Ronen Bergman
@ronenbergman · Israeli journalists — military, security, Arab affairs
Ronen Bergman is the dean of Israeli intelligence journalism, reporting for The New York Times and Yedioth Ahronoth, and the author of Rise and Kill First.
Taub slanders, curses and vilifies. There is only one thing he has not done and will not do: bring even one example of something we wrote that is untrue. In Taub’s world there is no settler violence and no settler terrorism, and in doing so he merely encourages them to continue doing what he claims they do not do. Gadi Taub is one of the leading poisoners, a liar hiding behind the guise of a university lecturer, a supporter of the fascist Orbán and the antisemitic Carlson (long after it became clear who they were), and above all, someone who will do anything to destroy the democratic institutions of the State of Israel. Taub enthusiastically supports and frequently appears on Channel 14, where they promoted the antisemitic narrative that Trump’s “Jewish” advisers, Kushner and Witkoff, who, like Jews, care only about money, took bribes from Qatar and persuaded Trump to sign the deal, thereby betraying their own people. For Taub, the truth is not even an option. Just recently, after I caught him lying again, Taub continues to claim, and to lie, that he did not promote the blood libel and the abhorrent conspiracy theory known as “betrayal from within,” which is eating away at Israeli society from the inside, and that: “Everyone who follows my podcast knows that I oppose the betrayal theory as an explanation for the events of October 7. There are countless places where I said that.” He also wrote: “So not only did I not support the betrayal theory. I even got into arguments with friends and repeatedly blocked anyone who tried to use my feed to promote the harmful theory in the comments. That’s not all. I made an entire program on my channel, together with Dr. Liad Levy, explaining why this theory is both implausible and harmful. The title was ‘Betrayal?’. Here is Avinadav Begin’s post, with excerpts attached from that same podcast in which he claims he explained why the theory is ‘implausible,’ and another excerpt from a different podcast, a very partial list. There is no bottom he will not sink to, no value he will not trample, no filth he will not wallow in; the main thing is to say that Netanyahu is not guilty.
Translated from HebrewHere is how the blood-libel-sausage factory that he and Erez Tadmor opened as partners operates: on one side they put in a kernel of truth — a document, a quotation, an investigation. On the other side come out the deep state, treason, and a military rebellion. Here is a typical example from “The Generals’ Revolt,” a poisonous propaganda package saturated with lies and blood libels that disguises itself as a “book” and a 4-part “documentary” series. In practice, this is the flagship of Netanyahu’s campaign, which since last week has officially adopted its narratives, both its hatred of the generals and the claim that they tried to rebel against him. And so Erez Tadmor reads the word “miscalculation” from the real Shin Bet investigation: on the night of October 7, at a certain stage it was decided to refrain from activity that was too broad, which could cause Hamas to mistakenly interpret that Israel was about to attack, thereby creating an escalation. So far — a document. Then comes the magic phase. Tadmor asks Gadi Taub: “Miscalculation? What does that have to do with this?” And Taub supplies the part that the document, much to their dismay, does not contain: “What do we understand from this? We shouldn’t wake up the crazy extremist political echelon, because they will react immediately and drag us into a war we did not want.” What do we understand from this? Well, Taub understands this from it. Only it is completely unclear how. Because there is no such sentence in the Shin Bet investigation. There is no decision not to wake Netanyahu. There is no instruction to compartmentalize the political echelon. There is not even a claim that anyone feared Netanyahu would order an attack. There is an operational consideration of whether activity by the forces in the field could create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Hamas. But in less than a minute Taub and Tadmor performed the alchemy: “refrain from broad activity so as not to create a miscalculation” “do not wake Netanyahu” “the security chiefs decided to compartmentalize the government” “The Generals’ Revolt.” And the beautiful part: from the moment the invented link was inserted in the middle, they no longer present it as a hypothesis. It becomes a “fact” on which the next twenty minutes can be built. This is how a conspiracy is made: there is no need to forge the document. It is enough to read a true sentence from it — and then invent the next sentence in an authoritative voice.
Translated from HebrewThis is how the blood-libel-and-conspiracy factory that he and Erez Tadmor opened in partnership operates: on one side they put in a kernel of truth — a document, a quote, an investigation. Out the other side come the deep state, treason, and a military rebellion. Here is a typical example from “The Generals’ Revolt,” a poisonous propaganda package saturated with lies and blood libels that disguises itself as a “book” and a 4-episode “documentary” series. In practice, it is the flagship of the Netanyahu campaign, which since last week has officially adopted its narratives — both the hatred of the generals and the claim that they tried to rebel against him. And so Erez Tadmor reads the word “miscalculation” from the real Shin Bet investigation: on the night of October 7, at a certain point it was decided to refrain from activity that was too broad and might lead Hamas to mistakenly interpret that Israel was about to attack, thereby creating an escalation. So far — a document. Then comes the magic stage. Tadmor asks Gadi Taub: “Miscalculation? What does that have to do with this?” And Taub supplies the part that the document, how unfortunate for them, does not include: “What do we understand from this? We must not wake up the radical, crazy political echelon, because they will immediately react and drag us into a war we did not want.” What do we understand from this? Well, Taub understands this. It is just not at all clear how. Because the Shin Bet investigation contains no such sentence. There is no decision not to wake Netanyahu. There is no instruction to compartmentalize the political echelon. There is not even a claim that anyone feared Netanyahu would order an attack. There is an operational consideration of whether activity by the forces on the ground might create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Hamas. But in less than a minute Taub and Tadmor performed the alchemy: “refrain from broad activity so as not to create a miscalculation” “do not wake Netanyahu” “the security chiefs decided to compartmentalize the government” “the generals’ revolt.” And the beautiful part: once the invented link was planted in the middle, they no longer present it as a hypothesis. It becomes a “fact” on which the next twenty minutes can be built. This is how a conspiracy is manufactured: there is no need to forge the document. It is enough to read a true sentence from it — and then invent the next sentence in an authoritative voice.
Translated from HebrewThis is how the blood-libel sausage factory he and Erez Tadmor opened in partnership operates: on one side they put in a kernel of truth — a document, a quotation, an investigation. Out the other side come the deep state, treason, and a military revolt. Here is a typical example from „The Generals’ Revolt,“ a poisonous propaganda package saturated with lies and blood libels that disguises itself as a „book“ and a „documentary“ series of 4 episodes. In practice, it is the flagship of the Netanyahu campaign, which since last week has officially adopted its narratives — both the hatred of the generals and the claim that they tried to revolt against him. And so Erez Tadmor reads the word „miscalculation“ from the real Shin Bet investigation: on the night of October 7, at a certain stage it was decided to refrain from activity that was too broad, which could cause Hamas to mistakenly interpret that Israel was about to attack, thereby creating an escalation. Up to here — a document. Then comes the magic stage. Tadmor asks Gadi Taub: „Miscalculation? What does that have to do with this?“ And Taub supplies the part that the document, how unfortunate for them, does not include: „What do we understand from this? We shouldn’t wake the crazy extremist political echelon, because they’ll react immediately and drag us into a war we didn’t want.“ What do we understand from this? Well, Taub understands that from it. It’s just completely unclear how. Because the Shin Bet investigation contains no such sentence. There is no decision not to wake Netanyahu. There is no instruction to compartmentalize the political echelon. There isn’t even a claim that anyone feared Netanyahu would order an attack. There is an operational consideration as to whether an action by the forces in the field could create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Hamas. But in less than a minute Taub and Tadmor performed the alchemy: „refrain from broad activity so as not to create a miscalculation“ „not wake Netanyahu“ „the security chiefs decided to compartmentalize the government“ „The Generals’ Revolt.“ And the beautiful part: from the moment the invented link was implanted in the middle, they no longer present it as a supposition. It becomes a „fact“ on which the next twenty minutes can be built. This is how a conspiracy is created: you don’t need to forge the document. It is enough to read a true sentence from it — and then invent the next sentence in an authoritative voice.
Translated from HebrewWhoa, Etzbaoni woke up early from all the worrying. Everything is collapsing; the generals' revolt narrative, in whose poisonous lentil tartif he helped cook, is collapsing in on itself with not a single piece of proof or evidence; his attempt to claim that he did not preach, give it a platform, or spread the blood libel about “the betrayal from within” that is eating away at us from the inside is proving to be yet another crude and brazen lie; and let us not forget the exclusive and amazing historic revelation, the one thanks to which the way we understand the Yom Kippur War will be rewritten: IDF Chief of Staff David Elazar met Prime Minister Golda Meir only on the second day of the war; that, of course, despite the fact that he met her twice on the day the war broke out and our Gadi forgot to Google, or does not know how to Google, or did not check that the person who gave him this nonsense had Googled. And our Gadi, the truth is sometimes not even an option for him. A whole series of people, including @bodkim2022, have already written to him that this is a serious mistake, but he did not delete the tweet and does not think you deserve an apology for turning yourselves into a captive audience in the propaganda wars he runs for Netanyahu. And by the way, our Gadi, just one question: if the story really is completely fake, especially during this honeymoon period between Israel and the UAE (and Netanyahu was even invited there for a secret visit, until he got nervous because Bennett also got a meeting and leaked the security secret he had promised his hosts to keep secret)—why do they not make clear that Netanyahu is right and accurate and that the whole phone-call story never happened? Why instead do they choose sophisticated, convoluted wording that contains everything except one ingredient—denial
Translated from HebrewNot long before October 7, the kingdom conveyed to Israel a warning about the possibility of a significant and imminent Hamas operation against it in the near term, says a senior Middle Eastern intelligence official familiar with the details of the secret part of the ties between the United Arab Emirates and Israel. The official confirmed yesterday at least part of the reverberating exposé by Ruth Yuval and Shlomi Eldar in Haaretz, a chapter from their new book "Hostages – 843 Days of Abandonment". The official said that the information came from a "very reliable" source, those who received it in the Emirates treated it "with great seriousness", it was "a short time" before the Hamas attack, and it indicated that something might happen "very soon" – but the intelligence did not include an exact date. The official refused to provide additional details about the information that was transmitted or answer the question of whether the intelligence passed to Israel was understood to have come from Yahya Sinwar's own circle (and not, for example, from another, less senior party), and was unwilling to address how the information was transmitted to Israel or whether there was a phone call in which the president of the Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed, spoke with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the dramatic warning. @YediotAhronot @ynetalerts
Translated from HebrewChannel 14 presents: a brave exposure of the table of contents. First they black out, then they reveal. Investigative journalism investigating the work of its own graphic designer. Look at this brave journalistic work by Channel 14. “All the blacking out comes off.” Exposure. Sophisticated motion graphics. Except that Channel 14 are the ones who added the blacking out, just to remove it and try to create the impression as if there is some exposure here. The Prime Minister’s Office distributed this document to journalists already in February this year, and made a big media festival out of it. Netanyahu spoke about it for hours in the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee and promised that he would show the full documents to the intelligence subcommittee within a week. That did not happen. In the paper distributed then, at the top of which was written “בלמ״ס” — unclassified, the contents page, the one presented on Channel 14 as if the blacking out were being removed from it, was devoid of any erasures. In a series of articles that @YRubovitch and I have published since, we showed just how much this document, 55 pages long, is a collection of lies, contradictions, half-truths worse than a lie, distortions, and above all—an abuse of authority that Netanyahu illegally appropriated for himself, exploiting the control he has over classified documents, “authorizing for publication” what he is forbidden to authorize, what, if any other citizen had published it, Netanyahu would have hurried to file a complaint against him with the Shin Bet, and maliciously and seriously distorting the content of the documents. Now they are doing a second round with these cold (and false) noodles, first in a supposedly exposé research project by Taub and a man named Moshe who reveal to the world what has already been published and disproven. And Channel 14 blacks out in order to clean. Nothing new with them, at least not the first part.
Translated from HebrewPrime Minister Golda Meir met with Chief of Staff David Elazar twice on the day the war broke out, once in the morning and once at the late-evening cabinet meeting. All this does not include phone calls and the passing of messages in both directions that took place throughout the day and throughout the entire war. Once again, you are caught in embarrassing ignorance or a pathetic lie. I do not know which of the two is worse. And this brings me to take an interest in the investigative work you did in preparation for publishing your international exposé. So what did we have there: 1. You wanted to defend Netanyahu, who claimed that if they had woken him, he would have immediately instructed the chief of staff and the IDF to do this and do that. But when they woke him, it took him many long hours to reach the Kirya, and only three and a half hours after the war broke out did he speak with the chief of staff for the first time – so did you receive a message someone passed on to you that it would be advisable or necessary to spread something about Golda, and you did not Google it? 2. Did you make up this nonsense yourself and not Google it? 3. Did someone give you the information, and did you in fact Google it, but nothing different came out of the check? In other words, does the truth matter to you at all, or is the only thing that matters acquitting the defendant of everything, always, no matter how many died along the way? And if the answer is number 3, then I think you should take a basic course in the internet and web searches. I heard that the "Reich Center for Senior Citizens" runs courses like these at a basic but high level. I did you the favor of finding their website address because, as I said, I am not sure you will manage on your own.
Translated from HebrewErez Tadmor wrote a scroll to prove that the prime minister's intelligence officer is not the address for transmitting urgent information. Too bad he did not read the response from the Prime Minister's Office itself. Here is a selection of Tadmor's claims and why they are either lies or profound ignorance, raising the even more serious concern that Tadmor has no idea whatsoever about even the most basic procedures of the processes he claims to investigate. 1. “The intelligence officer is not the channel for transmitting information in an emergency.” As early as November 2024, we revealed that the prime minister's intelligence officer had been receiving the worrying and reassuring signs starting at 02:00, and that Aman’s command center even made sure he was awake and read them; the information was simultaneously passed to the National Security Council's command center as well. Months later, Amit Segal reported that the IDF chief had accused the intelligence officer of receiving the information and failing to update Netanyahu. And what did Netanyahu's office reply? That the intelligence officer had indeed received the message, but Netanyahu was not awakened because he had concluded that this was not an urgent event. The office did not claim that the intelligence officer was not the address. It claimed that the address received the information—and the assessment of its urgency was wrong. 2. “The first and foremost proper channel is a direct phone call from the IDF chief or the head of the Shin Bet to the prime minister… That happened countless times.” None of those who previously served in the relevant positions (heads of services, IDF chiefs of staff, military secretaries to prime ministers, and former office staffers) knows the “proper channel” that Tadmor paved for himself. A former military secretary said: “Everything went through me”; and a former prime minister's intelligence officer says: “There is no such thing as direct contact.” The practice became institutionalized following the lessons of Kav 300: so there would be no private security conversations that end with an organizational chief saying “he ordered me to” and the prime minister replying “I didn't say that”; and to prevent parallel channels in which each body conveys a different picture and receives a different instruction. The military secretary is not a switchboard operator. He is the witness, the coordinator, and the control junction. 3. “A junior doorman.” The “doorman” is a colonel, the prime minister's intelligence officer, whose role is to be the intelligence channel between the intelligence community and the prime minister. One can argue that he erred by failing to push for Netanyahu to be awakened; one cannot erase his role the moment it becomes clear that the material reached him. Calling the prime minister's intelligence officer a “doorman” is like calling the emergency-room director “the guy at the entrance.” 4. “A dampening assessment was attached to the message.” Tadmor and his colleagues in the propaganda machine distortively copy what I published and then claim or imply that I concealed it. As I wrote, the worrying signs and the reassuring signs were attached to the message, everything that was before the military and intelligence leadership. It all merely proves the lies at the heart of this blood libel—they passed along what was before them. They saw unusual signs, but also reassuring ones; they shared them through the information channel to the prime minister and at the same time interpreted them, in a grave and tragic error, as an exercise, routine, or preparations for an Israeli attack. There is a difference between “they understood that Hamas was about to attack and hid it” and “they did not understand that Hamas was about to attack and therefore did not warn.” The first is a rebellion; the second is the historic failure. One cannot use the assessment “Hamas is acting routinely” to explain why the intelligence officer did not wake him—and in the same breath claim that Bar and Halevi actually understood very well that an attack was about to begin and concealed it maliciously. 5. “Herzi Halevi and Ronen Bar took the authority for themselves… as if there were no government.” This is not a fact but a conviction of malicious intent. Where is the document, testimony, or protocol showing that they understood an attack was about to begin and decided not to wake Netanyahu because they feared he would attack? There is none. Instead of evidence there is “there is no dispute about this”—Tadmor's stock phrase when the dispute is the whole story. 6. “If similar information is received tonight, should Netanyahu be updated?” And if the prime minister receives so many warnings and alerts from the intelligence community over the course of a year, is he not at least obligated to hold a discussion about it? And the answer to the question itself—yes. After October 7, the warning threshold must be much lower. But changing the threshold after the disaster does not prove that the previous threshold was set maliciously. The bottom line is simple: the information reached the Prime Minister's Office through the prime minister's intelligence officer, was passed to the military secretary, and also reached the National Security Council. Netanyahu's office itself confirms this. It did not reach Netanyahu because the system—and, within it, his own people as well—made a terrible error in assessing its severity. This is a failure. This is a conception. But to turn them into a “rebellion” requires the one thing Tadmor did not provide in this scroll either: evidence.
Translated from HebrewLet's check who is trying to deceive. On page 28 of "The Generals' Revolt," Tadmor writes: "If Ronen Bar had presented Netanyahu, on the night of October 7, with a range of possible scenarios following the intelligence that had been received, including the danger of miscalculation, and allowed the prime minister to decide how to respond to the information and the scenarios presented to him—there would have been nothing democratically objectionable about it." The problem was that Bar decided that, in order to prevent miscalculation, he had to manipulate and plot against Netanyahu. To keep him in the dark. To make the decisions in his place." This is not analysis, interpretation, or assessment. It is a sharp and clear statement of fact, in plain language, about a plan to commit a serious criminal offense and, following it, to carry out an act of unparalleled gravity against the state and its citizens, all of course on the condition that these things actually happened. But they did not happen, and this is an absolute fake, a blood libel.
Translated from HebrewThe conspiracy and blood-libel workshop, lesson 1: How to turn a real document into a “generals’ revolt.” This is how the sausage factory of Erez Tadmor and Gadi Taub works: On one side, they put in a kernel of truth—a document, a quote, an investigation. On the other side come out the deep state, treason, and a military revolt. Here is a typical example. Erez Tadmor reads the word “miscalculation” from the real Shin Bet investigation: On the night of October 7, at a certain point it was decided to refrain from activity that was too broad, which could cause Hamas to mistakenly interpret that Israel was about to attack, thereby creating an escalation. Up to here—a document. Then comes the magic stage. Tadmor asks Gadi Taub: “Miscalculation? What does that have to do with this?” And Taub already supplies the part that the document—how unfortunate for them—does not include: “What do we understand from this? We must not wake up the crazy extremist political echelon, because they will react immediately and drag us into a war we did not want.” What do we understand from this? Well, Taub understands that from it. Because the Shin Bet investigation contains no such sentence. There is no decision not to wake Netanyahu. There is no instruction to compartmentalize the political echelon. There is not even a claim that anyone feared Netanyahu would order an attack. There is an operational consideration of whether an action by forces in the field could create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Hamas. But in less than a minute, Taub and Tadmor performed the alchemy: “Refrain from broad activity so as not to create a miscalculation” ⬇️ “Do not wake Netanyahu” ⬇️ “The security chiefs decided to compartmentalize the government” ⬇️ “Generals’ revolt.” And the beautiful part: From the moment the invented link was planted in the middle, they no longer present it as a hypothesis. It becomes a “fact” on which the next twenty minutes can be built. This is how a conspiracy is made: You do not need to forge the document. It is enough to read a real sentence from it—and then invent the next sentence in an authoritative voice. And now, Tadmor, show me the 95% of the evidence that you claim I missed. I’m waiting
Translated from HebrewThe conspiracy-and-blood-libel workshop, Lesson 1: How to turn a genuine document into a “generals’ revolt.” This is how Erez Tadmor and Gadi Taub’s sausage factory works: On one side, they put in a kernel of truth — a document, a quotation, an investigation. Out the other side come the deep state, betrayal, and a military revolt. Here is a typical example. Erez Tadmor reads the word “miscalculation” from the genuine Shin Bet investigation: On the night of October 7, it was decided at a certain point to refrain from overly broad activity that might lead Hamas to mistakenly interpret that Israel was about to attack, thereby creating an escalation. Up to this point — a document. Then comes the magic stage. Tadmor asks Gadi Taub: “Miscalculation? What does that have to do with this?” And Taub already supplies the part that the document, how unfortunate for them, does not include: “What do we understand from this? We shouldn’t wake the crazy, extreme political echelon, because they will react immediately and drag us into a war we didn’t want.” What do we understand from this? Well, Taub understands that from it. Because the Shin Bet investigation contains no such sentence. There is no decision not to wake Netanyahu. There is no instruction to compartmentalize the political echelon. There isn’t even a claim that anyone feared Netanyahu would order an attack. There is an operational consideration as to whether an action by forces in the field might create a miscalculation vis-à-vis Hamas. But in less than a minute, Taub and Tadmor performed the alchemy: “Refrain from broad activity so as not to create a miscalculation” ⬇️ “Don’t wake Netanyahu” ⬇️ “The security chiefs decided to compartmentalize the government” ⬇️ “The generals’ revolt.” And the beautiful part: From the moment the invented link was planted in the middle, they no longer present it as a hypothesis. It becomes a “fact” on which the next twenty minutes can be built. This is how you manufacture a conspiracy: You don’t need to forge the document. It is enough to read a genuine sentence from it — and then invent the next sentence in an authoritative voice.
Translated from HebrewIt would have been a disappointment and a surprise if you hadn't responded. There is no item that mentions Yonatan Dahoh Halevi, the emigrant who showers us from his seat at the fleshpots abroad, without his spokeswoman Amalia Ozer immediately jumping in to defend him.
Translated from Hebrew“The Generals’ Revolt”: There are quotation marks, but no evidence. The lies that gave birth to the conspiracy driving Netanyahu’s campaign are a fixed trick in the machine: they take a real quotation, use quotation marks as a certificate of authenticity, and smuggle invented conclusions after them. The quotation is accurate; the plot is at the expense of the household. That is how Erez Tadmor and Yonatan Dahoah-Halevi turned a 2019 article by the late Amit Saar about unplanned escalation into an IDF strategy and the secret motive of Ronen Bar and Herzi Halevi on the night of October 7. This is their ideological sausage machine: put in “systems,” take out “deep state.” Dahoah-Halevi even found in Saar a doctrine called “maximum containment,” except that the phrase, or the meaning he attributes to it, does not appear in the article at all. Dahoah invented a doctrine, attributed it to Saar, and then was horrified by it. Both the screenwriter and the state witness. And here is another magic trick: Saar discussed capabilities that would allow flexibility in the timing of an Israeli attack, even at the cost of giving up our advantage of surprise. Dahoah-Halevi turned this into a willingness to absorb a surprise attack by the enemy. Who is surprising whom? A minor detail. Switch the actor, and poof—we have arrived at October 7. Amir Baram’s flattering preface also became approval of the doctrine, even though the publication makes clear that the views are personal. The preface became an order; Saar’s promotion became proof of adoption. At this rate, whoever liked the article was the operations officer of the revolt. *And from here, the chain of “proofs”: Saar wrote; Saar was promoted; therefore the army adopted it; therefore Bar and Halevi hid information from Netanyahu; therefore “the Generals’ Revolt.”* *What is missing? An adoption document, an order, a protocol, testimony that they even read the article, evidence that they relied on it, or that fear of Netanyahu dictated their conduct that night. In other words, approximately the entire chain between the article and the conclusion.* Saar has no instruction to hide information from the prime minister and no authorization to make decisions in his place. Tadmor and Dahoah-Halevi make the connection themselves, and then blame Saar for the result. Some of the quotations are genuine; the manipulation begins when the quotation marks close. Five suspicious questions are not five pieces of evidence. In “the Generals’ Revolt,” the quotation marks have taken their places. The evidence is still absent. On August 31, 2026, Netanyahu himself already said aloud that generals had decided “not to anger Hamas, not to wake me, and not to attack in advance.” Later, when the storm around Sara exploded, he added a verbal flak jacket: “failure, not treason.” But if the heads of the system understood that an attack was about to break out and deliberately hid it from the prime minister to prevent him from acting, this is not a good-faith failure but a revolt and treason of the worst kind. So, in his distress to defend his wife, Netanyahu may deny the word but takes care to preserve the narrative. @ynetalerts @YediotAhronot
Translated from Hebrew"They Drank the Gas" Leaked Secret Dossier Sheds Light on Sudan’s Chemical Weapons Secretive bomb tests in the Sudanese desert. Suffocated scorpions, found dead on the floor of a weapons factory. Chlorine canisters taken from a water treatment plant in the war-torn capital. Sudan’s military has long denied American accusations that it used chemical weapons as part of the country’s devastating civil war. That accusation brought punishing U.S. sanctions on Sudan and its army chief, Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan. Yet the United States has never publicly substantiated the claim with proof. Now a dossier of evidence shared with The New York Times by a Middle Eastern intelligence agency bolsters those allegations, describing how and why Sudan’s military developed and produced chemical weapons over six months in 2024. Photographs, videos, documents and intercepted communications portray a secretive Sudanese military unit said to have produced chlorine-based munitions for use against the Rapid Support Forces, the paramilitary group the army is fighting for control of the country. The dossier contains bomb blueprints, details of an apparent effort to cover up the project after its discovery by the United States, and a suggestion that some of the chlorine used to make the bombs was sourced at a civilian water treatment center that received the chemical from international aid groups. W\ @declanwalsh via @nytimes https://t.co/DBrOXQi73I
*Netanyahu complains that he was not woken during the night;* *this week he also added that it was intentional and part of a plot;* If they had woken me, he said in the petting corner on the Patriots program on Channel 14, I would immediately have ordered the border closed, the entire IDF mobilized, the entire air force activated, and a long list of other actions that would have saved the situation. We can guess based on past experience, but it is impossible to know for certain what would have happened if they had; *on the other hand, we can examine what Netanyahu did in the real world and in truth from the moment they did wake him, as the war broke out and in the critical hours immediately afterward. Ilan Lukatch prepared an investigative report on the subject for Ulpan Shishi, to which I had the honor of contributing a few words. @IlanLukatch
Translated from HebrewAhaaaa- Or Heller reported on N12, and from there it was deleted. Clear, makes sense overall. Mainly because Or Heller has never reported anything on Channel 12 or N12. He is with the competitors. Let us ask again- where did you get this «quote» from Herzi
Translated from HebrewCome on, just show where exactly the Chief of Staff says such a thing and we’ll settle the matter.
Translated from HebrewThe conspiracy: Netanyahu claims that the generals decided to shut him out and not update him about the alarming signs because they were afraid he would order an attack. The truth: The military transferred the sensitive information to the Prime Minister's Office through two separate channels starting at 0200 and made sure that Netanyahu's intelligence officer woke up and saw the material. As we revealed back in November 2024, beginning at 02:00, Prime Minister Netanyahu's intelligence officer, an experienced senior officer with the rank of colonel who, by virtue of his position, is responsible for routing all classified information from the defense establishment to Netanyahu and back, received the materials about the alarming signs that emerged from Gaza, as well as the reassuring ones. At 0300, the duty officer from the Research Division's war room called to make sure that the prime minister's intelligence officer was awake and had read the material previously sent to him. At the same time, the same information reached the National Security Council's war room through another data channel from Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet; that war room is also in the Prime Minister's Office and subordinate to Netanyahu. These are precisely the bodies that, if the material warranted it, were supposed to update the military secretary and wake the prime minister. Therefore, the defense establishment did not shut Netanyahu's office out, and transferred the material as required. Should S. have woken the military secretary? Should the National Security Council war room have taken some action and drawn attention to the information? Were there other people in the Prime Minister's Office who received an update but also decided not to wake Netanyahu? Excellent questions, but not in this context. What is clear is that the information stopped inside the office and did not reach Netanyahu. This was a failure of the office, which received all the material that was available during the night—not any nonsense about a «generals' revolt.»
Translated from HebrewEverything is fine, except that I wrote exactly the opposite, down here, "Clearly he is in a conflict of interest regarding the Netanyahu family." And you insist on quoting me as claiming the opposite. I hope your cortex is functioning properly and that this is the usual manipulation and is intentional.
Translated from HebrewThere is no doubt about one thing: Amalia Ozer's words prove that she is not the relevant professional when it comes to protecting public figures. The question is whether Ronen Cohen is. After examining his experience, statements, the way he was appointed, and the concern about a conflict of interest, the answer is still far from clear. Ozer claims that Cohen's recommendation to protect Gadi Eisenkot proves that the criticism of him was a “ridiculous and satanic smear campaign.” Well, no. First, Cohen did not “approve” anything. The committee he chairs recommended to the ministerial committee that Eisenkot be protected until the elections. This is a collective recommendation; the ministers are the ones who decide. Second, it is not even clear what the recommendation was based on. Ozer rules that there was no concrete information. In contrast, Israel Hayom published—and the report was reproduced on additional websites—that the recommendation followed “new warnings and findings” conveyed by Eisenkot's headquarters. But why wait for facts when one can conduct an intelligence assessment, write a verdict, and declare: “In my view, it was not right to approve such a significant expenditure of resources and public funds for a person about whom there is no concrete information regarding a real threat.” When Yair Netanyahu enjoys full state security abroad for an extended period, the questions about “public funds” and the existence of a concrete threat trouble Ozer somewhat less. Above all: one decision does not erase a conflict of interest. A conflict of interest is not a prize awarded only after someone is caught making an improper decision; it is a situation in which an outside position or connection could affect—or create a concern that it could affect—the performance of the role. A judge who slandered a defendant does not prove his neutrality by acquitting him in the end. The “statistics” Ozer markets under the name of Cohen's “professional experience”—according to which most assassination attempts occur without intelligence warning—are not recognized statistical data either. No Israeli, American, or international study was found that substantiates this assertion, and there is no global database that makes it possible to calculate it seriously. The comprehensive study by the United States Secret Service found that attacks against public figures are generally the end of a process: target selection, planning, surveillance, approach, and sometimes also the “leakage” of the intent to others. Sometimes the authorities do not have focused intelligence warning—but in many cases there are advance signs and behaviors that can be identified. The study does not prove Cohen's “statistics,” certainly not the claim that most assassinations take place in an absolute vacuum of advance signs. The expression “beyond the letter of the law” is nonsense too. The Shin Bet regularly protects seven officeholders; the committee exists precisely to discuss protecting other people according to threat and risk assessments. Discussing Eisenkot is not a donation from Cohen's private pocket, and Eisenkot—or the public—do not need to thank him for agreeing to carry out his role. It is strange that only when it comes to the royal family do the anxieties about “public funds” and about protection “beyond the letter of the law” suddenly disappear. In the midst of this madness, Cohen even says that he meets from time to time with “anxious” Sara Netanyahu and that he understands her feelings in light of the threats against her son, even after it was reported that her chief of staff repeatedly calls him again and again in the middle of a television interview he gave on the subject. One can certainly understand a mother's concern for her son, but what exactly does Cohen have to discuss with her? He is the chairman of a public committee intended to separate the professional bodies from the politicians, and instead he goes to their homes. Cohen was apparently deeply impressed by Mrs. Netanyahu. He expressed his feelings in an especially effusive tweet he published during the period before his appointment—and later deleted. Another tweet he deleted was written after one of the occasions when Netanyahu claimed that they had not woken him during the night for fear that he would be the only one with initiative and courage, and would attack Hamas. Cohen then wrote particularly harsh things against him. But since then Cohen has had time to forget what he wrote—and was sure that we would forget too. By last weekend he was already attacking Eisenkot as a “dangerous man” and claiming that he was the only one who had not taken responsibility. The tweets were deleted. The conflict of interest, the questions, and the photographs—a little less so.
Translated from HebrewShimon, what sophistry: You did not call for me to be put before a firing squad - you merely said that your father would say that a person who did exactly what you attribute to me should be put before a firing squad, and you added that you “can definitely understand” him. You did not mean me, of course. Just as in the tweet here you did not call for me to be stopped by force, and in countless clips from your program you did not attribute this blood libel to me. Every reasonable reader and viewer knows how to fill in the subject and predicate on their own. And since you enlisted your late father as a moral authority for punishment: I heard that those people were pretty easygoing in their approach to sending people, including colleagues, to the wall (Shamir once told me about the matter of Eliyahu Giladi). I wonder how your father and his friends would have judged someone who reveals information about the location of IDF soldiers during combat, just because he has to show off. He was a member of the “Brit HaKanaim,” a group whose actions included setting fire to a café that operated on Shabbat, a bus, and cars. It seems that the son also has difficulty accepting restrictions that do not suit him: when censorship restricts you, you declare that it is “bullshit” and “politics” - and then continue exposing the locations of IDF forces in Lebanon on air. The difference between us is simple: there is no ruling against me by the “tribunal,” the three-member committee that rules on censorship matters, that one of my publications “actually caused real, tangible security damage.” There is one against you. The chief censor did not contact me following a broadcast and determine that a “serious censorship violation” had been committed. He contacted you. I did not reveal the location of forces during wartime live on air without the censor’s approval; you did, and several complaints were filed against you with the police. And the publication that you repeatedly and falsely, with serious libel, call “exposing the pager operation” did not expose pagers, a method of operation, a target, or a date. Unlike yours, the publication passed censorship, and after countless attempts by the prime minister and his entourage, all the investigative and intelligence authorities announced that not only had no classified information been published, and not only had no damage been caused, but there had been no leak at all. So spare us the theater of the persecuted righteous man. Neither “Dad said,” nor “I did not name him,” nor a wink toward a firing squad leaves any real ambiguity. It is clear whom you were targeting and clear what you sought to plant in the public consciousness - poison, lies, libel, and slander. But don’t worry - you will soon have another opportunity, this time off the air, to try to prove that you spoke the truth.
Translated from Hebrew“As a woman who also goes to the hairdresser,” I am not sure that the blood libel against Yair Golan is the high point of the “interview” with Sara Netanyahu. Twelve minutes later into the interview, Netanyahu attacked the attorney general, Gali Baharav-Miara. According to her, “the right-wing people and the people who basically want to live” (which, as becomes clear from the interview, are parallel and overlapping terms, since if Netanyahu is not elected, we will all die) “need to understand that the attorney general is doing very, very improper things.” One of them, God forbid, is Sara Netanyahu’s serious claims about how it is possible that “even after [the event at] the hair salon,” Miara, “as a woman who also goes to the hairdresser, undoubtedly goes too,” did not call Netanyahu to encourage her, and, to add insult to injury, “why didn’t she write a post” on her behalf. The demand that Miara write a post raises the concern that Ms. Netanyahu does not fully understand the nature of the attorney general’s role. This happened after Netanyahu accused the Shin Bet and the Prime Minister’s Office security unit, which, according to her, hold information about very many people working so that “the entire Netanyahu family will be underground,” but “no one is doing anything about it,” along with further accusations and complaints whose common denominator is the identity of the victim.
Translated from HebrewAhhhh, this fake, that he is “not criminally guilty of anything.” Listen, Fathi, I don’t know how to break this to you gently: a long and detailed document tantamount to an interim report, which was submitted to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Commission of Inquiry into the Submarine Affair (headed by former Supreme Court President, Justice Grunis, whom Netanyahu greatly respected, and who was appointed president during Netanyahu’s tenure thanks to an amendment to a law promoted by Netanyahu), says very harsh things about Netanyahu. If these conclusions remain in force in the final report as well, the acts described there will, with very high probability, require the opening of a criminal investigation. In any event, and in light of the commission’s interim report, calling this affair “fake” is simply, well, “fake”
Translated from HebrewFathi, excuse me, two questions: First: What fake are you talking about? That Netanyahu visited a submarine? That we have a submarine? That there is an affair casting a heavy shadow over national security and integrity in connection with Netanyahu regarding the submarines? Second: Regarding the «fake a million times bigger»—accusing a former deputy chief of staff of knowing about the massacre in advance, if he was not actually involved in it, isn’t that more serious than the submarines?
Translated from Hebrew
Connected stories
- Netanyahu’s Office Says He Ordered Full Mobilization at 9:55 on October 7
- Bennett Says He Knows UAE Warning to Netanyahu Was Genuine
- Four Opposition Leaders Pledge Oct. 7 State Inquiry After UAE Warning Report
- UAE Leader Warned Netanyahu of Hamas Move Before October 7, Report Says
- UAE Says It Does Not Comment on Reports About Leaders’ Conversations
- Netanyahu Orders Lawyers to File Libel Suit Over UAE Warning Report
- Netanyahu Did Not Request IDF Chief Call Before 9:45 on October 7, Report Says
- Netanyahu Says October 7 Would Not Have Unfolded the Same Had He Been Awakened
- Panel Recommends Shin Bet Protection for Eisenkot Through Election Day
- Sara Netanyahu Questions Golan’s Early October 7 Response, Disavows Conspiracy Theories