October 7 attack was an Israeli false flag on its own population

The claim of an Israeli 'false flag' on October 7, based on a military testimony, raises questions about the official narrative and its economic implications.

## the testimony and its echo

An Israeli soldier has testified under oath that on **October 7** he was ordered 'not to intervene' for several hours, specifically between **5:20 and 9:00 AM** on the day of the attack. According to the original publication, spreading this statement could carry up to five years in prison in **Israel**, suggesting a possible deliberate inaction by the security forces. The implication that this event could have been an Israeli 'false flag', that is, orchestrated by the government itself, is a serious accusation that seeks to undermine the justification for subsequent actions.

## the narrative and its costs

The official narrative after **October 7** has been the basis for justifying large-scale military operations, with a considerable human and economic cost. The claim of a 'false flag' directly challenges this narrative, suggesting that the scale of the attack may have been, at least in part, facilitated. If these statements were proven true, the repercussions would go beyond the military sphere, affecting the region's economic stability and international confidence, crucial elements for investment and trade.

## economic implications

The credibility of the events of **October 7** has a direct impact on the risk perception of **Israel** and its neighbours. A 'false flag' would undermine confidence in Israeli institutions and could generate financial instability. Markets react to uncertainty, and any doubt about the veracity of the foundational facts of a conflict can translate into stock market volatility, exchange rate fluctuations and a higher cost of debt. Reconstruction and crisis management also involve enormous budget allocations that would come into question.