New Details Emerge on Netanyahu's Actions on October 7th
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Major General Avi Gil's statements reveal new details about Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's actions on the morning of the October 7th massacre. Gil's remarks suggest Netanyahu's awareness would not have changed IDF assessments, even if he had been awake earlier. The article alleges the Prime Minister's office operated like a crime organization, altering security protocols and employing aides with foreign ties.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Major General Avi Gil's statements shed new light on Prime Minister Netanyahu's conduct on October 7th.
- Gil's remarks suggest Netanyahu's awareness would not have altered IDF assessments.
- The Prime Minister's office is alleged to have altered security protocols during wartime.
- The article claims aides were employed who simultaneously worked for a foreign country.
- Gil's account is described as chilling and difficult to comprehend.
Statements made by Major General Avi Gil, who served as military secretary to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on the morning of the October 7th massacre, have shed new light on the prime minister's conduct. While not entirely surprising, Gil's remarks reportedly underscore a "hard truth" about Netanyahu. The article suggests that in a functioning democracy, major thoroughfares like Ayalon highways would have been blocked to tens of thousands of demonstrators following such revelations on television. Gil's account, previously heard without mediation, is described as chilling and difficult to comprehend.
Gil's statements reportedly indicate that even if the Prime Minister had been awake earlier on the morning of the attack, it would not have altered the IDF's assessments, as they were not changed even after he awoke at 6:40 AM. The article draws a parallel between the Prime Minister's office and a crime organization, alleging that security protocols were altered during wartime and that aides were employed who simultaneously worked for a foreign country. The author implies that if individuals like Sergeant First Class Y or his colleagues had been involved in decision-making that night, they might have perceived what the generals missed due to their "blindness."
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Centre 3Right 2Other 1
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
