Q&A: The Connection Between Hamas’s Buildup and the Failure
The Connection Between Hamas’s Buildup and the Failure
Question
Good afternoon!
1- I don’t mean to ask who is to blame for the failure, or what the politicians’ role was. I only want to ask about one argument: a very common argument is that because Hamas was allowed to build itself up, it was easier for them to carry out the attack. My claim is that even without getting into whether strengthening them may nevertheless have been justified for policy reasons, and without getting into the fact that this counts as a failure of the whole state and therefore is under duress, there is still no connection between their buildup and the short-range attack. That is because they did not manage to get in by means of extraordinary firepower and technology, but rather by scooters and primitive vehicles, and in that way they managed to overcome far more advanced technology (aside from the intelligence failure). If so, isn’t this a demagogic claim?
2- I’d also like to make another argument: many claim that it turns out it was a mistake to strengthen Hamas and that the conception collapsed (I’m not getting into whose mistake it was). I want to argue that this is not correct. That is because the political reason for which Hamas was strengthened was a valid one (at least according to those who hold that view), and the fact that such an attack happened does not weaken it, because it may be that they took into account that attacks would indeed occur, but there was no realistic possibility that they would happen on such a scale (again, because of a military failure). So just as any policy takes certain losses into account that one is willing to absorb, so too here; and the fact that in addition there was an intelligence failure does not undermine the conception.
In other words, I am arguing that it may still be correct to hold that same conception, and the fact that a negative miracle happened (in the Rabbi’s words) should not invalidate it?
Thank you very much!
Answer
First of all, that is not accurate. The infiltration took place under cover of a very massive missile attack. It would not have been possible without their buildup. The weapons and materials they brought in, the intelligence, the tunnels that protect them from our responses—all of these are the result of that buildup. And their very budget, which enabled all this, is also a result of the money they receive with no oversight whatsoever.
But even if we ignore all that, the mistake in the conception was legitimate in my view. Strengthening Hamas so that it would compete with Fatah and create an internal conflict among the Palestinians—that is, in itself, a legitimate policy. And even if in the end it failed, that proves nothing. That is the wisdom of hindsight. I wrote this here in response to another question: in my view, the failure was not the strengthening of Hamas in itself. As stated, that is a legitimate policy, even if in hindsight it turned out to be mistaken. The failure was mainly military, and also in the government’s response policy, which allowed their military buildup (as opposed to strengthening their rule).
Of course, these events should prompt renewed thinking about that policy. You are right that they do not necessarily prove it was mistaken, but they do seriously raise that possibility, and that requires reconsideration.
Discussion on Answer
That’s hindsight, but today it seems they should have gone into Gaza and eliminated them from the start. Let the world protest.
A question for the Rabbi
Everyone is demanding that Bibi take responsibility (rightly so), and he refuses—but do you think the people truly responsible for the failure are the field officers who, according to reports from the female surveillance soldiers who warned about unusual Hamas activity, dismissed them and did not alert the system, or what was published today, that the head of Military Intelligence received a warning and also brushed it off https://www.mako.co.il/news-military/6361323ddea5a810/Article-59784d023270c81026.htm
Do you think the demand that Bibi take responsibility is justified? That is, does he bear responsibility beyond automatic ministerial responsibility, where the one at the head of the system bears responsibility even though his direct connection to the failure is quite remote? Does a prime minister really need to check every moment that field commanders and officers are doing their jobs faithfully?!
Is his only responsibility not for Hamas’s buildup—but everyone knew about that even before the massacre, and still everyone trusted that the IDF was alert enough to prevent infiltrations like these.
I also feel that Bibi is guilty and I’m already dreaming of him being thrown out of power, but I’m having trouble understanding exactly what his great guilt is in this event (asking seriously, not trolling).
As far as I understand, he has no direct guilt in the event. The blame lies with the army, and not only in dismissing the warnings but also in the failure of the response after they broke through.
As for Hamas’s buildup too, that is a legitimate policy. It just turned out in hindsight that it failed.
Who told you he isn’t taking responsibility? Because he isn’t performing it like everyone else—that is, not declaring it? Taking responsibility is expressed in actions, not in words. On the contrary, I appreciate that he doesn’t dance to the tune of empty journalists. And resigning is not taking responsibility. Taking responsibility for what happens in your life means that you don’t whine about events beyond your control, but act where you actually can. To say that resigning is an expression of taking responsibility is like saying that the conclusion from my taking responsibility for my failures in life is that I should commit suicide…………
People simply don’t understand what they are talking about. What they are really talking about is blame. The point is that on the list of those to blame, Bibi is at the very bottom (if at all. A mistaken policy is not guilt. You are allowed to make mistakes. You are not allowed to be negligent or shut your eyes to its consequences), far, far below all those who demand that he say it. All those who were guilty in Oslo and the disengagement—the politicians, the security establishment, and of course the journalists (not for the policy itself, but for the blindness and obtuseness to its consequences that came afterward)—and those who pressured him to release Shalit (for the one who incites someone to commit an offense to then complain to the one he incited for having committed it is something only the left could invent), and those who pressured him to let in the money from Qatar (as if the left would have acted differently from him. They would have let in money and absorbed the rocket launches, etc.). It’s not as though they would suddenly have initiated an operation in Gaza in which soldiers would be killed for nothing…
In general, any attempt to look for who is responsible is a kind of shirking responsibility by the one doing the looking. All the Jewish people are responsible for what happened (that is, that they have something to do about it now in dealing with the results of the event)
And regarding the story that he tweeted that he had received no warning at all from the intelligence bodies—this was in response to questions he was asked at the press conference that evening regarding a rumor that was going around that he did know; he didn’t answer them, and for some reason that was taken as a “confession.” So he denied it, which is completely legitimate. The uproar from some people close to the security establishment only actually strengthened what he said. There was another time at a journalists’ briefing when he was talking about a certain topic and a journalist shifted the discussion to a question about his opinion regarding the effect of the protest movement on the army’s lack of readiness for the massacre, and after pressing him for a while, finally managed to get him to say that after the war they would have to examine whether there was a connection… For some reason it seems that the media doesn’t actually want him to “take responsibility,” but rather wants action and an exchange of accusations.
I’d be glad to ask one more thing—even if we do assume that the conception collapsed, maybe there was no other choice. That is, after Hamas took over the Strip, to this day there was no international legitimacy for conquering Gaza, and therefore the choice was to allow them to receive money so that there would be temporary quiet (aside from the political argument of preventing the Arabs from claiming the Land).
I would also argue: perhaps there is no other option. The reality is that there is no partner for peace, and one has to deal with things according to the circumstances that exist at any given time?
Thank you very much!