Gaza Division Intel Officer Disputes Dismissal, Blames Systemic Failures

The defense statement of Lieutenant Colonel Arie Amidaror, the intelligence officer for the Gaza Division on October 7, has been revealed for the first time, presenting his account of his dismissal from the IDF and his claims regarding responsibility for the intelligence failure. Amidaror had filed a petition against the proceedings in March 2026, which was conducted under a gag order and ultimately rejected by the court. A subsequent publication ban on the documents has now been lifted.

A central issue raised in Amidaror's defense concerns his interactions with a female officer from Unit 8200, identified as "Officer V." Amidaror denies ignoring her intelligence, explaining that her role was to gather information on Hamas training exercises. He stated that upon his arrival as Gaza Division intelligence officer, he instructed a specific body within Unit 8200 to produce Hamas training exercises to assess the enemy's tactical capabilities, and that Officer V carried out this production based on his directive and her commanders' orders.

Amidaror also revealed correspondence with Officer V regarding disagreements over information dissemination. He wrote to her, "To remove any doubt, the purpose of my email was not to belittle but to elevate. In any case, I do not think this is a 'completely and decisively disputed point,' because it is clear that as the materials distributed increase, the area of agreement will grow. We are at the beginning of the road."

Amidaror claims that alongside the dispute with Officer V, he initiated a discussion to re-examine the division's threat perception. He described the goal as challenging the prevailing assumptions and examining the division's fundamental premises regarding Hamas's capability and intent to carry out a raid. He asserts that the discussion's summary was circulated up to the Chief of Staff level, and that these efforts to question the underlying assumptions were not given weight in the decision to dismiss him.

However, Amidaror's account faces sharp criticism. Opposing claims suggest he dismissed Officer V, did not invite her to the relevant discussion, and prevented her from presenting her position. Furthermore, the division commander was allegedly not updated on intelligence developments until late, with the discussion scheduled after the holidays. The core dispute revolves around the Gaza Division's intelligence officer's responsibility for the warning failure. Amidaror rejects this, stating, "The petitioner denies the claim that he failed professionally, or that he bears command or professional responsibility for the lack of warning of war. The task of warning of war is not the responsibility of the division's intelligence."

In contrast, the IDF's response to the petition explicitly defined the role of the Gaza Division's intelligence officer as leading all intelligence collection, analysis, and dissemination efforts, managing the intelligence picture, warning, collection, research, and providing command advice. The IDF also highlighted Amidaror's prior role as head of target intelligence for the Gaza Division years before October 7.

The IDF presented a different picture to the court, attributing personal responsibility to Amidaror for failures in his performance. The military's response stated, "A series of professional errors and malfunctions in the petitioner's conduct on the night preceding October 7, and even earlier, in assessing the security risk posed by the Hamas terror organization. The petitioner bears personal responsibility for the failures found in his conduct, in the exercise of his judgment, the degree of control he exercised, and the level of professionalism he demonstrated in his role. Command responsibility means the commander's responsibility for what happens in the unit under his command."

The IDF warned against accepting Amidaror's position that responsibility should only be examined within the legal proceedings, arguing it would undermine the Chief of Staff's ability to address systemic failures. The military's response concluded, "This outcome must not be countenanced."

One of the most severe claims in Amidaror's defense concerns the price he claims to be paying. He stated, "The petitioner is the only commander in the IDF paying a real price, in the form of loss of his rights, for the failures of the army and the state, concerning intelligence and warning about the intentions of the Hamas terror organization." He compared his situation to other commanders who left the army with full rights, including former Southern Command head Pinkelman, former Operations Directorate head Oded Basiuk, former Gaza Division commander Avi Rosenfeld, and former Unit 8200 commander Yossi Sherial.