Hamas’ attack on Oct. 7, 2023, was not Israel’s first intelligence failure. In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, Israel was surprised by Egypt and Syria’s two-front armored attack. It is the mission of national intelligence services to avoid such surprises. Nothing is perfect; some levels of imperfection are to be expected, and the public never sees the after-action report. In fact, most intelligence failures register far below the level of intolerability. But Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack was an intolerable failure.

Israel has since completed a review of its intelligence failures that day, even going so far, apparently, as to give the media complete access to its operations. The Times of Israel recently published an article about the findings, which are fairly damning. The first two paragraphs tell the tale:

“The Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence Directorate received information and plans outlining Hamas’s intent to launch a wide-scale attack against Israel over a period of several years, but dismissed the plan as unrealistic and unfeasible, according to a probe of the intelligence failures leading up to the October 7 attack.

“Instead, the Military Intelligence Directorate falsely assumed that Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was a pragmatist who was not seeking a major escalation with Israel, and that the terror group viewed its 2021 war as a failure and was focusing its capabilities on rocket fire and not a ground invasion.”

The first point is based on human reality. No one can be sure of what another human is thinking, and therefore no one can be sure of their intent. This is particularly true of public figures, especially public leaders. Their thoughts are shaped by reality. They present one face to the public and keep their own thoughts to themselves. We all do that. Thoughts can be shaped by fantasy, but a successful person’s thoughts are shaped by reality. Their public face is a tactic that hides intent and a weapon that pursues intent.

The Israelis tried to read Sinwar’s mind, correlating it with what they saw as an insufficient force. This validated a (faulty) model, whereby Sinwar could not intend to attack because he didn’t have a sufficient force.

What the Israelis missed is that reality had forced a very different thinking on Sinwar. He had a force already, one that could serve as the core of a major force or could over time decline into a demoralized impotence. Sinwar would not be able to continue to lead Hamas if he continued to do nothing. Israeli intelligence also overlooked something more important: that Israel had conquered Palestinian land, and that the Palestinian desire to recover that land was as strong as the Jewish urge to reclaim it. In other words, it missed an empathetic – not sympathetic – element necessary to intelligence, one that imagines real thoughts in another’s mind, the pressures it is under and the opportunities it sees.

This constitutes the geopolitical imperative I often speak of. The imperative is the combination of the moral and geopolitical forces driving a nation or group. The dispossession of the Palestinians created a moral imperative, not unlike the one created among Israelis, to retrieve what was lost. The geopolitical imperative was that time was passing and nothing was happening. The Arab nations were reaching accommodation with Israel, as evidenced by the Abraham Accords. For Hamas, if an accommodation was reached, it would create a geopolitical reality that negated the moral reality.

Hamas saw the Palestinians running out of time, and empathetic analysis would have shown that Hamas had to act as quickly as possible to undermine Arab-Israeli accommodation. Had Israeli intelligence considered the imperative, it would have seen what Sinwar had to be thinking, having lived his life with this on his mind. But their thoughts were shielded. The documents Israeli intelligence received might have been real at the time, and their spies honest, but they also all could have been planted to mislead the Israelis.

If Hamas had remained passive, it would wither away or be destroyed. Thus its strategic imperative, driven by moral and geopolitical imperatives, was to preempt an Israeli attack with an attack of its own. The attack would not destroy Israel but would divide it. It was intended for an Arab audience, the message being that Israel is not invincible. A small force that had no business surviving could stun Israel, even if it couldn’t defeat it. Imagine what a large force could do. Accommodation with Israel, then, would be unnecessary.

This imperative led to a strategy that did not in any way threaten the survival of the Israeli state, although it did threaten the survival of Israeli citizens. It was a miniature demonstration of what was possible. Similar attempts had been tried, but Hamas intended for this one to work.

The key was to build a suitable force without alerting Israel. Israeli intelligence saw the slow growth of Hamas’ force but could not escape from its geopolitical model. Israel is powerful enough to destroy any Hamas force of any conceivable size, so Israel saw no need for a preemptive strike that would potentially rupture its Arab accommodation process or strain relations with the United States, which would support its defense but could balk at a larger offensive operation. What the Israelis didn’t understand was that the point of the attack was not to defeat Israel but to demonstrate Israel’s inherent vulnerability, reveal Israel’s potential capabilities, and trigger a larger and longer process that could destroy Israel. So Israeli intelligence, having misread the intent and dismissed the imperative as fantasy, also misread the buildup. Even as the men and equipment were readied, and as engineers were preparing the invasion routes, Israel could not abandon its model.

It was right in thinking Sinwar was a pragmatist but wrong about where pragmatism would lead him. How could they know whether Sinwar’s pragmatism would lead him to aggressive action or to inaction? The misreading of the intent created an associated misunderstanding of military reality. As a fighting force, Hamas was small. But size didn’t matter if the intent was to create a crisis of confidence in Israel that would make it more paranoid and defeat the process of accommodation. In time, Israel’s fear of surprise would lead to preemptive attacks on imagined threats and rekindle the Arab world’s fear of Israel, or at least maintain Arab-Israeli hostility.

Arab hostility toward Israel would, notably, also affect the United States. The U.S. countermove was to inch toward an understanding with Saudi Arabia, using the nonsense of taking over Gaza as an indicator of how unpredictable the U.S. is and forcing the Saudis to offer a different strategy in which it takes responsibility for Palestinian behavior.

So the question now is whether Hamas has succeeded in its strategy to end Arab accommodation with Israel, or if it has created its own worst nightmare: accelerating Riyadh’s accommodation under U.S. cover and forcing other Arab nations to follow suit.

The Oct. 7 attack, then, was a Hail Mary. It may end in success or failure. But Hamas made the only move it could, and where Israeli intelligence analysts should have sensed there was an imperative behind it, they chose to comfort themselves by pretending to read the enemy’s mind.

Now Israel must reexamine its own imperatives. Can it endure a Palestinian strategy with periodic attacks that wound it and undermine its people’s confidence, which is so essential to its geopolitical needs? This will surely be discussed in Riyadh.

For now, though, this example is a lesson for all who work in intelligence. Intelligence is the art of ignoring intent and focusing on imperatives. Imperatives must be married to constraints – that is, what a leader cannot do. Imperatives and constraints create reality, and geopolitics generates both.

I draw from this a number of principles on intelligence. Do not imagine you know the intent of an enemy’s leader. What leaders want to do and what they must do are different things. Leaders don’t become leaders without crafting an image of themselves and hiding their deeper thoughts. They are leaders, whether democratic or dictatorial, because they have understood what it takes to become and stay a leader. They did that by having a public mind that is designed to maintain power in the mode appropriate to their nation. The reality of their thinking is hidden to thwart a view of their fears, hopes, ruthlessness and pleasures.

Do not trust sources because they may lie, may not know, or may have been sent to mislead you. We humans are deceptive, and having access to the general’s wife doesn’t get you much more than bribes or blackmail. Counterintelligence does not depend on truth. Counterintelligence is easier than intelligence.

Focus on the nation and what it must have as a nation. Leaders become leaders and survive by knowing this. They act on it but rarely reveal it.

Know what a nation can’t do. That is the most important thing. If you know what is impossible, you will know what is possible, and that limits surprises.

The personal is anything that is communicated personally or electronically to someone who you believe is not deliberately talking and hoping to be intercepted and believed.

Note that this does not apply to intelligence about the available military force. On this, intelligence is indispensable, for it helps define the impossible.

Analysis can get a glimpse of national imperatives and constraints not just between two nations but concerning all involved. The role of intelligence is to know what must and what can happen. This must first be known on the broadest level, and that must guide intelligence on a more detailed level. This is the Israeli lesson. They have learned and even published it. What conclusions they draw about improving intelligence will almost certainly not be mine. Depending on the Hamas leader’s personality type is a dicey proposition.

For Hamas, the bodies of an innocent Jewish mother, from a peace-loving Israeli Kibbutz, and her little children– those coffins ARE Hamas’ endgame. What will the world do about it? If the International Red Cross is any example, the world will again remain silent and will some will excuse or even cooperate with ultimate evil. IRC’s mantra when it comes to Jews: Say nothing and do NOTHING. The ICC and ICJ are putting Netanyahu in the docket for fighting back against these monsters? A perversion of justice. The world is deconstructing its values to cater and cower to these monsters. Israel and the US won’t.

https://gem.godaddy.com/p/0c98fb1?pact=110656546-185990662-0191537f-6d2a-7389-af4a-d96cb215b3e0-f81f2ed57ef409c7c7c4aec9f4e8e5b8acca082d

Way back in the dim and distant past, there used to be a popular programme on New Zealand television called “Bloopers.”

It portrayed individuals and groups in a less-than-flattering light as they articulated outrageous views or found themselves in embarrassing situations.

Some synonyms of “bloopers” according to Wikipedia are “blunders, howlers, mistakes, inaccuracies, miscues and goofs.”

These examples just about cover the field as recent such events reveal, especially when it comes to coverage of Israel and Jews. It is difficult to prioritize the level of insanity we face in recent times. Ranging from malicious media reporting to deliberate acts of uninformed and often unhinged behaviour, the unending litany of “howlers” just keeps coming.

If there was an Oscar prize for the most disgusting and depraved performance of the year it must surely be awarded to Hamas and their fellow travellers. Dante’s “inferno” which describes a journey through hell has nothing on the spectacle enacted in Gaza. The few live remaining Israeli hostages, two of whom had been held for a decade, were forced to endure an excruciating “ceremony” as props in a farce from hell.

Even more depraved was the tragedy of the return of the two Bibas children and their mother. Israeli media refused to show images of this barbaric farce but the foreign media had no such qualms. In scenes reminiscent of mobs witnessing Roman pagan circuses, the coffins were paraded in front of a cheering and baying mob of Gazans, which included women and children. Complicit in this orgiastic ritual were representatives of the International Red Cross, who, for years, had done nothing to visit the hostages and demand their release.

Some overseas media outlets reported that the Bibas children and mother had died in captivity, which is as great a blooper as one can get. They were murdered in cold blood by jihadist groups, but this fact is obviously too close to the truth to be reported by some news sites. What makes this event even more revolting are the crocodile tears shed by political leaders who urge Israel to gift these despicable specimens of humanity a terror state “living in peace and security.”

Anything more delusional would be hard to imagine, yet this is the chorus issuing forth from Canberra, Wellington and other capitals and, of course, the corrupt UN.

There are amazingly still some lost souls who try to make a differentiation between the Islamic jihadists and the mythical “moderates” of the Ramallah-based Palestinian Arab Authority. Presided over by a President who hasn’t faced an election since 2005, this “dove of democracy” is touted as a guardian of religious tolerance and guarantor of peace. Despite all evidence to the contrary, this pernicious platitude continues to be the infallible gospel.

Fatah, the ruling party of the PA, of which Abbas is the head, has clarified its “peaceful” agenda. It has revealed that it is preparing to integrate the terrorist murderers released in the hostage deal, into the movement and national framework. In case this message is not clear enough, it issued this declaration: “we are committed to supporting the families of martyrs, prisoners and injured individuals. They are heroes of freedom who deserve top priority in terms of protection and care.”  

How much clearer do their intentions need to be?

Unfortunately, given the past and current track record, no amount of dead Jews will suffice to induce any sort of logical conclusion.

Proof of this is provided by this week’s expressions of “grave concern” by the UN Secretary-General and the International Red Cross over Israel’s campaign against terror and talk of the annexation of Judea and Samaria. Heaven forbid that Jews should be allowed to fight back against murderers and claim territory that was sovereign parts of a nation three thousand years ago.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, President Putin expressed his thanks to Hamas for their “goodwill” in releasing an Israeli hostage with dual nationality. In the absence of any Russian outrage over the mass kidnapping of Israelis and their continuing support of Abbas and his corrupt authority, this cringe-worthy expression of appreciation is yet another example of political hypocrisy at its worst.

As though international adoration of terror supporters is not sufficiently nauseating the reported visit of the World Jewish Congress President to Abbas scrapes the bottom of the barrel. At a time when Israelis are being targeted for murder, Ronald Lauder feels it imperative to have an audience with one of the chief architects of violence. To make matters worse the PA news agency triumphantly proclaimed after the meeting that Lauder supports the “two State solution.”

Making this “blooper” even worse was a report that a PA spokesperson demanded that Israel should be “flooded” with Gaza refugees. Remember that the 7 October Hamas pogrom was called the Al Aqsa flood. It therefore does not need a genius to work out exactly where the aspiring Palestinian State is headed.

Senator Graham of the USA declared that “if negotiations fail, Hamas should be destroyed as we destroyed the Germans and the Japanese.” What he omitted to point out was that no negotiations took place with these terror nations. In the words of Churchill and Roosevelt it was a matter of “unconditional surrender.” What followed was a period of re-education and a complete pivot to democratic values.

Faced with an Islamic Jihadist mindset which denies any valid Jewish sovereignty and a religious fanaticism which views all non Muslims as “unbelievers” the chances of a mass conversion to tolerant and democratic values are zero. There are indeed pockets of enlightenment, but unfortunately, the vast majority is irredeemably subverted in an endless nightmare of violence and intolerance.

The Taliban authorities have complained that Pakistan was carrying out a mass expulsion of Afghan refugees. Has anyone, by some remote chance, noticed any demonstrations on the streets and universities over this violation of human rights? How many urgent meetings of the UN, Human Rights Council and the International Criminal Court at The Hague have been convened? This shameful display of double standards and selective outrage must be exposed and paraded for all to witness.

The new regime in Syria has resulted in a torrent of expectations. Presumably, anything other than the despotic Assad dictatorship should be an improvement, but it is important to realise exactly who these new groups actually represent. They are not, as many starry-eyed optimists would have us believe, heralds of a dawning age of tolerance. Their dire need for international legitimacy may temper initial urges to enact extreme policies but that will not last too long.

As a report in the Jewish Chronicle noted, new Syrian school textbooks issued by the authorities are filled with antisemitism and praise for terrorists. The outlook for any sort of peace is bleak if this is how the next generation of Syrian students is going to be educated about Jews and Israel.

Despite these clear indications, there are amazingly still some Jews who are dazzled by the mirage being promoted. A delegation of former Syrian Jews now residing in the USA made a pilgrimage back to the “old country.” Reportedly welcomed by a few ex-neighbours, they visited the old Jewish quarter and marvelled at the ruins of the Synagogues. No mention was made, of course, of how they had been hounded from Syria in the first place and how their properties had been confiscated.

A news headline trumpeted, “Excited Jews are coming back. US Jewish group receives warm welcome in Syria.” In a letter written to the Syrian leader, the former Rabbi of the community in Syria congratulated the new regime. It then went on to say that ”despite decades of exile the Syrian Jewish community continues to cherish its deep rooted connection to Syria – its motherland.”

I had to reread this several times to make sure that it was not some sort of hoax. This so-called “motherland” ethnically cleansed its Jewish citizens and, after a series of pogroms, drove them from the country. Instead of yearning for Zion it seems that they still hanker for the “fleshpots of Damascus.”

This genetic disposition to return to the scene of past crimes is, it seems a common trait which has haunted us ever since the Exodus from Egyptian slavery.

In the face of a concerted campaign to deny a Jewish historical claim to the Land of Israel, it is timely to remember the stirring words of Winston Churchill uttered in 1922.

“Jews have returned to Palestine (as it was called then). Canaan is their inheritance and has served as their sanctuary for nearly four thousand years in a world which largely despises them. Palestine is the name given by the Roman Emperor Hadrian who was trying to sever Judea from the Jews. They have returned as of right and not by sufferance and this is based on their ancient historical connections.”

Would it not be refreshing if today’s political leaders articulated a similar truth instead of the mealy-mouthed, distorted and twisted versions of history we hear today?

With all the corruption being exposed at USAID, Elon Musk and his team are finding out how much money the Obama/Biden/Harris administration transferred towards toppling the Netanyahu government. Not only did they transfer USAID funds to the anti-government protest movement before the war, they also transferred money that supported the terror war against us.

We are so blessed that Prime Minister Netanyahu succeeded in surviving this US funded coup to topple him and that President Trump won the election!