A year ago, Hamas launched a series of attacks that bloodied Israel, resulting in over 1,200 deaths, mostly civilians, and 251 hostages, nearly a hundred of whom are still in the hands of the terrorist group or have been killed in Gaza. These attacks constitute an unprecedented shock for Israeli society.
Hamas had previously disrupted the Oslo Accords. At that time, there were two types of opponents to these accords: Israeli right and far-right factions and Hamas, which, through numerous attacks, weakened the peace camp and diminished Israeli confidence in a negotiated process. For a long time, Hamas has sought to render the Palestinian cause inaudible and unacceptable to Israelis. It reiterated this on October 7, 2023, with attacks that cannot be viewed as acts of resistance against Israel, as the majority of the victims were civilians.
However, questioning the immense responsibility of Hamas does not deny that of Benjamin Netanyahu, which is manifold. First, he has favored Hamas, as extensively documented. He believed that to oppose the creation of a Palestinian state, Hamas should be supported as a competitor to the Palestinian Authority and Fatah. Shortly before October 7, he withdrew Israeli army battalions from Gaza to reinforce those in the West Bank, who were committing numerous abuses against Palestinian civilians. It was also he who brought two extremist parties into the government coalition, whose representatives once called for Rabin’s assassination. Thus, it is Benjamin Netanyahu who made any political perspective for Palestinians impossible, which indirectly benefited Hamas.
One year after October 7, Israeli society appears to be enduring lasting trauma, failing to see the suffering of the Palestinian people. This date also marks the anniversary of the Israeli military response in Gaza, while Palestinian civilian casualties have reached at least 41,000, along with nearly 100,000 injured and maimed. This toll is likely to be much higher when factoring in victims still under the rubble from bombings or who have died from their injuries.
In this context, hatred is escalating on both sides. It has increased due to Hamas’s attacks and Israel’s disproportionate response. In the aftermath of October 7, Joe Biden warned Israel not to repeat the mistakes made by the United States after September 11. The Netanyahu government did not heed these warnings, and the Israeli military, which knows how to conduct targeted eliminations, reacted massively. Although international support for Israel after October 7 was nearly unanimous, it is beginning to erode, similar to how support for the American cause, once almost unanimous after September 11, collapsed after the Iraq War, to say nothing of Guantanamo Bay and various atrocities committed by the American military.
Israel is retaliating in Gaza, the West Bank, and now Lebanon—with a potential eye on Iran. The force being deployed is colossal, and it is clear that for Israeli politicians, led by Netanyahu, only strength matters to restore security. However, history and current events have shown that this policy of force is a dead end, and worse, it increases the risks to Israel’s security since the use of force has never brought about security; on the contrary, history—especially in Lebanon and Gaza—demonstrates that intervention after intervention, Israel’s military victories are not accompanied by political victories, and opposition—including armed—as well as Hamas, re-formed after Hezbollah’s defeat. As long as there is no political perspective, this reality will persist.
In this strategy of force, Israel has two options. It could expel all Palestinians from Gaza, which would necessarily constitute a crime against humanity and would be difficult to support and accept for Israel’s closest allies. Alternatively, Israel may be forced to continue regular operations against the Palestinian population, which is also a crime against humanity and will only fuel the cycle of hate and violence, as Hamas will continue to reconstitute itself among the Palestinian population.
What is happening in Gaza now? Life is unbearable. There are no more infrastructures, healthcare or education systems. Palestinians are still forced to move within this small strip of land to escape bombings, all without any prospects and with the constant threat of dying from an Israeli strike.
The absence of a political perspective results from the fact that neither of the main actors—the Netanyahu government on one side and Hamas on the other—supports peace, nor do any of the external actors effectively influence these protagonists.
Arab countries are silent observers. Besides a few empty and unnecessary statements supporting the Palestinian cause, they exert little to no influence on the situation. Some have signed normalization agreements with Israel that they do not challenge. Others have more or less official agreements. The most vocal countries do not initiate any actions that could effect change on the situation.
The United States has shown its impotence over the past year. Joe Biden is paralyzed and does not want to jeopardize his reelection, now also Kamala Harris’s election, by engaging more in resolving this conflict. Donald Trump inflames the situation by urging Israel to respond even more aggressively, but he is not in power. In reality, almost none of the American demands have been met or accepted by Israel, while the U.S. continues to send arms to Israel, even as it calls for a ceasefire. The American superpower has had a very limited influence on the conflict. Meanwhile, France is similarly vocal yet completely absent in terms of real effects. The days when France was listened to in the region are long gone. By pursuing several contradictory objectives and trying to balance competing interests, France has rendered itself inaudible in the region. The European Union displays its contradictions, as can be seen in its votes in the United Nations—where member states systematically split between abstention, favorable votes, and opposing votes. Some countries align solely with the United States. Germany remains particularly traumatized by the memory of the Holocaust and its responsibilities. France is now less assertive on the topic. As a result, there is no longer a leading country at the European Union level. Although Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia have recognized Palestine over the past year, they do not have enough weight to create a movement.
In this context, countries of the Global South are indignant. While the memory of the Holocaust is central to the Western world, for them, the memory of colonization and colonialism is paramount. These countries see the Palestinian situation as a reflection of a colonial situation. They are outraged by the massive bombings of the Palestinian population, especially given the double standards of Western countries, which condemn the bombings of civilians in Ukraine by Russia very strongly and demand sanctions against Russia (which has been excluded from the Olympics), yet do nothing regarding Israel’s actions against Palestinian civilians. There is thus anger and indignation in many Global South countries concerning what appears to be hypocrisy from the Western world, which is thereby losing its moral credibility.
Meanwhile, Beijing and Moscow are opportunistically reaping the benefits, as the Palestinian cause is not a significant driver of their diplomacy. Russia fuels the double standards narrative, noting that it is condemned for bombing Ukraine while the West remains silent on Israel. China also seeks to make gains by calling for a ceasefire in both Ukraine and the Middle East while emphasizing the responsibility of the United States in both conflicts since it is supplying arms to both Ukraine and Israel. Here again, China finds a way to gain the upper hand in its rivalry with the U.S. for global supremacy.
One year after the October 7 attacks, force prevails everywhere. This policy of force was already that of the United States in Iraq; it has led to intervention in Libya, wars in Sudan, the DRC, and Russia’s aggression against Ukraine… In this context, each party observing the other decides that it becomes acceptable to resort to force. In a world regulated by military power, international law is in retreat.
The only glimmer of hope is the potential progress of international criminal justice. For the first time, the Prosecutor of the ICC has requested the indictment of rival leaders from the West, two Israeli leaders, and Hamas leaders, treating them equally. This has outraged many, denouncing the placing of representatives of a democratic country on par with those of a terrorist group. Regarding international justice, the governance of these leaders does not matter; it is their actions that are judged. In either case, they are accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity. While there is debate over qualifying Israeli attacks on the Gaza population as genocide, it should be noted that the 1948 convention provides for the “prevention of genocide.” Through this potential indictment, the International Criminal Court stands out, and the only positive perspective in the current context could be the penalization of the illegal behavior of certain leaders—not only from African countries or rivals of the West. The fact that it is South Africa that has brought the legal battle concerning crimes committed by the Israeli army before the International Court of Justice is a central element that again undermines the credibility of Western countries which, for years, have asserted that law should govern international relations, yet they accept its violation while only protesting in a purely platonic manner.
One year after October 7, positive prospects are slim. The situation may worsen in the Middle East as the conflict spreads to Lebanon and threatens to extend to Iran. Destabilizations, bombings, and ultimately deaths are likely to continue accumulating, as each actor has entered the bombing strategy as a means to preserve its own credibility, believing that only force can achieve its political goals. Once more, history demonstrates that such a strategy is counterproductive. We may find ourselves asking why we have not been vigilant enough to genuinely act to end such an escalation by utilizing effective means of pressure that no one seems willing to employ at present.
