1
One thing that states hate to lose is the monopoly on violence. The best way to prevent (overwhelming) violence that will imminently arise in bourgeois states is to scare the larger class into submission or win it over with concessions. Narratives like "knowing" about Oct. 7 can be used to scare people who would otherwise join resistance groups away from doing so. Not so easy to see in this case, but it's more clear when looking at how certain people cast the CIA and the NSA as all-powerful and all-knowing. Even the detractors of the alphabet agencies sometimes end up reinforcing this narrative. It's true that they do possess a wide variety of resources, but they are still made up of humans and will never be perfect. My point is that yes it could be used to make someone look malicious or incompetent (by their detractors), but it can also reinforce the "invincibility" or a "precognition" narrative that will be later used to dissuade resistance (by supporters or by detractors).
I think what OP wants to say is that maybe they never suspected a thing or maybe it was brought up as a point in some morning standup meeting in the IOF that the "filthy hamases are plotting something" and everyone ignored it. One thing is clear: the attack was not planned by Israel, and they did not have perfect knowledge of it - and those that repeat that last line are clearly coping.
Joen Guaiden