Shortly before Hamas’s surprise Oct. 7, 2023, assault on the northwestern Negev, the Mossad published a detailed position paper asserting that the terrorist group’s leadership in Gaza was not seeking a clash with Israel.
“It is clear that the Hamas leadership in Gaza is not interested in a military confrontation with Israel at the present time, but is also not deterred from it in the event that it is forced to do so,” the paper stated, according to an exposé by Israel’s Channel 12 on Sept. 27.
The paper concluded that Hamas’s “military” wing was on high alert mainly out of fear of targeted killings by Israel, and that the group’s “broad interest” was to avoid escalation.
The position paper was published during a period when Hamas launched incendiary balloons at Israel, but nonetheless it painted a picture of Hamas seeking stability.
Four months earlier, Mossad chief David Barnea reportedly told Defense Minister Yoav Gallant that he supported a broad program of benefits for Gaza in order to secure long-term quiet, Channel 12 reported.
In response to Channel 12’s Sept. 27 report, the Mossad emphasized that it bears no responsibility for warning assessments for the Gaza Strip.
“The division of responsibility among the intelligence agencies as defined by the political echelon since 2005 determined, inter alia, that the Mossad is not responsible for the strategic warning of force movements in the Palestinian arena,” the agency said. “According to this definition, the Mossad was not operationally engaged in the Gaza Strip.”
Channel 12’s Omri Maniv, who authored the report, called the Mossad’s response “pretty amazing.”
“If you don’t have responsibility for the Gaza Strip and you don’t know what’s going on there, why are you issuing an in-depth and detailed document stating that no confrontation is expected with Hamas, that there is no interest in such confrontation at the present time? It seems that the Mossad was also deeply mired in the conceptzia,” Maniv said.
In Israel, the term conceptzia refers to a preconceived strategic or political assumption that influences a country’s policies, typically to its detriment.
