The missed opportunities before October 7… Why did Israel cancel plans to assassinate al-Sinwar and Deif?
The behind-the-scenes account of the missed opportunities prior to the October 7 attack reveals that Israel had decisive options to target Hamas leaders, yet chose not to carry them out.
This was disclosed in Israeli testimonies, according to the daily Yedioth Ahronoth, indicating that the motive was to “preserve calm in Gaza”.
The newspaper reports that an investigative committee headed by retired General Sami Turgeman received testimonies from senior Israeli military officers describing what they called “major missed opportunities” in the two years preceding the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
According to these accounts, the operational plans prepared by the Southern Command to target Hamas leaders Mohammed Deif and Yahya al-Sinwar were not executed, despite recommendations from high-ranking officers.
Former Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi had insisted on focusing on preparing for the northern front, while the Israeli political leadership repeatedly pressured the military to avoid any operations in Gaza during periods of calm.
Yahya Sinwar, whom Israel accuses of masterminding the October 7 attack, was killed in the same month in 2024.
Before his death, he served as head of the movement’s political bureau, succeeding Ismail Haniyeh, who was killed in Tehran in a strike attributed to Israel.
On 1 August last year, the Israeli army announced that Mohammed Deif, commander of the Qassam Brigades, the movement’s military wing, had been killed in an airstrike in Khan Yunis, in southern Gaza, on 13 July.
Internal disagreements over operations
A senior officer said the Southern Command had pushed not only for a limited operation targeting al-Sinwar and Deif, but also for a broader plan developed in early 2020, which included four phases:
– A surprise initiative aimed at killing Deif, al-Sinwar, and several Qassam Brigades commanders,
– Extensive airstrikes on Hamas military build-up sites.
– A series of air operations to destroy Hamas and Islamic Jihad positions,
– A limited ground maneuver involving three Israeli army brigades to clear rocket-launching areas.
Constraints and focus on the northern front
However, according to testimonies, the political leadership, headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was keen on keeping Hamas in power in Gaza to maintain stability and avoid direct administrative responsibility over the territory.
Some officers stated that the available opportunities were cancelled because Israel believed Hamas should remain weakened but functional.
By 2023, the army was focused on the threat posed by Hezbollah and Iran, including an infiltration incident from Lebanon in March, which prompted the government to pressure the military to maintain calm in Gaza “almost at any cost”.
Another senior officer provided a conflicting account, saying that during the first opportunity in May 2022, the Southern Command had recommended only the narrower plan to eliminate the two Hamas leaders.
According to that testimony, the idea originated from the Shin Bet after an attack that killed four Israelis.
A few days earlier, al-Sinwar had delivered what became known locally as the “axe speech”, urging Palestinians to use any available weapon to kill Israelis.
The proposal was rejected, the officers said, due to Israel’s long-standing assumption that Hamas should remain weakened but intact in Gaza, and that the West Bank and Gaza should not be linked operationally.
The cancelled operation
According to the officers’ testimonies, the cancelled operation involved coordinated air missions and the elimination of mid-level commanders, without aiming to fully eradicate Hamas.
The planned duration of the operation was roughly two weeks, with the army preparing for the possibility of a multi-front confrontation afterward, taking into account Iron Dome missile-defense capabilities and potential casualties.
The army confirmed that the matter had been discussed before the Turgeman Committee, while noting that the committee does not have the authority to issue final conclusions on the decision.
