In the weeks preceding the devastating assault launched by Hamas on Israeli soil which claimed over 1,200 Israeli lives, the militant group surreptitiously rehearsed their deadly stratagem out in the open. A propaganda video that ran for two minutes, publicized on social media by Hamas on September 12, served as a distracting smokescreen for their malicious intentions.
The video unveiled fighters employing explosives to shatter a fabricated border gate replica. The assailants stormed in on pickup trucks and systematically moved across a large-scale mockup of an Israeli town. They exploited automatic firearms targeting human-shaped paper targets. The militant operation, cryptically dubbed “Strong Pillar”, was strikingly on display for all eyes to see. Militants, donned in body armor and combat clothing, proficiently executed maneuvers that simulated the typical destruction of the monumental walls’ concrete towers and a communication antenna. This play-acted event, in essence, was a forewarning of the real terror that was to unfold in the attack on the subsequent Saturday.
Israel’s acclaimed security and intelligence services seemed to underestimate Hamas’ potential to infiltrate its Gaza defence arrangements. The chillingly meticulous preparations for the offensive seemed to have been cleverly deceived by Hamas’ facade of a public display.
In the words of Bradley Bowman, a veteran U.S. Army officer and contemporary senior director of the Center on Military and Political Power at a recognized Washington research institute, there was intelligence that should have provoked security preparations. These subtle clues may have been overlooked, inadvertently facilitating the occurrence of these horrendous terrorist acts.
The Associated Press conducted an extensive review and validation of numerous videos released by Hamas throughout the past year, mainly via the social media platform Telegram. Judicious utilization of satellite imagery, allowed the AP to identify the mock town’s location – a tract of desert proximate to Al-Mawasi, a Palestinian town on Gaza Strip’s southern coast. The conspicuous sign at the gate reads “Horesh Yaron”, the moniker of a contentious Israeli settlement in the occupied Palestinian West Bank.
Bowman speculated that misdirection might be Hamas’ game, intentionally leading Israeli administrations to presume it was readying for an assault in the West Bank opposed to Gaza. Moreover, the operation timing that traditionally took place annually in December had abruptly been advanced by nearly four months, coinciding with the anniversary of Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza.
In a subsequent video from the previous year’s ‘Strong Pillar’ exercise, Hamas assailants can be seen forcefully entering a simulated Israeli military base. The base was comprehensively equipped with a full-size tank model brandishing an Israeli flag. After capturing the ‘enemy soldiers’, the gunmen advanced through the compound.
The audacity and magnitude of Saturday’s attack took Michael Milshtein, a retired Israeli colonel, and former head of the military intelligence division overseeing the Palestinian territories, by surprise. He confessed his knowledge of the Hamas videos but expressed astonishment at the coordination across the various threat systems on display.
The failure to anticipate Saturday’s attack and counteract it was rooted deep in the past decade. PM Benjamin Netanyahu ventured a simple solution – a fortified wall – in an attempt to thwart recurring intrusions by the militant group.
Thanks to financial support from the U.S. government, Israel accomplished the fortification of its existing safeguards along its 40-mile border with Gaza in 2021. Netanyahu’s new, upgraded security apparatus, a towering “smart fence” boasting surveillance technologies and topped by remote-controlled machine guns, however, underwent a swift decimation upon Hamas’ assault.
Notwithstanding the advanced fortifications, the skewed remains of the Erez border crossing show the aftermath of Hamas’ attack – gaping holes marking the terrorist group’s path, the largest wider than 70 meters – a monumental testament to the seriousness of the breach.
The neglected potential of online intelligence subsequently came into question as this devastating event unfolded, showing the necessity of encompassing technology in warfare and surveillance. Dyed-in-the-wool military analysts and experts gasped at the level of sophistication in Hamas’s operations, gesturing towards possible external support.
Amid the chilling surprise and destructive magnitude of the attack, reassurances emanated from the corner of Hamas officials. Ali Barakeh, a senior Hamas official based in Beirut, insisted that the attack method was conceived indigenously, with the finer details known only to a selective few within the organization.
As the dust settles post-assault, political support within Israel for Netanyahu, who spearheaded the wall construction project despite internal advisories, starts to falter. In the wake of the attack, Israeli officials remained largely evasive regarding the intelligence blunder, promising the public an explanation at a future point. Netanyahu’s erstwhile ally, ex-President Trump, who once commended Netanyahu’s Iron Wall as a potential template for the U.S. Southern border with Mexico, would be hard-pressed to defend this approach in light of recent events.
However, the enormity of the catastrophe serves as a stark reminder that even the most secured physical barriers can be conquered. Regardless of surveillance measures and physical defenses, the Iron Wall remained just that – a wall, vulnerable to explosives and bulldozers. The remarkable feature of the incident lay in Hamas’ ability to keep their elaborate plans covert until the execution of the decisive blow.
