The connection between Hamas's strengthening and the failure

Good afternoon!
1- I do not intend to ask who is to blame for the failure, and what is the role of the politicians. I am only asking about one argument: A very common argument is that because Hamas was allowed to grow stronger, it was easier to carry out the attack. My argument is that even without entering, was it justified in the 27th century to strengthen them for policy reasons and without entering, which is considered a failure of the entire state and therefore rape? There is still no connection between strengthening and range. This is because they did not succeed in entering due to extraordinary firepower and technology, but rather by means of mopeds and primitive vehicles, and thus managed to overcome much more advanced technology (apart from the failure of awareness). So isn't this a demagogic argument?
2- Another argument I would like to make: Many claim that it turns out that it was a mistake to strengthen Hamas and the conspiracy collapsed (I won't go into whose mistake it was), I would like to claim that the wrong move was made. This is because the political reason for strengthening Hamas was appropriate (regardless of who believes so) and the fact that there was such an attack does not weaken it, because it was possible that they took into account that attacks would indeed occur, but there was no side that would lie on such a scale (again, due to a military failure), and so just as every policy takes into account certain losses that are willing to be accommodated, so it was now, and the fact that there was also a conscious failure does not undermine the concept.
That is, I argue that it may still be correct to hold on to that view, and the fact that a miracle happened for the worse (as the Rabbi said) should not negate it?
Thank you very much!