Global Stances on the Hamas Attacks on Israel
Council of Council (CoC) experts from different countries like Saudi Arabia, Germany, China, and Italy, talked about the unexpected attack by Gaza militants on Israel that happened on October 7. They discussed what this means for the local area and the entire world, and they also shared some ideas for how to handle or stop the conflict.
Stances on the Hamas Attacks on Israel From CoC Experts
We Cannot Ignore the Palestinian Issue Anymore
Abdulaziz Sager
The ongoing clashes between Hamas and Israel, as well as the reactions they’ve triggered, highlight the enduring importance of the Palestinian problem in the overall security of the Middle East. Despite numerous international efforts to sideline this issue and neglect the peace process, the world shares some responsibility for turning a blind eye to the ongoing Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.
Hamas has achieved a significant win by exposing Israel’s vulnerabilities, increasing the risk of more violence and instability on both sides. Hamas has effectively pushed aside the Palestine Liberation Organization, and its challenge to Israel’s legitimacy doesn’t offer an alternative way forward.
Similarly, the current Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government is the most right-wing and extreme in its history, displaying a complete disregard for legitimate Palestinian rights and an unwillingness to compromise for a fair and peaceful resolution.
All of the above poses a threat to the recent de-escalation efforts seen in the Middle East, from the signing of the Abraham Accords to the improving relations between Saudi Arabia, other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) states, and Iran, as well as progress in resolving conflicts in Syria and Yemen.
While Saudi Arabia has been engaged in extensive discussions about potentially normalizing relations with Israel, the likelihood of these talks bearing fruit in the near future is now very low.
Continued escalation and a cycle of retaliation won’t benefit anyone. Heightened instability endangers not only the wider Middle East but also has global implications. What is needed now is a multifaceted, two-pronged approach.
First, national governments and international organizations should make coordinated efforts and utilize all their communication channels to prevent the situation from getting worse and involving other parties. A broader conflict in the Middle East must be avoided.
Additionally, all mediation resources should be activated to defuse the situation, secure the release of hostages, and prevent a complete blockade of the Gaza Strip. In this regard, the GCC states are ready to play their part.
Second, groundwork should be laid for genuine negotiations on the Palestinian issue. This involves effective international efforts to bring all parties to the negotiating table, alongside strong support for regional initiatives to break the cycle of violence.
The Arab Peace Initiative should finally be given the consideration it deserves as a starting point for forging a path towards peace. Comprehensive peace can’t be imposed but must ultimately come from within. The Arab Peace Initiative is a crucial component in this regard and underscores Saudi Arabia’s commitment to the two-state solution as a moderate and rational approach to the crisis.
Mitigating Ripple Effects and Embracing Our Humanitarian Duties in the Region
The surprise attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7, using land, air, and sea forces, has been a deeply shocking event for Israel. The infiltration of hundreds of fighters into cities, communal settlements known as kibbutzim, and military sites, the destruction and seizure of military equipment, the gruesome mass killing of Israeli civilians, and the hostage-taking of up to 150 Israeli civilians and soldiers have shattered Israel’s perception of military dominance and invincibility.
Operation Al-Aqsa Flood has garnered widespread celebration on social media and in the streets, extending beyond the Arab world.
The United States and most European capitals have unequivocally aligned themselves with Israel, emphasizing the need for retaliation and military triumph. While this stance is understandable in light of the heinous acts of terrorism and war crimes committed by Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, third parties should now primarily focus on averting further regional conflict.
They should also take their humanitarian responsibilities seriously by insisting that all parties adhere to international humanitarian law. In this pursuit, third parties, such as the United States, should concentrate on negotiating humanitarian passages to allow Gazan civilians to escape the violence, ensuring humanitarian access for the delivery of drinking water, food, medical supplies, and fuel, and exploring the roles various actors can play in the effort to secure the release of hostages.
In response to Hamas’s attacks, the European Union and several EU member states have announced a review of their assistance to the Palestinians. When doing so, they should consider that Gazans not only heavily rely on humanitarian aid but also that development cooperation, especially in the water and wastewater sector, is crucial for sustaining livelihoods.
Furthermore, they should be mindful of the unintended consequences of aid reductions that could further undermine entities that serve as counterweights to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, such as the Palestinian Authority and a thriving Palestinian civil society.
Lastly, the important lesson learned from many conflict zones—that eradicating terrorism cannot be achieved through military means alone—should not be overlooked. American, European, and Arab governments should immediately start contemplating what a sustainable post-war stabilization plan could entail, one that provides an alternative for Gazans, in particular, and addresses the broader Palestinian issue.
Urgent Call for Major International and Regional Players to Promote De-escalation
Jin Liangxiang
Senior Fellow of Middle East Studies, Shanghai Institutes for International Studies (China)
The latest Israeli-Palestinian conflict will have significant consequences in several ways.
First, the growing tensions will introduce new uncertainties into the regional peace that has been developing in recent years, especially with the Abraham Accords reaching its peak in 2023. These uncertainties will test the stability of the region.
Second, the Palestinian matter will gain greater importance in regional discussions and might become a central focus in the short term, potentially leading to the deprioritization of other issues.
Third, the conflict could force Israel to reevaluate its long-standing strategy of relying on military superiority while neglecting a political resolution to the underlying issues. If Israel does reconsider its approach, it could lead to a more positive shift in the long-term Israeli-Palestinian relationship.
I see two possible scenarios for the future. First, a gradual de-escalation resulting from rational decisions by the conflicting parties and external pressure. Given the significant gap in military capabilities, the military aspect of the conflict may end relatively quickly, with Israel occupying significant portions of Palestinian territory. However, negotiations on the exchange of hostages, prisoners, and other critical issues may continue.
Second, the crisis could escalate and spill over into the broader region. If the parties involved do not refrain from retaliatory actions, if other regional states become involved, and if external actors do not actively push for de-escalation and peace, the conflict could become much more serious.
Major international and regional actors should work towards the first scenario, driven by genuine concerns for human rights and real peace. Global powers should collaborate to pressure the involved parties to avoid actions that worsen tensions. Instead of exacerbating the situation, the primary focus should be on extinguishing the flames.
The United States, in particular, could use its influence to encourage Israel to act rationally, while regional actors could help restrain subregional players. China could also play a more significant role in mediating between the various parties.
Unfortunately, the conflict is trending toward the second scenario, as some major external actors are using the tragedy for their geopolitical interests rather than advocating for peace. Despite political support from Iran, there is no concrete evidence linking Iran to Hamas’s Al-Aqsa Flood operation. Deliberately making such a connection will only add unnecessary instability to the conflict.
Israeli Arms Will Not Generate Security and Peace
Ever since Hamas initiated the Al-Aqsa Flood operation against Israel last Saturday, violence has reached deeply troubling levels. The attacks have resulted in the deaths of over 1,300 Israelis, with Israel’s retaliatory strikes claiming the lives of more than 1,400 Palestinians. With a significant military presence amassing near the Gaza Strip, it appears that Israel is intent on escalating the conflict through ground operations.
The possibility of direct clashes with the Lebanese armed group Hezbollah along Israel’s northern border cannot be ignored. Furthermore, incidents of violence against Palestinians in the West Bank have been increasing since the events of last Saturday. The situation could worsen as the Israeli government is planning to provide civilian units with thousands of assault rifles.
Foreign stakeholders, including the United States, the European Union, and Egypt, which have previously engaged in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as Saudi Arabia, which recently discussed normalization and detente with Israel, are now confronted with an issue that has often been overlooked when working towards Middle East peace: the colonization and continued occupation of Palestinian lands.
This context is a persistent source of radicalization within Palestinian militant groups like Hamas. These underlying factors hinder the creation of conditions conducive to justice and security for both Israelis and Palestinians.
Any international effort that disregards this undeniable reality is ultimately futile. This applies to the Oslo Accords, which were based on the power imbalance between Israelis and Palestinians, as well as U.S. and EU peace initiatives (such as the Middle East Peace Process and Peace Day Effort, respectively).
In this context, the swift responses from European countries and institutions, which have contributed to punitive actions against Palestinians in Gaza and initially threatened the suspension of aid, raise urgent questions about the deficiencies and biases inherent in the existing framing and resulting policies.
It is shortsighted for foreign stakeholders to believe that the eventual removal of Hamas from Gaza, a stance currently supported by the United States and European countries advocating for Israel’s right to self-defense, could prevent future Palestinian violence against Israel.
In the aftermath of recent violence, shifting away from the long-standing policy of non-engagement with Hamas may appear politically challenging for the United States and the European Union. However, the complex interaction between oppressive Israeli policies against Palestinians and the surge in military actions by Palestinian militants is undeniably clear.
The events of last Saturday provide the most compelling evidence that security—and eventually peace—will not be achieved through Israeli military force, but only through sound diplomacy and the political courage to connect Israel’s security to ending the decades-old occupation and the violation of the basic human rights of millions of Palestinians.
In the short term, the path to achieving this may not be easy for foreign stakeholders with an interest in a stable Middle East. Nevertheless, it could begin with the abandonment of moral relativism, the support of humanitarian and development aid, and the call for the protection of civilians and the upholding of international law in both Israel and Palestine.
