Ex-IDF Chief of Staff Giora Eiland Cites Conceptual Failure Behind October 7
Translated & summarized from Maariv by baba
Former IDF Chief of Staff Giora Eiland asserts that the October 7th failures stemmed from a conceptual error in defining Hamas, not just intelligence or military issues. He argues that this mischaracterization prevented Israel from preparing for the true threat and that the ongoing war's lack of decisive victory is also due to a flawed understanding of total warfare.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Giora Eiland blames a conceptual failure, not just military or intelligence, for the October 7th attacks.
- He states that labeling Hamas a "terrorist organization" prevented proper preparation.
- Eiland argues that philosophy, psychology, and sociology hold keys to understanding such failures.
- He believes the war's lack of decisive victory is due to a misunderstanding of total warfare.
- The IDF knew about Hamas's elite force but failed to prepare adequately.
Former IDF Chief of Staff Giora Eiland argues that the failure leading to the October 7th attacks was not solely a result of intelligence or military shortcomings, but also a conceptual one. He believes the persistent labeling of Hamas as a "terrorist organization" created a mindset that prevented proper preparation for the actual threat.
Eiland explained that his research, which delved into philosophy, psychology, and sociology, revealed that the answers to such catastrophic errors lie outside the military, intelligence, or political spheres. He highlighted that for years, the IDF was aware of Hamas's elite "Nukhba" commando force of 3,000 trained fighters, capable of reaching any Israeli location within 10 minutes. Despite this knowledge, a lack of appropriate response stemmed from a conceptual error.
He elaborated that defining Hamas as a "terrorist organization" led to a flawed perception of their capabilities, envisioning attacks by small groups rather than large-scale assaults by multiple companies. Eiland contrasted this with correctly defining the adversary as "the state of Gaza, a state of evil people, with an army of 40,000 and 3,000 commandos," which he contends would have necessitated different preparations.
Discussing the ongoing war, Eiland stated that Israel has not achieved a decisive victory due to another conceptual issue: the understanding of warfare itself. He argued that war is a total event requiring the mobilization of all possible levers, not just military might. He cited the Houthi situation in Yemen, where despite US strikes, international aid continues, allowing the entity to persist, as an example of how not to win a war, which he defined as a conflict against the entire entity of the opposing side.
