Israeli General: To Disarm Hamas, IDF Must Take Over All of Gaza

Israeli General: To Disarm Hamas, IDF Must Take Over All of Gaza

Hugh Fitzgerald

A senior Israeli general, Brig. Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, who was formerly deputy commander of the IDF’s Gaza division, has just given an interview to the newspaper The Algemeiner. General Aviv believes that only Israel has both the ability and the will to disarm Hamas in Gaza. He argues this will require the IDF to take over all of Gaza, which means returning to the area between the Yellow Line and the Mediterranean that the IDF withdrew from just a few months ago.

More of his views can be found here: “‘No Way’ to Disarm Hamas Without Israel Taking All of Gaza, Former General Says,” by Debbie Weiss, Algemeiner, February 23, 2026:

"Israel will need to take over all of Gaza to meet its war objectives, a senior reserve Israeli general said, as the United States moves ahead with plans to assemble a multinational stabilization force that is not expected to deploy in Hamas-controlled areas.

Brig. Gen. (res.) Amir Avivi, a former deputy commander of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF)’s Gaza Division, said the military aims of the war — including the disarmament of Hamas — cannot be achieved without moving into the remaining parts of the enclave still held by the Palestinian terrorist group.

“There is no way to reach the goals of war without conquering Gaza,” Avivi told The Algemeiner.

“Ninety-nine point nine percent, the IDF is going to be the [party] that will dismantle Hamas,” Avivi said, noting that the Trump administration’s International Stabilization Force is expected to deploy only in Israeli-held areas and avoid confronting Hamas directly.

A decisive campaign could be completed in a month or two, Avivi said, because the constraints that slowed earlier phases of the war — most notably the presence of Israeli hostages in Hamas-held areas — no longer apply. The IDF could expand from its current 53 percent control of Gaza to 75 percent in “as little as a week,” he said.

No longer will the IDF have to hold back in its operations in Gaza out of concern for the lives of the hostages.

With the Israeli security cabinet focused on Iran, no final decision has been taken yet on the next phase in Gaza, Avivi said. The government is likely to give Hamas “a month or two” to see if a confrontation with Iran materializes before moving to conclude the campaign in Gaza….

The IDF is waiting to see if it will need to defend itself against an Iranian attack, as well as carry out an offensive campaign to destroy Iran’s store of ballistic missiles, before it takes on the task of disarming Hamas in Gaza. The IDF can only do such much at one time.

According to US and Israeli officials, the stabilization force is expected to begin deploying in southern Gaza, starting in Rafah, and expand gradually as conditions allow. The force is intended to help establish governance and security conditions in cleared areas, rather than conduct combat operations or forcibly disarm armed groups. 

Its commander, US Army Major General Jasper Jeffers, has said five countries — Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania — have committed personnel so far, with longer-term planning envisioning a significantly larger deployment of up to 20,000 troops and police focused on policing, security coordination and aid facilitation.

Neither the American forces, nor any of the soldiers from the five Muslim states who have agreed to send troops to the stabilization force, are prepared to fight Hamas to disarm it.

Only Israel is willing to take on that arduous task. The Americans are sounding more and more as if they would be willing to have Hamas troops keep small arms; Israel insists that Hamas must turn over all weapons, for terrorists infiltrating across the Yellow Line into the IDF-held 53% part of Gaza, or worse still, infiltrating into Israel proper, can use even small arms. In addition, if Hamas were to be allowed to keep its small arms, it could still threaten the family- and clan-based enemies of Hamas in Gaza, such as the Abu Shebab.

The Guardian reported last week that US contracting documents describe plans for a 350-acre military base in Gaza designed to support 5,000 people that will include watchtowers, bunkers, and training facilities. A US official declined to discuss the contract and reiterated that Washington does not plan to deploy US combat troops to the enclave.

That makes it crystal clear: Washington has no plan to deploy combat troops to Gaza. Any hope that the US would itself disarm Hamas has disappeared. Either Israel does it, or it doesn’t get done.

More...

Manufactured Chaos And Structured Destabilization

Armageddon is not merely awaited. It is being advanced

John Clark

There is a growing conviction among researchers, theologians, and independent analysts that powerful Luciferian forces are actively accelerating humanity toward Armageddon. This is not framed as random chaos or accidental decline. It is seen as intentional orchestration. A deliberate tightening of global pressure designed to force prophetic timelines into fulfillment.

Armageddon, as described in the Book of Revelation, is the final confrontation between light and darkness. It is the culmination of corruption, deception, and concentrated power rising against divine order. Those who believe Luciferians are steering world events argue that what we are witnessing today mirrors that trajectory with startling precision.

The acceleration is visible in multiple arenas at once.

Geopolitical tensions are escalating rather than cooling. Regional conflicts are entangled into broader alliances. Economic systems are consolidating into fewer hands. Surveillance technologies expand under the banner of security. Cultural foundations are destabilized through engineered division.

This is not random fragmentation. It is structured destabilization.

Luciferian philosophy, as understood by its critics, centers on rebellion against divine authority, the exaltation of human will, and the pursuit of hidden knowledge as power. If such ideology exists within elite circles, its natural outcome would be global transformation through crisis. Crisis becomes the catalyst. Collapse becomes the doorway.

Manufactured Chaos

The pattern follows a recognizable formula:

Create instability

Amplify fear

Offer centralized control as the solution

Economic shocks justify financial restructuring. Security threats justify mass surveillance. Social unrest justifies expanded state power. Each crisis moves the world closer to unified systems of governance and digital oversight.

From this perspective, Armageddon is not merely a battlefield. It is a systemic convergence point where political, spiritual, and technological forces merge into a final confrontation.

One of the most striking elements is the sense of time compression. Technological advancement has shrunk decades of change into years. Artificial intelligence reshapes labor. Digital currency restructures finance. Information warfare manipulates perception at scale.

This rapid acceleration mirrors prophetic language describing birth pains increasing in frequency and intensity. The world does not drift toward crisis. It sprints.

Those who hold the affirmative view argue that this sprint is engineered.

In apocalyptic theology, the climax separates loyalty from compromise. If one believes Luciferians seek ultimate control, accelerating humanity into such a crossroads would serve that objective.

Last Words

The assertion is clear. The acceleration of global instability is not accidental. The convergence of political centralization, technological dominance, and moral upheaval reflects a coordinated trajectory.

Armageddon is not merely awaited. It is being advanced.

Whether one interprets this through theology, symbolism, or geopolitical analysis, the pattern appears deliberate. The world is not simply unraveling. It is being steered toward a decisive reckoning.

Conscription is coming

Conscription is coming

Niall McCrae

Are you Army-fit? Advertisements everywhere, on the internet, on the sides of buses, on the radio and in cinemas, implore people to contact an armed forces recruitment office. And they don’t only want young people. The government intends to extend the age of conscription – should that be needed – to 65. Recent retirees on company or public sector pensions will be expected to don khaki, perhaps joining a reformed brigade at Walmington-on-Sea.

If this sounds ludicrous, and if you believe that the British public would refuse to step into line as cannon fodder, think again. European leaders are drumbeating for war with Russia, while the USA is poking fires on several fronts. In some EU countries, conscription for imminent conflict has already begun.

The nations of Scandinavia, until recently, were idealised as modern, progressive places to live. Their highly educated populace embraced liberal values and eschewed ethnocentric patriotism to open their doors to immigrants, particularly Muslims. They had nothing but token armies, which pursued diversity and equality policies.

Pacifism no more: Sweden and Finland, after decades of neutrality, joined NATO. Their ‘woke’ female leaders seem to relish their new role in sabre-rattling with Vladimir Putin. Their citizens face enlistment for potential war, and that means women too. Two years ago Danish defence minister Troels Lund Poulsen announced that ‘more robust conscription, including full gender equality, must contribute to solving defence challenges, national mobilisation and manning our armed forces.’ Perhaps he should check his language – ‘manning’ is hardly gender-neutral.

Why Scandinavia to get the ball rolling on Western militarisation? One reason could be that unlike Germany, France, Italy, Spain and Great Britain, the Swedes and their neighbours are not associated with imperialism or fascism (okay, let’s forget the Vikings). Thus they present a positive image for boosting defence and protecting progressive European culture.

A second reason could be that Scandinavia is technologically advanced. Remember that Sweden was allowed to get through covid-19 without lockdown, as epidemiologist Anders Tegnell was lauded for a common-sense approach. But perhaps such licence was because Sweden was already well on its way to the Great Reset. The ‘new normal’ was promoted by young Swedes making purchases or entering offices using microchip hand implants. Digital identity is in widespread use.

Scandinavian conscription will soon be followed across Europe. To calm the horses, however, the British government states that conscription is not necessary at this moment. But the seed has been sown in the public psyche by mainstream media. Recently the Daily Telegraph had billboards with messages about how Putin is likely to invade the Baltic states next, and contesting the idea that being proud of your country is prejudice – subtle primers for jingoistic conscription?

During the contrived moral panic over the television drama ‘Adolescence’ last year, I suggested that the real purpose was propaganda, getting people thinking about young male energy and aggression, and how this could be channelled positively. Numerous letters were sent to newspapers calling for a return to National Service.

The British government appears to be taking a lead role in escalating military tension with Russia. But as with Covid-19 and Net Zero, the big decisions are not really made by Keir Starmer and Westminster. Global forces are taking us on a momentum, and whether Putin is performing for the same masters or fighting his corner on the grand chessboard is difficult to discern.

More....

Despite Four Weeks Of Build-Up Trump’s Choices On Iran Are Still The Same

Despite Four Weeks Of Build-Up Trump’s Choices On Iran Are Still The Same

Moon of Alabama

Four week ago U.S. President Donald Trump threatened the Islamic Republic of Iran with another attack over its nuclear program.

It was a mistake because, as I explained, Iran is no easy target:

Iran however is also ready. It has increased its missile forces. It has promised to use it against U.S. positions in the Middle East and against Israel in retaliation to any attack. It has also promised to close the Strait of Hormuz. A large part of the global oil supply is flowing through it. A selective closure, which would for example allow tankers destined for China to pass, is also a possibility. But even a partial prolonged closure would suddenly increase oil and gas prices all over the world. Republican chances to win in the mid-term elections would decrease.

Major Arab U.S. allies in the Middle East have rejected to take part in any adventure against Iran. Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar have explicitly stated that they will not allow U.S. operations against Iran from or through their territory.
…
The arising conflict is unlikely to be as short as the recent 12 day campaign. It could easily escalate into attritional warfare. …

What Trump wants is another symbolic victory. He has started, like usual, with a gigantic threat in the hope to receive a minor concession that will allow him to chicken out. I doubt that Iran is in the mood to give him whatever he is asking for.

Since then the U.S. has beefed up its air defenses in the area and doubled the number of air-attack forces in the Middle East.

But this is still, says a U.S. military think-tank, far from enough to sustain a campaign:

The force is capable of punitive strikes on Iran and protection of U.S. allies and partners in the region. However, it lacks Marines, special operations forces (SOF) for raids or ground operations, and the logistics for an extended air campaign.

1. The current force level is comparable to that used in Operation Desert Fox, which entailed four days of long-range punitive strikes. …
2. The large number of cargo aircraft (C-17s and C-5Ms) and tankers (KC-135s and KC-46As) moving to the Middle East does not indicate any deployment of ground forces. …
3. U.S. forces lack special operations and ground units needed to conduct raids or operations ashore. …
4. The available forces are also insufficient for regime change beyond limited targeted strikes. …
5. Finally, there are not enough forces for an extended, multi-week air campaign. That would require a substantial logistical buildup, which is possible but would take additional time. …

Others analysts agree with that take (archived):

Israeli intelligence has concluded that even with the imminent arrival of the USS Gerald R Ford later this week, the US has military capacity to sustain just a four to five day intense aerial assault, or a week of lower-intensity strikes, an Israeli intelligence official told the FT.

Iran, in contrast to the U.S., is able to fight for a long time and especially to block the Strait of Hormuz, with global economic consequences, for several months.

The build up of U.S. forces over the last month thus has not changed the strategic balance.

Iran has the means to fight a long war in its near abroad while the U.S. depends on a logistic train that takes months to deliver.

The White House, when ordering the build-up, was falsely believing that Iran would fold under pressure:

Trump’s special envoy to the region, Steve Witkoff, told Fox News over the weekend that the president is “curious” why Iran hasn’t “capitulated” to U.S. demands, given the looming threat of a military attack.

“Why, under this pressure, with the amount of sea power and naval power over there, why haven’t they come to us and said, ‘We profess we don’t want a weapon, so here’s what we’re prepared to do?’ And, yet, it’s sort of hard to get them to that place,” he said.

Had Witkoff and Trump bothered to learn a bit about the five thousand year old glorious history of Iran they would have known that threatening its people does not work:

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi responded on social media, saying: “Curious to know why we do not capitulate? Because we are Iranian.”

As the Trump administration weighs an attack on Iran, the Pentagon’s top general has cautioned President Donald Trump and other officials that shortfalls in critical munitions and a lack of support from allies will add significant risk to the operation and to U.S. personnel, according to people familiar with internal discussions.

Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed his concerns at a White House meeting last week with Trump and his top aides, these people said, cautioning that any major operation against Iran will face challenges because the U.S. munitions stockpile has been significantly depleted by Washington’s ongoing defense of Israel and support for Ukraine. …

The lack of good military options is why Trump dithers with the decision to wage another war on Iran.

But the clock is running. Keeping a large expedition force for months on station in the Middle East does cost a lot of money and will deteriorate its capabilities.

Despite the U.S. build-up of forces the basic strategic situation is unchanged from where it was four weeks ago:

That leaves [Trump] the choice to chicken out without winning or to bet the house and his presidency on escalation.

The Blessed Hope:

The Blessed Hope: Why the Rapture Should Be Every Christian’s Ultimate Anticipation

Tim Moore

What is the next thing you are looking forward to? The wedding of a child? The birth of another grandchild (as my wife and I are anticipating in April)? A long-anticipated trip or family gathering?

All of those blessed events are bound to inspire eager anticipation. But the best thing that Christians throughout the Church Age have awaited with great excitement is the Rapture of the Church. That is why Paul refers to His coming for us as our “blessed hope.” As we’ve said many times, because our Hope is bound up in the Person of Jesus Christ and His trustworthy promises, the phrase Blessed Hope refers both to Him personally and to the promise that He will come and gather us to Himself.

It is that upward call that will usher us in glorified bodies into the rarefied beauty of Heaven—to take up residence in the place He has prepared for us—that Paul says we should be groaning for. In fact, he assumes that every Christian is doing just that: “having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body” (Romans 8:23).

Paul’s letter to the Thessalonians is the clearest scriptural reference to the Rapture, but it is not the only one. The concept of the “Rapture” is contained in 1 Thessalonians 4:17 where the word is typically translated as “caught up.” In the original Greek, the word harpázō was used. That word appears 14 times in Scripture and conveys the idea of being seized, snatched away, plucked up, or carried off by force. For example:

If Paul’s Spirit-revealed reference to what we call the Rapture was the only one, it would still be a clear and valid prophecy. But other Scriptures reference this promise to the Church: “Jesus said, ‘I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am going (to prepare a place for you) you may be also'” (John 14:1-4).

Paul revealed, “Behold, I tell you a mystery; we will not all sleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51-52).

So many prophetic signs point to that glorious day. As described in Matthew 24 and Luke 21, those signs are multiplying. They are increasing in frequency and intensity. And, they are converging like never before—to the point that even the spiritually undiscerning are beginning to realize that something is afoot.

More....