. I am not an Israel apologist. But until Hamas specifically and explicitly accepts Israel’s right to exist, this doesn’t end.
If the plight of Palestinians is your concern, do you also call for the freeing of all Palestinians from refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt? Where Palestinians are prevented from working or entering society in those countries? Or is it just Israel?
Sure, let’s change language semantics. I will no longer say right to exist for Israel. I will instead say “acknowledge that Israel will exist and continue to exist for the foreseeable future as a Jewish State”
I didn't say they're willing to 'negotiate peace', any more than Israel is. The fact that you feel the need to lie indicates you are not a good faith actor. You're just desperately flailing around, trying to find excuses for your support for genocide in Gaza.
Susan, I understand you are passionate about this issue and care deeply. I have an honest question for you because I would like to learn. What does a resolution to this look like? When you say free Palestine what does that mean as far as borders, rights and movement of people? Thank you for answering.
You are reading words without intent. I did not lie and nothing in the current charter does anything to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
Read it again. Specifically the section entitled the position toward occupation and political solutions. “From the river to the sea” means the destruction of Israel.
So what does that line mean to you? And what do you think it means to Hamas? What does a free Palestine mean in that context? Is a 2 state or even 3 state solution acceptable? Or is it something else?
I agree. Will take compromise in both sides. For example, Israelis need to pull back settlements which are antagonistic. Palestinians need to recognize Israeli statehood
Can certainly see the slow revelation of the "Hannibal" protocol, and to take step back to this is a question I keep coming back to, "How did the Israeli intelligence service not know what was being planned by Hammas?"
They have the most advanced intelligence and surveillance set up in the middle east, and they didn't know anything was brewing?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Without delving into conspiracy theory I believe the Zionist regime knew,wanted it and was ready to light the touch paper for revenge.
It’s long been reported on in Israeli newspapers - such as Haaretz - that Netanyahu not only used Hamas as political cover for and to bolster his own leadership, but that he was instrumental in the establishment of Hamas 16 years ago with millions of dollars funding routed via Qatar. The same can be applied to the Oct 6th attack; it is now being used to bolster the policies of his far right coalition government.
Another important perspective on the Palestine crisis that no one is yet discussing. Comparing Gaza's attack on Israel to similar strategies used by the Allies, and in the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, in World War II.
https://ericbrooks.substack.com/p/why-gazas-attack-on-israel-made-sense?r=1etm80&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
New IDF orders to thwart soldier abductions replace misunderstood protocol
Three new military procedures, allowing massive use of force, came into effect this month to replace controversial Hannibal directive.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/new-idf-directives-allow-massive-force-to-prevent-soldiers-kidnapping/
The new directives seem to advise safeguarding the (potential) captive, but do you think this is actually being done? The evidence in this post suggests otherwise.
Thank you for your brilliant writing and fair reporting.
There's no such thing as a "right to exist". No country has a right to exist any more than a fried egg sandwich does. Countries, and fried egg sandwiches, either exist or they don't.
Ok. So then Palestine doesn’t either? So what is the problem?
Palestine exists, Israel too. No country in the world has a "right" to exist because there's no such concept in law. Countries are recognized, or not, by the UN, and Palestine is recognized by 138 of the 193 United Nations.
The "right to exist" is a propagandistic obfuscation. As far as I know Israel hasn't recognized any other country's "right to exist" and certainly not Palestine's.
But next time I eat a fried egg sandwich I will solemnly affirm its right to exist.
What is difficult to understand is that Western politicians are calling the present Israeli politicians democratic which means that they execute the will of their electorate. Does it follow that the present slaughter of civilians is the will of the people? The Palestinians have lived in
Palestine for 1500 year whilst the Israeli politicians came mostly from Europe since the late 1940s. Of course history has shown that it is not uncommon for the indigenous population to get removed by new comers as examples show in the US, Australia, New Zealand.
“Egypt succeeded in persuading Israel to start extracting natural gas off the coast of the Gaza Strip, after several months of secret bilateral talks.
This development … comes after years of Israeli objections to extract natural gas off the coast of Gaza on [alleged] security grounds, …
British Gas (BG Group) has also been dealing with the Tel Aviv government.
What is significant is that the civilian arm of the Hamas Gaza government has been bypassed in regards to exploration and development rights over the gas fields:
The field, which lies about 30 kilometers (19 miles) west of the Gaza coast, was discovered in 2000 by British Gas (currently BG Group) and is estimated to contain more than 1 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.
The official in the Egyptian intelligence service told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, “An Egyptian economic and security delegation discussed with the Israeli side for several months the issue of allowing the extraction of natural gas off the coast of Gaza. …(Al-Monitor, October 22, 2022)
The Democratic Party’s commitment to backing the genocide by “Israel” against Gaza has accelerated a transition within our political culture that was already taking place; it’s forced the imperialist narrative managers to find a new strategy for preventing the emergence of an effective popular movement against war and austerity.
Up until the developments of this last month, it was expedient for the U.S. empire to use “wokeness”—which here means posturing about wanting to rectify systemic injustices—as its primary means for narrative control. Since the empire’s pivot towards Obama-style “humanitarian intervention”; and the solidification of the Democratic Party as the primary driver of the new cold war; the traditional jingoism of American militarism has been substituted with the idea that U.S. foreign policy exists to advance social progress. Now that Biden is supporting a genocide which the mainstream elements of the left can’t ignore (like they could ignore the Donbass genocide which Biden backed), that idealistic image of the Democratic Party can’t be maintained.
It’s not just the democrats that is committed to Israel. Republicans are right there alongside them.
The Americanos are all corrupt, but so are the Klanadians and EuroTrashLandians and Inbred United Kingdom freaks.
The US military are mostly republicans, and these two parties are manure pile sops, so, no, I am singling out the demon-crats. Re-pubic-craps are equally disgusting.
https://www.thewrap.com/last-week-tonight-john-oliver-cnn-war-crime-gaza/
Here more disgust . . . . perversion!
As the Israel-Hamas war continues, John Oliver has noticed that some members of the media “seem way too comfortable with” the war. One of the people who caught the “Last Week Tonight” host’s attention was a retired U.S. brigadier-general who advocated for a “war crime” while being interviewed by CNN.
During a segment on the news network, retired U.S. Army Brig. Gen. Steven Anderson, an analyst who has appeared on CNN multiple times, said that Israel needs to circle Gaza and apply pressure to the region using the blockade they’ve established. “The people are going to suffer,” Anderson said, before noting that the Palestinian people would eventually give up Hamas.
“Does that mean starve the Palestinian people?” an incredulous Victor Blackwell asked on the air. “Because they will be so hungry and so desperate for water and medicine that then they will give up Hamas?”
“It sounds callous, but, I mean, this is a war,” Anderson said in the clip.
John Oliver Explains Why 'Last Week Tonight' Didn't Go In-Depth on Israel-Hamas Violence in Somber Show Opening
“It is a war, but what you’re describing is a war crime and one thing does not justify the other,” Oliver said at the top of Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight.”
The late night host also asked his audience to “spare a thought” for Blackwell, noting that he “probably didn’t get up that morning thinking he’d have to gently explain you can’t starve people to a former U.S. military official.”
Oliver then spent the rest of the episode mocking the Republican party in their ongoing search for Speaker of the House, breaking down the federal corruption charges around New Jersey senator Bob Menendez and diving into management consultant firms like McKinsey.
Fun fact: The US military is NOT mostly Republican. Hasn't been since at least 2016. A plurality of them actually voted Libertarian then. Combine the Libertarians with the ones who didn't bother to vote, and there's your military majority.
I think they may already be in a prerevolutionary stage.
Ahh, I disagree, and when I think Republican, I think conservative, too. Voting? That's not political affiliation. How many registered voters did not vote for Trump and BIden? Yep, the majority.
Libertarian presidential candidates?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries
In 2023, the United States had the largest number of military personnel out of all North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) countries, with almost 1.35 million troops.
With more than 330,000 employees, Army Civilian Corps is one of the largest, busiest, and most successful organizations within the Department of Defense.
Today the aerospace and defense industry supports more than 2.1 million jobs across the United States, with the highest concentrations of workers in California, Washington, Texas, Connecticut, Arizona, Florida, Ohio, Kansas, Georgia, and Virginia.
These people are reactionary, conservative, dirty dealing patriotic in many cases, proto-fascists.
So, a democrat or republican, in terms of actual political affiliation, nah, same old nuts and bolts.
The politics of military service
Military veterans have always been a distinct group of voters in the United States, of interest to pundits and politicians alike. Each election year brings a new set of polls, seeking to predict the impact that veterans might have. In recent years, those with prior service broke heavily in favor of Mitt Romney in his 2012 race against President Obama, voted 2-to-1 for Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton in 2016, but more narrowly sided with President Trump over Joe Biden in the 2020 election. These numbers suggest that most who serve in the United States armed forces are right leaning, which is largely consistent with both conventional wisdom and previous polling. While those who have served in the military do seem to be systematically different in their political views from those who have not, it is less clear why this is the case.
In the modern era, there are two general schools of thought about the relationship between military service and political attitudes. The first draws upon Republican “ownership” of the national defense issue and the fact that military service has been voluntary for the past five decades. It holds that the individuals most likely to join the armed forces are those that hold conservative political views and are predisposed to voting Republican. We call this the selection hypothesis.
The alternative point of view suggests that there is something special about the experience of military service itself, which can change an individual’s attitudes. The argument here is that individuals may not be particularly conservative or Republican when entering the military, but that they shift rightward because of their service. This may be because the armed forces tend to inculcate patriotism and deference to authority into its members, because recruits seek to emulate their more-conservative leaders within the officer corps, or as we argue, that veterans draw upon this service to establish a unique identity over the course of their lifetime. This proposed phenomenon is known as the socialization hypothesis.
Hamas would have done well to get the hostages to safety in the Sinai then elsewhere in Libya, Syria or Iran.
The Palestinians pay for there freedom with their lives. It is getting closer and closer to the time when these lives will have to be accounted for.
Jonathan cook, John Steinbeck is one of a few good reasons I don't write novels AND YOU, Edward Said, Chomsky, Zinn, Chris Hedges, Naomi Kleine & a few others...Democracy Now & Mondoweiss... are why I don't WRITE political analysis. I rant & rave, while you & these all too few others do the real work. I thank you. And like their work, I share yours with the world. I pray that it helps! I ran into an old friend this morning. He said "Hey, Whatcha been doing... besides ranting & raving?" I stopped & thought a minute. I said sadly, "Not much, that's what I do, rant & rave, it's what I do." But I also hope, pray, join people @ the demonstrations & possibly most importantly do the work I want to do better than I can. Thank you. Ps. I've been meaning to say this for awhile.
I'm sorry. I meant possibly most importantly, I SHARE the work of those who DO the work better than I can, not "most importantly do the work I want to do better than I can." Sometimes my head is faster than my pen or uh, thumb.
It’s a crying shame that this kind of reporting and information is not available to more people via their preferred media. They are ignorant of much more than they know.
Hamas’s stated reason for existence is to destroy the Israeli state. Long term peace and negotiation is not on the table for them. Until they accept the existence of the Israeli state, you comment that they are “willing to negotiate peace” is just nonsense
Ok, What's Israel's stated reason for existence? To wipeout Palestine out of the map? Do Israel accept the existence of a Palestinian state?
Israel just said that it wants to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. Do you find that acceptable?
No I do not. Please cite your source
A more detailed article.
https://archive.ph/IKgkB
Here you go. Sorry it took so long to find it.
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/10/22/israeli-official-vows-to-wipe-iran-off-the-face-of-the-earth-if-hezbollah-enters-war/
This isn’t a one sided conflict.
Thanks for the back up and providing the link. I just couldn’t remember where I read it. Here’s another one.
https://news.antiwar.com/2023/10/22/israeli-official-vows-to-wipe-iran-off-the-face-of-the-earth-if-hezbollah-enters-war/
Israeli’s stated or unstated goal is to exterminate and ethnically cleanse all Palestinians including its own Palestinian citizens!
Really? Based on what? That it’s Palestinian citizens have a right to vote?
I'm not going to host time-wasting hasbara here. Engage in good faith, debate properly with real arguments, not long debunked Zionist talking points. If not, you're heading towards a ban.
I have debated in good faith. I have not made personally disparaging comments as you have. If you can’t handle a contrary opinion in your Substack comment please ban me. I will view it fondly.
Hamas may want to destroy but they know they cannot….Israel wants to prevent a Palestinian autonomous state and loves to destroy the small region that’s left GAZA The difference between Hamas and the Israeli IDF the latter have been and are actually destroying what they promised to do
2 state solution has been presented 4 times and rejected without negotiation or alternative suggestion. Come to the table with a viable 2 state option
Israel has absolutely made poor decisions and taken action to the detriment of Gaza. I am not an Israel apologist. But until Hamas specifically and explicitly accepts Israel’s right to exist, this doesn’t end.
If the plight of Palestinians is your concern, do you also call for the freeing of all Palestinians from refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Egypt? Where Palestinians are prevented from working or entering society in those countries? Or is it just Israel?
Sure, let’s change language semantics. I will no longer say right to exist for Israel. I will instead say “acknowledge that Israel will exist and continue to exist for the foreseeable future as a Jewish State”
Sounds like a "might makes right" argument
It is the historical record. It’s not a recent quote. You can find it.
I didn't say they're willing to 'negotiate peace', any more than Israel is. The fact that you feel the need to lie indicates you are not a good faith actor. You're just desperately flailing around, trying to find excuses for your support for genocide in Gaza.
Susan, I understand you are passionate about this issue and care deeply. I have an honest question for you because I would like to learn. What does a resolution to this look like? When you say free Palestine what does that mean as far as borders, rights and movement of people? Thank you for answering.
At no point here did I personally attack you, which you just did. I will leave now. It is not worth continuing the conversation.
You are reading words without intent. I did not lie and nothing in the current charter does anything to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
Read it again. Specifically the section entitled the position toward occupation and political solutions. “From the river to the sea” means the destruction of Israel.
From the river to the sea does not mean the destruction of Israel.
That's another lie.
It means Palestine shall be free, which is obviously the second line.
So what does that line mean to you? And what do you think it means to Hamas? What does a free Palestine mean in that context? Is a 2 state or even 3 state solution acceptable? Or is it something else?
It means Palestinians shall be free...just like Israelis.
That can be a 1 or 2 state solution, 3 state does not come into it obviously.
I don't believe a 1 state is possible now..though it should have been.
Judaism is a religion not a race.
As before it should have been Arabs, Jews and Christians living side by side in one state, Palestine.
That won't happen now, so difficult as it is, a 2 state solution is possibly the only viable option.
I agree. Will take compromise in both sides. For example, Israelis need to pull back settlements which are antagonistic. Palestinians need to recognize Israeli statehood
Can certainly see the slow revelation of the "Hannibal" protocol, and to take step back to this is a question I keep coming back to, "How did the Israeli intelligence service not know what was being planned by Hammas?"
They have the most advanced intelligence and surveillance set up in the middle east, and they didn't know anything was brewing?
Absolutely ridiculous.
Without delving into conspiracy theory I believe the Zionist regime knew,wanted it and was ready to light the touch paper for revenge.
It’s long been reported on in Israeli newspapers - such as Haaretz - that Netanyahu not only used Hamas as political cover for and to bolster his own leadership, but that he was instrumental in the establishment of Hamas 16 years ago with millions of dollars funding routed via Qatar. The same can be applied to the Oct 6th attack; it is now being used to bolster the policies of his far right coalition government.