A Share of the Blame
The purpose of this article is to examine the external pressures and narratives that contributed to the weakening of Israel’s defences.

The October 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas exposed the stark divide in global reactions. For those with a functioning moral compass, the calculated brutality and devastating impact were shocking and unequivocally condemned. Appallingly, however, others applauded the savagery, blamed the victims, and justified the atrocities as a response to Israel’s existence. Beyond the immediate horrors, systemic vulnerabilities and unheeded warnings contributed to the tragedy. Among these factors was the influence of international criticism—voiced by prominent leaders, the United Nations, and international organisations—which, in my assessment, undermined critical security measures and created weaknesses ruthlessly exploited by Hamas.
The purpose of this article is to examine the external pressures and narratives that contributed to the weakening of Israel’s defences, resulting in one of the most devastating days in its history. It aims to highlight the dangerous consequences of compromising security for political optics, challenge the misguided narratives that have shaped global discourse, and call for greater accountability among international actors whose actions and rhetoric exacerbated Israel’s vulnerabilities.
An Inquiry Awaits
Israel is expected to conduct a comprehensive inquiry akin to the Winograd Commission following the 2006 Lebanon War. Accountability will likely extend to senior officials, including the defence minister, IDF chief, southern commander, and intelligence leaders, with ultimate responsibility resting on the prime minister. While internal failures will rightly be scrutinised, this article focuses on external pressures from foreign leaders and transnational organisations. These external actors, while likely evading formal scrutiny, in my judgment bear a share of the blame for creating an environment that encouraged detrimental policy shifts and exposed critical vulnerabilities.
The Security Barrier
Humanity often succumbs to the delusion that barriers, once built, are impenetrable. History proves otherwise. The Maginot Line, France’s vaunted defensive system against Germany, was bypassed in 1940 when German forces invaded through Belgium. Similarly, Israel’s Bar Lev Line along the Suez Canal was breached during the 1973 Yom Kippur War when Egyptian forces ingeniously used water cannons to erode its sand berms. These examples starkly illustrate the limitations of static defences against determined and adaptive adversaries.
Yet, something had to be constructed between the peace-desiring citizens of southern Israel and the psychopaths in Hamas, scheming for Israel’s destruction mere metres from Israeli population centres. With neighbouring Egypt and Jordan steadfastly refusing to integrate Gaza’s population, Israel had no choice but to erect the most robust barrier that international scrutiny would permit.
Stretching approximately 65 kilometres from Kerem Shalom Kibbutz near the Egyptian border to Zikim Kibbutz on the Mediterranean coast, the Gaza security barrier was a multi-layered defence. Below ground, it comprised a concrete wall tens of metres—exact depth is sensitive—deep, equipped with advanced sensors to detect tunnelling—specifically countering Hamas’s use of subterranean infiltration. Above ground, a steel barrier added an additional layer of protection. Built at an estimated cost of $1.1 billion, the barrier became a cornerstone of Israel’s defence strategy, bolstered by cameras, sensors, and optics in an attempt to provide protection at reduced manpower cost.
Despite its necessity, the barrier faced relentless international criticism. United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres described Gaza as “a living hell for millions.” Former UK Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn called it an “open-air prison,” condemning Israel’s measures as “collective punishment.” Shimon Peres countered these narratives, stating, “We must be vigilant, for our survival depends on it.” Richard Kemp added, “Israel’s security measures are a response to threats, not a cause of them.”
Retrospective Coherence
Compromising security in the hope of achieving a better tomorrow is a perilous gamble, and history offers little evidence that concessions to adversaries yield enduring goodwill. This misguided notion shaped both the design of the Gaza barrier and subsequent policies that created critical vulnerabilities.
The Gaza barrier’s steel structure contrasts starkly with the robust West Bank barrier. Designed to prevent terror attacks during the Second Intifada, the West Bank barrier features prefabricated concrete walls up to 8 metres (26 feet) high, trenches, and electronic fences. This barrier successfully reduced attacks originating from the West Bank by over 90%, yet it faced global condemnation, with critics labelling it a “wall of segregation.”
As John F. Kennedy once said of the Berlin Wall, “A wall is better than a war.” In Israel’s case, a stronger Gaza barrier might have averted the massacre of circa 1,200 Israelis. However, international pressure for leniency shaped the Gaza barrier’s design, leaving it more vulnerable.
Calls to improve the “optics” of Israeli policies also led to decisions that introduced critical security risks. In the months preceding October 2023, Israel increased the number of Gazans permitted to work in the country from 14,000 to 20,000. While the move aimed to alleviate Gaza’s economic hardship, it also provided Hamas with insider access that enabled precision planning for the October 7 attack.
The Events of October 7, 2023
At 6:30 a.m., Hamas launched over 5,000 rockets toward Israeli towns, forcing civilians to seek shelter. This barrage served as a prelude to a coordinated and multi-pronged assault. Reports indicate that Hamas breached the Gaza barrier at 22 locations, employing explosives, heavy machinery, and motorbikes to penetrate Israel’s defences. Additionally, paragliders infiltrated kibbutzim, including Kfar Aza, where they executed a meticulously planned and devastating attack.
Insider knowledge—likely obtained from Gazan workers—enabled terrorists to target vulnerabilities. They seized armouries early, exploiting a government decree requiring weapons to be stored centrally. Defenceless civilians were ambushed, tortured, and murdered in atrocities that defy comprehension.
A Moment for Accountability
Since October 7, 2023, the existential threat faced by Israel has become impossible to ignore. Under such circumstances, the condemnation of international voices—including the United Nations and activist organisations—becomes little more than white noise. As Israel rebuilds, it must reject external pressures that prioritise optics over security.
“A bad headline is better than a good eulogy,” as the saying goes. Israel must prioritise its citizens’ safety over appeasing critics. Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on Palestinian Rights, epitomises toxic narratives by equating Israel’s security measures with oppression while ignoring Hamas’s actions. Such rhetoric fosters a worldview detached from reality and responsibility.
Moving Forward
The October 7 attack underscores that security cannot be compromised for appeasement or political correctness. Israeli policies, often criticised as harsh, are life-saving measures for a nation under constant threat.
As Winston Churchill warned, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.” The cost of appeasement has been measured in lives lost, communities devastated, and national security undermined.
The international community must confront its role in shaping the vulnerabilities exploited by Hamas and unequivocally support Israel’s right to self-defence. Failing to do so risks allowing external actors who materially contributed to the massacre of innocent men, women, and children to escape accountability and culpability—an injustice that would compound the horrors of October 7 and set a dangerous precedent for the future.
Michael Scott CSC is the CEO and Founder of the 2023 Foundation, a charity focused on combating antisemitism and fostering peaceful coexistence.
The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not reflect the positions of the Australian Defence Force or the Commonwealth Government of Australia.
comments