By: Alex Greenberg
The Shmini Atzeret massacre that took place on the 22nd of Tishrei, 5784, forced Israeli society to come face to face with Jewish history. The sadistic mass killings, coming on the backdrop of internal divisions within Israeli society, made the concept of an ‘alliance of fate’ more prevalent than ever. The behavior of the Hamas murderer and the absolute lack of humanity among Gazan civilians demonstrated in full horror the Biblical description of the nation of Amalek. Without getting into the weeds of Jewish law or theology, it is commonly accepted that Amalek serves as a differentiator between regular geopolitical rivals and enemies of another sort, ones who attack Jews in order to annihilate them.
After the terrible low-point of the day of the massacre, the Jewish nation rose like a lion, fought ferociously on seven fronts and paralyzed – although it didn’t destroy – its two primary foes: Hamas and the Iranian regime. Though our victory is partial, and we still have a long way to go, a victory it is. There seems to be a universal agreement among us that we must not return to what was before the massacre, but the final destination is unclear. It seems more than ever that that an ‘alliance of fate’ and an ‘alliance of destiny’ are intertwined.
Yet, we cannot move towards a goal without a map or compass. There is a reason the military calls the memorization of a navigation route “the journey’s story”. Ignorance of our enemies is one of the primary reasons the State of Israel hit such a terrible low, and it is the first thing that must be amended. Often, however, remarks such as “we mustn’t underestimate the enemy” or calls to “take responsibility” and “hold people to account” are vague and over-emotional. Similarly, the military and its intelligence branches in every society are clearly influenced by the same society; its values and zeitgeist. It would be disingenuous and absurd to assume that social norms would have no impact on intelligence analyses.
I propose this to be a dialectic process; that is, one cannot understand an enemy without understanding oneself. For instance, Israeli intelligence never engaged in psychological warfare against an enemy society, and never tried to discover its points of weakness.[1] It is, of course, impossible to discover the points of weakness in an enemy society without first defining strengths and weaknesses, and it goes without saying that defining an attribute as a strength or weakness differs among various cultures. Understanding weaknesses and liabilities are crucial to both intelligence and military build-up. However, one cannot translate from a foreign language in all its richness without full fluency in the mother-tongue. Therefore, it seems that the process of military reckoning – one lesson of which is knowing the enemy – must be carried out in conjunction with a process of self-discovery on the part of Israeli society. In other words, we must make take stock of ourselves in a way that facilitates the discovery of our strengths and weaknesses.
Israeli society lacks reflection; the act of pause and examination to understand what happened.[2] Note: the self-reflection proposed in this essay is entirely different to the common ceremonial display of emotionality. No doubt it is difficult to disregard feelings – but it is necessary. The analysis and identification of failings must not morph into what too often occurred after the 1973 Yom Kippur war – what I termed “the religious ceremony of the non-religious”, where analysis and understanding were replaced by a quasi-religious ceremony of repentance, as though Israel’s military and civilian leadership in 1973 committed moral sins rather than simply failed in their thinking, as can happen to anyone, irrespective of their moral stature.
In the following, therefore, I will attempt to lay out the intelligence-operational aspect that was lacking, looking for the cultural roots that brought about such a devastating failure of the army in general and the intelligence branches in particular.
The exaggerated – not to say obsessive – focus on military failures and the distribution of blame obscures the presence of the enemy. Instead of directing our energies to victory over this enemy and their resounding defeat, we focus at best on technical deficiencies; at worst on bitter infighting. The technical aspect does exist but we must not forget that Hamas’ military attack was subsidiary to its main effort, which was expressed in the mass murders. An alien from another planet watching our discourse might conclude we’re discussing some natural disaster or industrial accident born of someone’s criminal negligence in forgetting a well-known procedure. Such behavior naturally focuses our attention on who among us is taking responsibility and who isn’t, rather than on the Hamas terror organization.
Knowing the Enemy
Hamas
The massacre exposed the metaphysical roots of our conflict with Islam, and brought Israelis – against their will – face-to-face with Jewish history, because the massacre was called “Tufan al-Aqsa” (طوفان الآقصي ), meaning, the Al-Aqsa Flood. Tufan does not denote just any storm, but rather that very flood through which Allah punished the two infidel peoples of ‘Ad‘ and ‘Thamud‘, as described in Surah 71 of the Quran (“The Chapter of Noah”). Indeed, immediately after the massacre, slogans began appearing en masse such as “Ya muhlika ‘Ad wa Thamud, ahlika al-Yahud” (“O you who destroyed ‘Ad and Thamud, destroy the Jews”).[3]
In Hamas-affiliated media outlets, all territory under Israeli control is presented to the world as “occupied” (al-ihtilal), and it is worth noting that the Al-Aqsa Flood was directed at Jerusalem, not the Gaza Envelope. Since the massacre, I have been spending my days reading extensively on social media in Arabic and Persian. Except for a few isolated cases, I have seen no displays of simple basic humanity in Arabic (the picture is entirely different regarding Iran – see below).
Palestinian society is gripped by a pathological, sick, narcissistic culture. It does not show even a shred of empathy toward the other. As is well known, narcissism and infantilism are intertwined, since the younger the child, the less capable they are of seeing their fellow human beings. The concepts of good, evil, and justice among Palestinians are divided in an absolutely binary manner, which leads to an absolute demonization of Jewish people. All these phenomena exist in abundance in other Arabic societies as well. Remember that the outbreak of worldwide antisemitic hatred began immediately during and after the massacre, before the IDF began bombing Gaza.
There is a significant psychoanalytic dimension to Islam’s relationship with Judaism. Islam does not recognize any legitimacy of independent Jewish existence. One cannot fail to see the Arab-Islamic effort to destroy not only Israel, but the Jewish connection to the Land of Israel as well, as the poet Natan Alterman so aptly described in his famous poem “An Arab Land.”[4] One of the ugliest pathological characteristics that typify the Arab world is the denial that the massacre occurred, alongside the presentation of the IDF’s response as “Zionist aggression” (al-‘udwan al-Zihyuni). In other words, rather than justify sadism, murder, and rape, Palestinians simply deny their very occurrence, while describing all Israeli responses as “aggression.”
According to Islam’s view, Jews have the right to exist only if they accept upon themselves the conditions of inferiority of the dhimma status (non-Muslim protected subjects), because that is what the Quran dictates. When Jews behave contrary to what is required of them by Islam, they automatically become aggressors against Muslims. Moreover, the existence of an independent Jewish state, especially in the heart of the Muslim world (Dar al-Islam), contradicts the foundational beliefs of Muslims. This is true of Christians as well. Both Christianity and Islam suffer from a destructive cognitive dissonance regarding Jews. On the one hand, Jews are despised and must bear punishment for having rejected the universal truth of Mohammad, the messenger of Allah, seal of the prophets (i.e., the last prophet) or of Jesus Christ (according to the interpretation of Saul of Tarsus, Saint Paul himself). According to Islam, the Jews falsified the Torah, which originally mentioned Mohammad as a prophet. And yet, both religions cannot ignore the fact that God chose to reveal Himself for the first time specifically to the Jews, and this is a revelation the validity of which they acknowledge.
I must emphasize that this does not refer to all Muslims or all Christians, and certainly I do not mean that Christianity and Islam contain nothing but hatred toward Jews. However, these trends exist and persist. Furthermore, this is not necessarily about religion as a collection of dogmatic beliefs, but rather religion as a system of culture, history, and values embedded in individuals. I am talking about religion as a vital component of identity, and every person finds it difficult to deal with something that undermines their identity. Only few are willing to undertake a critical re-examination of their value system; most will choose to attack the undermining factor instead. To put it briefly, most Arabs prefer to attack Jews rather than contemplate whether there might be something flawed in their Islamic identity. The same process occurs in Christian cultures in Europe, and is expressed in attitudes toward Israel. This is the root of antisemitism, which cannot be changed through our “Hasbara” (public diplomacy).
The Iranian Regime
The Islamist regime that has ruled Iran since the revolution of 1979 is fueled by an ideology that is essentially identical to the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, originating from Hassan al-Banna and Sayyid Qutb. The writings of Iranian Islamist thinkers prior to the revolution, including those of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, overflow with the presupposition of an antisemitism that has no connection to Israel and its policies. Even today, the Iranian regime takes care to adhere to a line of Holocaust denial, at the directive of current leader Ali Khamenei.[5] Throughout its rule, the Iranian regime has been responsible for the murder of many Israeli and Jewish civilians, including two horrific attacks in Argentina (the bombing of the Israeli embassy and the bombing of the Jewish community building in Buenos Aires). The Iranian regime, through its senior officials and spokespeople, praised and continues to praise the Hamas massacre of October 7. The conflict between Israel and Iran has no ordinary geopolitical characteristics, such as a dispute over land or resources, especially since the two countries do not share a common border. There is only one cause of this conflict, and that is the ideological antisemitism of the Iranian regime. Anyone who ignores this and tries to present the Iranian attitude as merely “critical of Israeli policy” is guilty, at best, of absolute ignorance on the matter.
Conclusions and Reasons
All the above lead to practical and operational conclusions:
- It was horrific to witness how important murder, torture, brutality and humiliation were to Hamas terrorists, even at the expense of possible operational advancement, had they chosen not to “take the time” to massacre residents. Contrary to the tired trope of liberal common sense dictating that we must not turn every enemy into a figurative Amalek, it would be ridiculous to ignore the reality of an enemy that seeks to destroy us, plain and simple. Respect to Clausewitz and other military thinkers where its due, but their teachings apply to regular warfare. It is highly likely that facing a genocidal enemy requires an adaptation of the security concepts and concomitant management of war.
- Gaza is Hamas; Hamas Gaza. Hamas is not an evil political party that Gazans chose from among “a marketplace of ideas”. Hamas is the local incarnation of the Muslim Brotherhood and “political Islam”; the single legitimate modern interpretation of Islam today. A discussion of questions such as “Is all of Islam like this” or “Is Islam inherently antisemitic or not” is pointless, (not to mention the potential accusations of the author making generalizations). Questions about the essence of Islam or alternative iterations belong to the realm of historical research, and that remains purely theoretical. For the purpose of intelligence serving decision-making and strategy formulation, one must address the given situation, here and now. The discussion regarding historical Islam – how it “really” was or “what it should be” – is irrelevant. What matters is that Palestinian Sunni Islam is expressed this way in reality.
- The picture in Iran is much more complex, as there is an enormous difference between the Iranian regime and the Iranian people. The undersigned knows quite a few Iranians who vehemently disavow the regime and are ashamed of its praise of the horrific massacre. It should be emphasized that the distinction between Palestinians and Iranians is based on an analysis of reality and data, not on wishful thinking or interpretation of intentions. It should be remembered that throughout history, nations have fought one another, and even the Allies fought against Nazi Germany, not Hitler alone. There is no doubt that the Iranian people themselves are one of the factors weakening the regime, but it is the regime that makes strategic decisions.
- Any intelligence analysis or interpretation that ignores the religious and historical aspects, and by extension Jewish history, suffers from a misunderstanding of reality, precisely insofar as they presume “not to turn the conflict into a religious one.” Religion has long been part of the conflict, and we cannot determine for Muslims how they should be interpreting their religion.
- Every culture ultimately draws from religion, since religion constitutes the transcendent layer of every culture, establishing its axiomatic values. Even if European societies have undergone a process of complete secularization, the foundational values of their culture are still distinctly Christian, which naturally influences their attitudes toward Jews and Israel. No doubt there is room for improvement in the Israeli public diplomacy apparatus, but nevertheless, we must understand two things about antisemitism: (1) Antisemitism is a multi-headed hydra, which is not necessarily violent or murderous. One of the expressions of “civilized” antisemitism is the demand that Jews behave according to special norms not required of any other group, in order to earn something that others receive automatically. Antisemitism stems from the inability to display an attitude of equanimity towards Jews as toward other peoples. The deep causes of this are rooted in Christianity and Islam. (2) Since this is something deeply embedded in Western cultures, it is an irrational given; meaning, it cannot be changed through logical argumentation. As such, public diplomacy efforts have limited power from the outset.
The Importance of Semantics
Words have specific meanings; there are subtle nuances even between synonyms. Ignorance, combined with an absence of an awareness of linguistic significance, create misunderstanding and misconceptions of reality. Here are some prominent examples:
- The Hamas “attack”. It is no coincidence that the European press primarily uses the phrases “Hamas attack” or “the events of October 7, 2023.” This phrasing serves to reduce empathy toward Israel and present Palestinian suffering as the real tragedy. Upon reading the phrase “Hamas attack,” especially in a European language, one might think it was simply another military flare-up, like those between Russia and Ukraine or between India and Pakistan, during which some things happened that should not have been done. We must not allow the enemy to establish this narrative. As stated above, the Hamas attack was only a sideshow to the mass killings and brutality. The massacres were directed against the Jewish people on their day of holiday, which is why I insist on calling it “the Shmini Atzeret massacre”. It is also inconceivable to establish the use of the word “disaster” in reference to the massacre, since “disaster” is usually associated with natural occurring phenomena.
- Conception or “underestimation of the enemy“. The original idea of a “conception” comes from the Yom Kippur War, when there was a pre-hostilities defined perception regarding the enemy, which in retrospect proved incorrect in some ways. This “conception” was not only defined, written, and logical, but also proved correct in many ways (such as the assumption that the Egyptians would not attempt to advance without a missile umbrella). In our case, however, there was no underestimation of the enemy but rather a far more serious failing: the refusal to see the enemy as an enemy.
- Not harming the innocent – The accepted term in modern military terminology is “noninvolved” or “non-combatants.” The use of the phrase “innocent” derives either from the criminal legal term wrongly applied to the context of war, which is not subject to criminal prosecution in any country, or to the Western term which carries a distinctly Christian connotation.
- Deterrence – Israeli military discourse frequently uses the terms “deterrence” (harta’ah), “warning” (hatra’ah), and “decisive action” (hakhra’ah). All three terms have no equivalent in modern military terminology. The term “deterrence” (in English ‘deterrence’ and in French ‘dissuasion’) is usually used to denote nuclear deterrence. This is an organized and comprehensive concept that was generated in the context of the Cold War, and has no connection to the meaning of the concept “deterrence” in Hebrew as it is currently used in Israel.
- Soft power/ regional power. Recommendations abound for Israel to use its soft power, because “we have what to offer” and because “we are a regional power.” This is a misunderstanding of the essence of both terms. “Soft power” is not simply a capability that Israel is not exploiting, but rather the ability to compel another party to do something it does not necessarily want to do through non-violent means. Israel does not have such a capability. As for the second term, there is no accepted or agreed-upon explanation of what exactly it means for Israel to be a “regional power.”
A Combination of Ignorance, Moralism and Overconfidence
It can be determined that in most cases, the root cause of all the phenomena described above is ignorance – both of Judaism and Jewish history and of Western cultures and all that exists beyond Israel’s borders. How can one expect a young officer, who has just finished high school and is unable to even quote the Bible or Hebrew poetry, to understand the Quranic associations that are self-evident to any Arabic speaker?
Then there is geopolitics – a body of multidisciplinary knowledge not limited to geography or politics alone, but extending also to psychology, economics, history, and above all to culture in the broad sense of the term. Every strategy is built on interaction with the other, who always remains unpredictable, certainly so if they are a rival or enemy.[6] It is impossible to engage in geopolitics or develop grand strategies without comprehensive knowledge of the regional players, both in depth and breadth. General knowledge is essential for developing strategy.[7]
It must also be recognized that the Jewish people lack a political and military tradition. The Torah establishes the relationships between man and God and between man and his fellow man, but contains no formulas for conducting policy or governing a state. It also establishes morality, but it is best to limit our understanding of morality to set boundaries and safeguards, and not to use it as specific guidance for each and every case. The Talmud states: “This nation is distinguished by three characteristics: they are merciful, bashful, and perform acts of kindness”.”[8] Sometimes it seems that almost every issue in every field is discussed among us in terms of good and evil in reference to Jewish morality. However, we often forget that it is very difficult to establish clear criteria for good and evil in politics, because the best intentions do not always lead to the best results.
It is very difficult to conduct a serious professional discussion when participants are not willing to admit that they lack knowledge in a certain field, and when all are certain (with the best moral intentions) that their proposal is the best one.
Binary Thinking
In Israel, no institutions of higher education have been established to cultivate intellectual excellence in fields that are not technical-scientific. Obviously, excelling in the humanities is not a guarantee for better intelligence work or statecraft, but it is useful in terms of its ability to instill intellectual discipline. Historical research is not a science in the same sense that physics is a science, and yet adherence to defined methodological rules can transform a journalistic article into an academic historical essay. When technological experts presume to engage in geopolitics or statecraft, they encounter a reality of uncertainty, multiple possibilities and choices. The world of programming is a language that is binary in nature – every technical operation contains a predictable result in advance, taking into account the parameters of the mechanism or machine. In contrast, interaction with human beings is never technical, nor can it be technical. Reality is multifaceted and nuanced, and constantly changing.
It is therefore impossible to provide an exhaustive and unambiguous answer to questions such as “Does Iran want to destroy us?” or “Is it right to conquer Gaza?”
Ideological Ossification
The combination of all the above is expressed in the validation of various ideologies from left to right. Every society or group has a certain worldview, which can also be termed an “ideology.” However, a standard political outlook is derived from viewing reality subject to core values. The standard political outlook must be capable of changing and adapting itself to reality in light of changing circumstances. In contrast, core values draw from the deep layers of culture, which are based in Torah or religion. These values do not change with the passage of time and circumstances. Naturally, such values are relatively few.
The French-Israeli philosopher Eliane Amado Levy-Valensi interpreted the danger of Western ideologies through the prism of Judaism in her book À la gauche du Seigneur, ou, L’illusion ideologique.[9] Her main argument is that political ideologies ossify, become dogmatic, and offer final solutions that do not exist. They become utopias that cannot be sustained. The alternative she proposes is to listen to the ” small still voice” of reality. According to Levy-Valensi, the adherence to any dogmatic ideology is always dangerous: for example, while one can and should support a free market economy, a libertarian state does not exist anywhere – sometimes states must intervene in the economy. In Israel especially there is a complete confusion of terms such as “conservatism,” “liberalism,” and “libertarianism.”
A similar principle also applies on the military level. The role of an army is to fight and defeat the enemy. This may be so self-evident to normal nations that there is no need to state such a truth. However, the military profession exists and it has clear principles, one of which is the difference between defensive and offensive combat. One of the serious failures of the IDF in the Yom Kippur War was its neglect of defensive combat in favor of offensive, because when the war broke out, it was not possible to transition to offense before repelling the enemy. Therefore, any talk about “an offensive army versus a defensive army” sounds detached from reality. We can make do with Marshal Ferdinand Foch’s axiom that one should aspire to transition to offense, not as a value unto itself, but because defense alone is not capable of crushing an enemy and ensuring victory.
The Solution: Union of Opposites and Balance
To all this must be added what can be called “the shattering of the Zionist dream of normalcy.” Although it was never officially mentioned in the platform of any Zionist movement, it was always present. This dream was expressed in the belief that the existence of a Jewish state would eliminate the problem of antisemitism, and we would finally live as a normal people. Instead, the State of Israel became the Jew among the nations. I believe the difficulty some have in recognizing that irrational antisemitism exists, and this problem is impossible to solve through better public relations or any action on our part, stems from the fear of coming face-to-face with Jewish history or with Jewish destiny. The aspiration to flee from Jewish destiny existed as far back as the time of the prophet Ezekiel, who also explained its futility: “But what enters your mind shall not come about, what you say, ‘Let us be like the nations, like the families of the lands, to serve wood and stone.'” (Ezekiel, chapter 20, verse 32).
Of course, the threatening reality we face is frightening. It is also difficult to establish an identity or confidence in the righteousness of our path on purely negative elements. In fact, it is impossible to do so without deep Jewish resources, both historical and value-based. If so, the solution is to recognize that the ‘alliance of destiny’ is the need of the hour. To understand this solution as more than a slogan, Rabbi Yehuda Leon Ashkenazi (Manitou) formulated it thus: the mission of the people of Israel is universal, but it is carried out through particularistic existence as an independent nation on its land. There is room for a range of values, which should be balanced with each other according to circumstances. This is also the golden mean, or “middle way”, of the Rambam (Maimonides).
This approach has very practical implications at the levels of strategy and policy: Circumstances sometimes require dialogue and sometimes require the application of force. Israel has several structural strategic weaknesses, such as lack of territorial depth and shortage of manpower. It can compensate for them through many qualitative advantages, including a scientific-technological edge. Clearly, Operation “Swords of Iron” would have been impossible without imaginative technological excellence and the capabilities of Israel’s Air Force pilots, unparalleled the world over. However, as Colonel Guy Hazut explains in his book, the IDF’s ground army and technological capabilities should exist simultaneously, not one at the expense of the other. One reason for the terrible failure of October 7 was the neglect of the ground army.[10]
The goal, then, is to achieve balance between different values, and we must be aware of the need for balance in extremely practical areas as well.[11]
Readers may wonder how it is possible to adopt a non-ideological Zionist approach. The return to Zion is a miracle among nations, and all our actions serve a great meta-goal: to defend the State of Israel, which is the fulfillment of the dream of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel, its fortification and consolidation. However, any specific action should also dictated be by its feasibility or infeasibility in light of reality. After all, Torah and morality existed before modern ideologies. The Book of Kohelet states: “A time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing… A time for war, and a time for peace” (Kohelet (Ecclesiastes), chapter 3, verses 5 and 8).
Alex Greenberg is a Senior Fellow at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, an Iran scholar, and an intelligence advisor to commercial companies.
[1] Meaning, psychological warfare against the hostile nation or society in its entirety, not a defined terror organization. Israeli excellence in the realm of intelligence pertains to localized operational needs that are restricted in time and place. Ron Schleifer, Post Psychological Warfare (2024) [Hebrew]
[2] French Marshal Ferdinand Foch was both a strategist and a tactician. Despite writing many articles on the principles of war, he ordered his officers to closely follow any battle they were involved in and act according to developing conditions instead of adhering to theories. He also stated that defense alone can never bring victory; one must pursue an offensive. Foch lance la contre offensive francaise, Ministère des Armées, Chemins de memoire (https://www.cheminsdememoire.gouv.fr/fr/foch-lance-la-contre-offensive-francaise).
[3]See, for instance https://did.li/XgtmC.
[4] Natan Alterman, “An Arab Land” Davar, (1950) https://did.li/5xEOf (See translation here).
[5] Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s personal site, articles on “the legend of the Holocaust” https://farsi.khamenei.ir/newspart-index?tid=5070.
[6] Vincent Desportes, Entrer en stratégie 10–32 (2019).
[7]Charles-Henri d’Andigné, « La culture générale est essentielle pour élaborer une stratégie ». Entretien avec le général Benoît Durieux, 57 Revue Conflits 9 (2025).
[8] Talmud Bavli, Yevamot 79a.
[9] E. Amado Levy-Valensi, A la gauche du Seigneur ou l’illusion idéologique (1987).
[10] Hazut, Guy (2024). The Hi-Tech Army and the Cavalry Army. Ma’arachot and Modan. [Hebrew]
[11] For example, while I wholeheartedly agree with the statement that the intelligence branches should analyze enemies’ capabilities rather than their intentions, this requires nuance and flexibility: we cannot completely ignore an enemy’s intentions, only separate their stated intentions from what we tend to interpret as their intentions.
