Searching for the culprit

In my opinion, then, of course, the one at the bottom of the pyramid is to blame, but so is the head of the pyramid. The bottom – this is obvious. The head – since he is supposed to provide the character, the criticism, the intelligence and the character of all the people in the pyramid. And if so – he is to blame for not replacing them, not doubting their words and following them with his eyes closed. Likewise, if he did not know everything and accepted their words with complete confidence – he himself is also to blame. It follows that the middle is also to blame to one degree or another – A. For their contribution to the situation. B. For lack of doubt, and criticism, etc. ’. The possibility that they are not to blame is that they received direct orders to be complete robots (without doubting or casting doubts), but that this role was apparently done under the inspiration of the head, so he is again to blame of course.

Mikhi,
Do you agree?

Absolutely not. This is a wild generalization. How can you determine such a thing categorically for all cases?
There are situations in which the boss is not at fault because he acted completely correctly and his subordinates messed up. At the simplest level, think about a situation where I appointed a worthy person to a position who met all the criteria, and in the end he took a bribe or overcharged and behaved improperly. Am I at fault? Absolutely not. And what if he just messed up without taking a bribe? Not at all.
A friend of mine, Menachem Finkelstein, who headed the investigative committee for the escape of prisoners from Megiddo prison, told me that in Israel no investigative committee has ever imposed ministerial responsibility on anyone, that is, responsibility without fault. That is why they have always only examined the dimension of guilt. He is currently publishing an article in two installments that deals with the question of whether there is room to extend this responsibility to situations without fault. I discussed the matter at length with him, and I think there is room for it in certain ways.

By the way, the opposite is not really necessary either. It is possible that the boss is at fault and the subordinate is not. If the boss gave him an order that he knew would lead to problematic consequences and the subordinate had no way of seeing this and therefore obeyed.

There were serious warnings
and some of them are explicit and in writing
Listening to the testimony and interrogation of Yair Lapid and Ehud Barak in the Civil Investigation Committee presents simple, tested, clear and unambiguous evidence that there were full-scale warnings
And Bibi Shema did not convene the system to launch an attack against Efi’ did not hold meetings to ensure that there were forces and capabilities for defense
Simply disregarded and did not respond to clear and unambiguous warnings

They asked a general question here. I didn't refer to Bibi. You can discuss something without bringing Bibi into the discussion.