I'm exaggerating a bit, but in their internal review of what went wrong on Oct 7 they hit on a number of crucial points:
The Shin Bet's focus was on foiling terror attacks, and its methods were not applicable to an enemy that acted like an army.
I've been trying to drill this into the heads of you tards for years. Terrorism doesn't mean "anything I don't like". It can be used by the weak or the strong, the bad or the good. Look at the Reinhard Heydrich assassination. That was done by a superpower and it's not something I'm going to shed any tears over. Terrorism is a political/military tactic that can be used by all kinds of organizations . (And if you believe I'm being a pinko, my thinking is heavily influenced by Trinquier here, one of the leading chud theorists of all time. PDF link to his very insightful if batshit insane book.)
Terrorism is an action someone performs, it's not an intrinsic part of their nature as a person. They can flip back and forth between terrorism and conventional warfare. So you have to be cautious about simply labeling someone merely a terrorist and you have to be extremely cautious about labeling an organization a "terrorist organization". It leads to complacency. You start thinking of these guys like they're the Baader-Meinhoff gang or the Japanese Red Army or some fringe psychos who might shoot up an airline terminal or hijack a plane.
I think dismissing Hamas as a mere "terrorist" organization is one of the main reasons they were underestimated, just as Obama famously called ISIS the "JV team" before it turned out they actually had an army of thousands.
An unclear division of responsibility between the IDF and Shin Bet on which organization should provide a warning for war, amid a change of Hamas from a terror group to a full military force. ... The Shin Bet had an "incorrect understanding" of the strength of the Israeli border barrier with Gaza and the IDF's ability to respond.
Bystander effect. It happens in the military too. A lot. You assume the other unit understands this is supposed to be their responsibility.
The assessment was that Hamas was trying to heat up the West Bank and was not interested in doing so in the Gaza Strip. ... Hamas's believed intentions were not challenged enough during assessments.
Wishful thinking based on what you assume the enemy's intentions are, not what their capabilities are.
Relatively little intelligence, including as a result of limited freedom of action in the Gaza Strip, especially independently by the Shin Bet. The Shin Bet said that the IDF's botched 2018 intelligence operation in Khan Younis made it more difficult to recruit human intelligence sources in Gaza.
This is especially puzzling given how thoroughly they infiltrated Hezbollah. One of the reasons I think they probably got to Hezbollah through Iranian dissidents.
How Hamas was able to build up its forces... The flow of money from Qatar to Gaza and its delivery to Hamas's military wing.
Thanks Bibi. 
The catalysts to Hamas's decision to carry out the onslaught included the cumulative weight of Israeli violations on the Temple Mount, the attitude toward Palestinian prisoners
Yeah, not intentionally trying to piss people off for no reason probably would have helped.
Summary: In my opinion it's pretty that the attempts to smear this disaster on Unit 8200 and Shin Bet are classic of just running over the glowBIPOC. Who are the best, most selfless Americans but also the most hated by everyone? The CIA and FBI. You think it's a coincidence they just happen to be the two organizations that can't defend themselves in the press? The IDF and the politicians are dumping all the blame on this being an "intelligence failure" when it was really a colossal policy failure to pour so many troops into the West Bank and leave so few in the south.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The point I would like to focus on in your analysis is the bit about the Israeli public being pro-Genocide now. Generally it is considered a poisoned society that is in favor of genocide across all strata of society. Taking this into account, do you believe Israel has been poisoned irreversibly in a manner that will be a net loss to them across the generations or will the love for genocide one day just go away? Would Israel remember peace or have they embraced violence and bloodshed and extermination of lesser races till the day the nation state ceases to exist? Generally historically a population who is bloodthirsty only stops being bloodthirsty through a time of extreme prosperity lasting generations or through being beaten so bad they develop a structural malaise which makes them only react in fear if at all, with the loss of will, growth, ambition.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think they're (understandably) extremely butthurt about October 7 right now. I don't think they want to kill all the Palestinians because they like genocide, it's because they've pissed off at the atrocities done to them (not just this but in the Second Intifada).
As for the long term... I feel like I'm being baited.
But it doesn't matter because I can answer honestly. Israel isn't all about extreme bloodshed and genocide and stuff. There's psychos who talk about Amalekites and stuff (like Bibi for example) but that's not core to their identity. They do have a problem of a settler mentality, where they feel like they always have to be in some kind of low-level warfare. That's suited them well because, let's face it, they've always been in some kind of low-level warfare. The problem is, at some point you've got to admit that you've won and accept peace. My hope is eventually they'll do that. Unfortunately there's the other path of the Ben-Gvirs and such where they don't want Intel and world trade, they want to be another tribe of Arab psychos on their own hill. Who will win?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I think they will go full arab Psycho. It is just something about the location that pulls you in.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
The sons of Abraham aren't so far apart after all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
what does that mean? Aren't the peaceful westerners also from Abrahamic faiths?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You gotta know your biblical genetics.
Although like so much on wikipedia this seems to have been totally rewritten recently to eliminate any direct references to Josephus.
Anyway the point is that according to tradition, Abraham had two sons. One the progenitor of the Jews and the other of the Arabs. So they're the most closely related people on the Earth.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wouldn't this only be in the Islamic holy texts because Islam was formed long after Christianity and Judaism?
I have to go now. Good night. Thanks for the fun conversation. Be well.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is about Arabs, not Muslims. The Arabs were a distinct people back in like... I think Herodotus' time like 500 BC at least.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Now I get it. Thank you.
Looking forward to having a discussion about the decline of the west with you one day.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context