Mairav Zonszein, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group, provides critical insights on Israeli politics. Mina Al-Oraibi, editor-in-chief of The National, shares her perspectives on the Middle East's response to the October 7th events. Former ambassadors Ilan Baruch and Alon Liel discuss the urgent need for a two-state solution and analyze Israel's challenges and strategies post-attacks. The conversation covers the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and highlights the complex geopolitical landscape affecting peace efforts.
The traumatic aftermath of Hamas's attack on October 7th deeply impacted Israeli society, igniting despair and a national crisis over hostages.
The shift in global sentiment from supporting Israel to emphasizing humanitarian concerns in Gaza reflects a growing anxiety about regional stability and future resolutions.
Deep dives
The Aftermath of October 7th
The events of October 7th marked a devastating turning point in Israeli history, as Hamas's large-scale attack led to the deaths of nearly 1,200 people and left many injured. The trauma experienced by Israelis was profound, with the attack striking close to home for many families, resulting in a national state of despair. In its response, Israel's military actions in Gaza were brutal, resulting in significant casualties on both sides and rendering over half of the buildings in the region damaged or destroyed. As a consequence, the global perspective shifted, moving from initial support for Israel to concern about the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, raising questions about the future and the potential for resolution.
Public Sentiment and Reflection
As the anniversary of the attack neared, Israeli public sentiment was mixed, with those impacted by the hostage crisis expressing deep despair over the lack of progress in negotiations for their loved ones' release. Many in this sector were reluctant to participate in state reflections, preferring action over commemoration. Conversely, segments of the Israeli population applauded military efforts, believing that a strong response was necessary to address what they view as existential threats from Hamas and Hezbollah. Overall, there was an underlying anxiety about how long the conflict would persist and when a sense of normalcy might return.
Leadership and Strategic Choices
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the conflict as one of existential importance, likening it to pivotal historical wars for Israel's survival. However, this military-first approach lacked diplomatic engagement and raised concerns over whether such a strategy could lead to long-term security or stability. Netanyahu’s administration showed a reluctance to heed international cautions against excessive military force, resulting in criticism both domestically and abroad. Observers noted that this approach was more about maintaining political control than achieving lasting peace or security within the region.
Regional and International Dynamics
The conflict has reshaped the dynamics between Arab states and Israel, with some nations now seemingly more focused on countering Iranian influence than on the Palestinian cause. While there is widespread public sympathy for Palestinians, Arab governments are grappling with balancing national interests and public outrage over the occupation and violence. Many believe that the continued conflict ultimately destabilizes the broader Middle East, emphasizing the need for a resolution to prevent further escalation and to stabilize regional relations. The past year has demonstrated that developments in Palestine reverberate across the region, complicating international efforts to mediate peace.
We look back on Hamas’s brutal attack, Israel’s deadly retaliation and the international community’s hopeless response. One year on, do we have any idea how this ends? Andrew Mueller speaks with Mairav Zonszein in Tel Aviv and Mina Al-Oraibi of ‘The National’ in Abu Dhabi. Plus: a roundtable with two former Israeli ambassadors and advocates of a two-state solution.