Israeli officials obtained Hamas’s battle plan for the Oct. 7 terrorist attack more than a year before it happened, documents, emails and interviews show. But Israeli military and intelligence officials dismissed the plan as aspirational, considering it too difficult for Hamas to carry out.

Underpinning all these failures was a single, fatally inaccurate belief that Hamas lacked the capability to attack and would not dare to do so. That belief was so ingrained in the Israeli government, officials said, that they disregarded growing evidence to the contrary.

~Ronan Berman and Adam Goldman
New York Times/December 1, 2023

When asked about this revelation, Israeli government officials replied the primary concern now is execution of the war against Hamas.  A full investigation of the October 7 terrorist attack will come later.  The United States can save whatever investigative body emerges the time and resources needed to explain the past mistakes and recommend changes for the future.  Just send them a copy of the report released on July 22, 2004 by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.  The commission concluded, “Above all, the failure on 9/11 was a failure of imagination.”  Despite intelligence which suggested Al-Qaeda was planning an assault on American soil, failure to imagine an enemy 6,700 miles away could coordinate an attack on New York City and Washington, D.C. Failure to imagine commercial airliners could be used as guided missiles. Failure to imagine the hijackers were suicidal.  

Ted Singer, former CIA official with years of experience in the Middle East is quoted in the New York Times story.  “The Israeli intelligence failure on October 7 is sounding more and more like 9/11.”  He added, “The failure will be a gap in analysis to paint a convincing picture to military and political leadership that Hamas had the intention to launch the attack when it did.”

However, such a “gap in analysis” was not supposed to happen after a similar failure in October 1973 when Egypt and Syria surprised Israeli troops in the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights on Yom Kippur, the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.  I’ll let Max Brooks (Mel Brooks’ son) explain the fundamental post-Yom Kippur War change in Israel’s intelligence process to ensure there would not be similar gaps in analysis in the future as laid out in his fictional account of a global conflict with a supernatural enemy.

In October of 1973, when the Arab sneak attack almost drove us into the Mediterranean, we had all the intelligence in front of us, all the warning signs, and we had simply “dropped the ball.” We never considered the possibility of an all-out, coordinated, conventional assault from several nations, certainly not on our holiest of holidays. Call it stagnation, call it rigidity, call it an unforgivable herd mentality. Imagine a group of people all staring at writing on a wall, everyone congratulating one another on reading the words correctly.

From 1973 onward, if nine intelligence analysts came to the same conclusion, it was the duty of the tenth to disagree. No matter how unlikely or far-fetched a possibility might be, one must always dig deeper.

~Max Brooks/World War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War

You might logically ask, “Why wasn’t there a tenth analyst who would make the case that the threat of a terrorist attack of the magnitude of October 7 was real?”  Actually, there was, a female analyst identified in the Times story only as “a veteran of Unit 8200.”  She argued the Hamas plan was more than aspirational, providing evidence of training exercises conducted by senior Hamas commanders in July 2023.  She shared her concerns with colleagues. “We already underwent a similar experience 50 years ago on the southern front in connection with a scenario that seemed imaginary, and history may repeat itself if we are not careful.”

The reason I raise these issues is not just the Israeli government’s failure to learn from the American experience on 9/11.  It is to ask whether Americans understand the underlying causes which enabled Hamas to carry out its attack on October 7 and the extent to which similar forces are on our horizon.  Without speculation about Bibi Netanyahu’s motive or intent, consider the following facts.

• On November 21, 2019, prime minister Netanyahu was indicted on three counts: accepting bribes, fraud and breach of trust.
• In December 2022, Netanyahu became prime minister for the sixth time.  He filled his cabinet with far-right hawks and theocrats.  They include his national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, a West Bank settler who opposes Palestinian statehood and was convicted of incitement against Palestinians in 2007.  And interior and health minister Aryeh Deri, an ultraorthodox rabbi who was convicted of tax fraud in 2021.
• On July 24, 2023, the Knesset (Israel’s parliament), with Netanyahu’s support, passed a law to weaken the nation’s judiciary.  The vote resulted in massive protests including many reserve officers who said they would no longer report for duty.
• This year the Israeli government has authorized an additional 12,855 housing units for Jewish settlers on the West Bank, some in areas challenged by the Israel Supreme Court.

These facts point to a regime that, before October 7, was focused on self-interest, fealty to the most extreme members of its coalition, weakening national institutions, challenging long-established norms and creating distractions. 

I do not know if these actions were memorialized in a single document.  But if they were, and you want the English translation, just read about the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which according to the Foundation website, “…paves the way for an effective conservative Administration based on four pillars:  a policy agenda, Presidential Personnel Database, Presidential Administrative Academy, and 180-Transition Playbook described as ‘a comprehensive, concrete transition plan for each federal agency’.”  Or the MAGA translation: tax cuts for the rich, loyal friends of Donald Trump, a federally-funded version of Trump University and weaponization of the entire executive branch to go after Trump’s perceived enemies.

Lessons of recent history class dismissed.

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP

In space, no one can hear you scream!

Tagline/Alien (1979)

Not all senior citizens are alike.  How do I know this?  Personal experience.  I am looking forward to celebrating my mother’s 101st birthday this month.  And, what is becoming less and less unusual for someone her age, she is still quite active and has all her mental faculties.  Furthermore, as strange as this may sound, she is wise beyond her years.  At 93, she knew it was time to sell her condo and move to independent living.  Two years later, she no longer felt comfortable driving and sold her car.  If and when the time comes she needs to move into assisted living, I trust she will tell me long before I ever need to suggest it.

I share this with you in response to the news Wednesday afternoon that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell unexpectedly froze during a press conference for the second time in five weeks.  During coverage of the incident on MSNBC’s “Deadline White House,” host Nicole Wallace asked an insightful question, “In the current political environment (clearly referring to both GOP and Democratic concerns about Joe Biden’s advanced age), can we have an honest conversation about what Senator McConnell is experiencing without being ageist?”  In McConnell’s case there may be a correlation between age and these episodes, but are they necessarily causal?  On March 8 of this year McConnell suffered a concussion when he tripped while attending a Washington dinner party.  One has to ask, “Absent that incident, would the Minority Leader be having these episodes when he zonks out during a press conference?”

Similar questions are understandably being asked about California Senator Dianne Feinstein who is nine years older than McConnell.  And Iowa Senator Charles Grassley (89).  But what about John Fetterman?  The junior senator from Pennsylvania is 54 years-old, ten years under the current Senate average of 64.3 years of age. In Fetterman’s case there are equally compelling questions about his ability to serve that have nothing to do with age.

Editor-in-chief of The Bulwark Charlie Sykes responded to Wallace with what I thought was a more prescient observation.  Does each of these individuals’ public stature prohibit their friends and family from doing what you or I would do with loved ones who similarly struggle with mental or physical limitations?  I believe Sykes was making a much more important point.  Despite the political ramifications of either McConnell or Feinstein stepping down, this is not a choice between party and country.  This is about party versus grace and compassion.

The best example to make this case is McConnell because he is both victim and perpetrator.  Feinstein’s early retirement should be a no-brainer.  California’s Democratic governor Gavin Newsom preemptively announced he would appoint an interim replacement who would not be a candidate in 2024.  Therefore, Feinstein’s decision would not effect the current Democratic majority in the Senate or provide advantage to one of the three announced candidates seeking the Democratic nomination to replace her in January 2025.  Except Feinstein is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and is critical to the confirmation of Biden appointments to federal judgeships.  And McConnell, who infamously blocked Merrick Garland’s nomination to the Supreme Court, said the Republicans will not allow Democrats to replace Feinstein on the 21 member committee consisting of 11 Democrats and 10 Republicans.  Without Feinstein’s tie-breaking vote, committee votes on judicial confirmations will be deadlocked 10-10 and would not be forwarded to the full Senate for a final vote.

So, Republicans who are shedding crocodile tears about how sad it is to watch Feinstein’s physical and mental health deteriorate in front of a national television audience can put away their hankies.  McConnell and his minions are the ones who are preventing Feinstein from making what is clearly the most rational choice.

Ironically, McConnell is in a similar position thanks to Kentucky’s legislature which is ruled by a GOP supermajority.  As reported in the New York Times:

For decades in Kentucky, the power to fill a vacancy in the U.S. Senate was reserved exclusively for the governor, regardless of whether an incumbent stepped down, died in office or was expelled from Congress.

But with Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, in the state’s highest office, Republican lawmakers used their legislative supermajorities to change the state law in 2021.

Under the new law, a state executive committee consisting of members of the same political party as the departing incumbent senator will name three candidates the governor can choose from to fill the vacancy on a temporary basis. Then a special election would be set, and its timing would depend on when the vacancy occurs.

One more example of a Republican legislature changing the law when it no long benefits them politically.  But that is a discussion for another day.  Among the likely candidates put forward will be House Oversight Committee chair James Comer who has already signaled he will run for McConnell’s seat if he does not seek re-election next year.  Comer is a member of the Freedom Caucus, 2020 election denier and is leading the push to open a Biden impeachment inquiry though he has yet to identify the “crime or misdemeanor” the president might be guilty of.  The sane GOP members in the Senate who make up the caucus majority therefore prefer McConnell, which means the minority leader’s personal health and well-being, like Feinstein’s, are held hostage due to externalities beyond his control.

But age or cognitive ability are not the only criteria which determine fitness for office. Given a choice between an octogenarian who occasionally makes a verbal gaffe and a young, charismatic alternative who can race through a lie faster than A. J. Foyt, I will always take the former.  Which leaves only two concerns I have about one’s longevity in public life.  First, like my mother, an individual does not need someone else to tell them when to exit the stage.  Second, others do not create barriers which keep an individual from making that decision.

Let me close with one more personal observation.  I have occasionally been asked whether I ever considered a podcast.  I know my own limitations.  At the top of the list, I am no Casey Kasem.  I do not have a classic radio voice.  A close second is the fact I find, as I have aged, I often stop in mid-sentence to get my thoughts in order.  That too does not make for good audio.  Which is why I stick to the written versus spoken word.  To paraphrase the Alien tagline, “On WordPress, no one can hear you pause!“

For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP