Hamas' attack on Israel on October 7 not only shocked public opinion, but also prompted political leaders in countries close to Israel to assess their ignorance about what is going on in the Gaza Strip. The impact of the surprise attack was destabilizing for the Western camp, which in turn faced threats to its lands, to the extent that the United States realized the necessity of providing explanations to its main European allies regarding this failure from a security standpoint.

The French newspaper Le Monde obtained, from sources who requested anonymity, part of the story that Washington presented to its British, French and German partners. It highlights the limits of Israeli and American intelligence regarding Hamas and the excessive role given to technological surveillance. The story confirms that Hamas itself did not imagine that its operation would reach this stage, denying the existence of a joint organization for the attack with Iran and Hezbollah.

The summary of American information confirms that the political wing of the Hamas movement, whose leaders are present in Gaza and abroad, especially in Qatar, was far from preparing for the attack, and perhaps the military wing was alone in this process. If the Shin Bet and Mossad have human resources within the movement, they are linked to the political, not the military, wing.

Blind Israeli security

Consequently, the Israeli security services did not monitor the activities of the movement's military wing. However, deciphering the operation does not prevent some members of the political wing, particularly in Gaza, from obtaining advance information on an individual basis. This indicates that the Israeli intelligence services did not have informants in the military wing, and that the movement’s members were able to evade the Shin Bet networks. The newspaper pointed out that the strict division between the political and military wings constitutes one of the keys to understanding the operation that evaded all radars.

Gaps appeared in the power of Israeli technological intelligence, supported by the United States. According to the information sent to the Europeans, it turned out that even powerful American surveillance tools directed at the Gaza Strip were unable to pick up warning signals about the preparation for the attack. Hamas's military wing has long used primitive but effective means of communication, allowing the effectiveness of the latest interception techniques to be undermined.

It may also be that the interest of Israeli intelligence declined due to the tactical choices and priorities of the political authority. Thus, the Gaza front was laid bare, and a large part of the armed forces was transferred to the West Bank, which had been the scene for a year and a half of armed rebellion. The Shin Bet was asked to focus its efforts on the security of the Jewish settlements and not on the coastal enclave where the danger arises.

Lack of external assistance

Hamas did not believe that it was capable of remaining on Israeli territory for a long time and holding this number of hostages, but it was able to spread terror in the kibbutzim located several kilometers from its base.

In response to a question about the existence of coordinated preparations with the executives of Hezbollah and the Iranian regime during the meetings held in Lebanon, the Americans, like French intelligence, denied that Hamas had benefited from foreign assistance. But the issue of support remains sensitive because it carries the risk of a regional conflict erupting. Intelligence agencies, like governments, seem keen to do everything they can to thwart such a scenario.

Concern still dominates European intelligence services, because the failure of Israel, known for its expertise in the world of espionage, raises questions about what might happen to Europe if it in turn faced a similar threat.

This exchange of information is not only an accurate picture of the reality of the attack, but it provides an overview of the way Western intelligence interprets this event. If the West has established close and sincere cooperation with the United States, it also realizes that the interests of each country differ when issues become more political.