IDF's internal investigation finds major failures in military's preparedness prior to Oct 7 attacks

The investigative panel appointed by IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Eyal Zamir to review earlier military inquiries into the failures of Oct. 7 has concluded that serious errors were made – both in the IDF’s response to the Hamas attack and in the investigations conducted under former chief Maj.-Gen. Herzi Halevi.

The panel established by Zamir was led by Maj.-Gen. (res.) Sami Turgeman, a former head of the Southern Command, along with former Navy Chief Vice Admiral (res.) Eli Sharvit, former Air Force Maj.-Gen. (res.) Amikam Norkin, alongside other retired senior officers. 

The Turgeman panel reviewed 24 investigations at the General Staff level, as well as one tactical investigation designed to answer the question: What led to the Oct. 7 massacre? 

The panel, which reviewed the previous 25 investigations, found significant variation in their quality. Some were professional, comprehensive, and allowed for meaningful learning and progress; others provided solid factual foundations but failed to identify points of failure or necessary changes; some lacked key details; and several were deemed unsatisfactory. For each investigation, the team wrote a detailed professional assessment, attached concrete recommendations, and assigned a color-coded grade.

The panel's color-coded grading system used the colors green, orange, red, and black. Green indicated investigations that were “professional, comprehensive, and enable learning and progress.” Orange was assigned to investigations that “provide a solid factual foundation but do not identify the points of failure or the necessary changes.” Red was used to mark inquiries that were conducted inadequately or unprofessionally, or that failed to produce actionable recommendations. Black denoted investigations that had not yet been conducted.

The Turgeman investigation panel identified six main factors that led to the massacre, noting the lapses of the various military branches that contributed to the massacre. 

1. Conceptual failure – Conceptual gaps existed between the strategic and operational reality and the perception of reality concerning the Gaza Strip and the Hamas terror group.

2. Intelligence failure – Intelligence units and analysts failed to understand the reality of Hamas’ intentions, as well as the threat level, and failed to provide a warning. 

3. Lack of engagement with the “Jericho Wall” plan, which was a leaked Hamas plan to carry out an attack similar to the Oct. 7 invasion. 

4. An organizational and operational culture within the IDF marked by flawed patterns and norms that became entrenched over the years.

5. A significant and ongoing gap – at all levels of command and professional responsibility – between the threat and the operational response. 

6. Faulty decision-making and force employment processes the night before Oct. 7, 2023. 

The previous investigations were reviewed systematically, though the team did not reexamine each battle as earlier IDF inquiries had. Instead, the panel evaluated the IDF’s performance from a broad, integrative perspective.

As part of the investigation, there were no personal conclusions made against any individual military commander. Lt.-Gen. Zamir commented on the importance of the investigation’s findings for restoring public trust in the military. 

“Transparency is a necessary condition for the public's trust in the IDF. It is also a basic condition for our ability to improve,” Zamir stated. He emphasized the need for a broad, systemic investigation committee to be formed to reassess much of the material, but stopped short of calling for a state commission of inquiry. 

Zamir said the report “is a significant step toward comprehensive understanding, which we need as a society and as an institution.” 

“From the pain and from the battles we are fighting today, we will build resilience and renewal for the day after; from the breakdown we will ensure a more secure future for the people of Israel; and from the sense of responsibility we will continue to be an army that defends the state and guarantees its existence.”