Hamas monitored political activity, online posts, and apparently even love lives. Palestinians were stuck between an Israeli blockade and a repressive security force.

The Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar has for years overseen a secret police force in Gaza that conducted surveillance on everyday Palestinians and built files on young people, journalists and those who questioned the government, according to intelligence officials and a trove of internal documents reviewed by The New York Times.

The unit, known as the General Security Service, relied on a network of Gaza informants, some of whom reported their own neighbors to the police. People landed in security files for attending protests or publicly criticizing Hamas. In some cases, the records suggest that the authorities followed people to determine if they were carrying on romantic relationships outside marriage.

Hamas has long run an oppressive system of governance in Gaza, and many Palestinians there know that security officials watch them closely. But a 62-slide presentation on the activities of the General Security Service, delivered only weeks before the Oct. 7 attack on Israel, reveals the degree to which the largely unknown unit penetrated the lives of Palestinians.

. . .

Everyday Gazans were stuck — behind the wall of Israel’s crippling blockade and under the thumb and constant watch of a security force. That dilemma continues today, with the added threat of Israeli ground troops and airstrikes.

MBFC
Archive

  • @[email protected]English
    3•1 month ago

    Conviction?!

    You’re clearly coming at it from the point of view of the indoctrinated - you pre-believe something (i.e. are prejudiced) and then seek a way to interpret reality to yield “conclusions” that match your conviction and are not at all even trying to analyse it rationally.

    Any rational analysis of this “article” in the current context and given the past explicit biases and actions of those who participated in making it will yield the conclusion that what’s in there has a high probablility of being Propaganda and cannot be trusted to be truthfull.

    It really boils down a pretty old principle: “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me”. I totally understand defaulting to believe anything sourced from the IDF and delivered via the NYT in the past, before all this started, but at this point after all they said that turned out to be outright lies along with what they did using such lies as justification, we’re very much on the domain of “shame on you” when it comes to such sources as the New York Times and the IDF.

    Does it mean this article is with absolute certainty Propaganda and not actually true? Of course not: there is a small probability that it’s not Propaganda, since like “Iraq’s Weapons of Mass Destruction” there is a core of believability to it (which curiously is both like a true story AND like the best Propaganda), so only time will tell if it’s mostly true or if, like the “weapons of mass destruction”, it is just Propaganda.

    The rational take on this article (so, not the take of those driven by something irrational like conviction, which is why I so often emphasied Skepticism and Analysis on my posts on this) is to treat it as having zero informational value, unless independent information arises that clarifies it.

    • @[email protected]English
      1•1 month ago

      You keep mentioning Iraq’s supposed Weapons of Mass Destruction justification which Bush spewed out. You might be surprised not everyone believed it. War is a racket, we know this. It is common knowledge not a propaganda conspiracy.

      This article may be propaganda (highly doubt it though).but the Motives and intentions line up perfectly so yea I’m gonna believe the religious zealots are acting as religious zealots.