Military and intelligence failures exposed, but no senior officials held accountable—raising concerns over ignored warnings, leadership decisions, and potential security lapses.

The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) have released an internal report detailing the systemic failures that led to Hamas’s devastating assault on October 7, 2023. The report highlights severe misjudgments in intelligence assessment, strategic defense, and operational response. However, it stops short of assigning direct responsibility to individuals and leave many critical questions unanswered. We will ask some of those questions.

Key Findings of the IDF Report

Misreading Hamas’s Intentions and Capabilities

The report confirms that Israeli military and intelligence agencies fundamentally misjudged Hamas’s goals. Analysts believed the terror group was focused on governance in Gaza and had no interest in escalating conflict with Israel. This assumption led to a lack of vigilance, even as intelligence reports surfaced about Hamas training for a large-scale assault.

Warnings from within the security establishment were repeatedly downplayed. Some analysts who raised concerns were reportedly dismissed as alarmists. As a result, vital intelligence indicating an impending attack was ignored or misinterpreted.

Over-Reliance on Technological Defenses

The IDF’s border defense strategy relied heavily on high-tech barriers, electronic surveillance, and remote-controlled weaponry. However, Hamas systematically studied and exploited vulnerabilities in these systems. The border fence was breached within minutes, exposing the overconfidence in its effectiveness and the lack of adequate manpower to respond swiftly.

Operational Breakdown and Delayed Response

The attack unfolded with shocking speed, overwhelming IDF positions and communities near the border. The report describes a catastrophic breakdown in command and control. Many officers and soldiers were left without clear directives, resorting to using personal communication apps like WhatsApp and Google Maps to coordinate defenses. Some IDF units were paralyzed for hours, unsure whether to wait for orders or act independently.

Critically, the military’s rapid response forces were not positioned near the border, delaying counterattacks. It took hours before effective reinforcements arrived, allowing Hamas to continue its massacre and kidnappings largely unchallenged.

Ignored Warning Signs

Several indicators that should have triggered heightened alerts were either overlooked or dismissed. These included Hamas fighters switching their phones to Israeli networks shortly before the attack and reports of unusual movements within Gaza. The report does not clarify why these red flags failed to prompt immediate action.

Lack of Accountability and Political Fallout

Despite the damning nature of the findings, the IDF report stops short of holding any high-ranking official directly responsible. While it acknowledges systemic failures, there have been no significant resignations or dismissals at the senior level.

Critics argue that political leaders, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, bear significant responsibility for policies that may have emboldened Hamas. These include financial allowances to Gaza and a refusal to engage with the Palestinian Authority. Yet, the report does not address the role of the government in shaping the strategic environment that led to the catastrophe.

Public outcry has grown over the lack of personal accountability. Calls for a broader, independent investigation have intensified, with demands that both military and political leaders answer for their roles in the failure.

Unanswered Questions

While the IDF report provides a detailed assessment of tactical and strategic errors, it leaves several critical questions unresolved:

1. Why was no high-ranking official dismissed or held directly responsible?
   Despite the scale of the failure, no senior officials have taken responsibility in a meaningful way.
2. Did political decisions contribute to the intelligence failures?
   The report focuses on military missteps but avoids addressing whether government policies—such as financial incentives to Gaza—contributed to Hamas’s ability to launch the attack.
3. Why were early warning signs ignored or downplayed?
   There were clear indicators of Hamas’s movements and preparations, yet they were disregarded. Who made these decisions, and why?
4. What specific changes are being made to prevent a similar failure?
   The report acknowledges mistakes but does not outline clear reforms to ensure this never happens again.
5. Was the Hannibal Protocol executed, and what were its consequences?
   There has been speculation that the controversial IDF protocol—authorizing extreme measures to prevent soldier abductions—was used. If so, what impact did it have on hostages and civilians?
6. Did left-wing activists who urged reserve soldiers not to report for duty weaken Israel’s response?
   In the months leading up to October 7, activists called on reservists to refuse service in protest of judicial reforms. Did this impact readiness?
7. Who was the spy in military briefings on October 7, and why was he there, and at whose behest?
   Reports indicate an unidentified individual was present in sensitive IDF meetings. Who was this person, and what role did they play?
8. What about the mysterious orders on October 7 morning to discontinue border patrols and to turn a blind eye to alerts? Was there no chance of intentional subversion?
   Some reports suggest that orders were given to withdraw patrols and ignore warning signs. Was this a colossal misjudgment, or something more sinister?

These are the questions on the minds of most Israelis. When the Israeli version of DOGE is established one fine day, these are the answers we will demand. When we get them, there will be hell to pay.