"Hamas" Between Glorification, Criticism, and Accusation... October 7th in the Balance of Opinion and Assessment

Since Netanyahu's government launched the war of extermination on the Gaza Strip following the Al-Aqsa Flood battle, waves of analysis and debate have not stopped regarding what happened on October 7th. Observers were divided between those who saw the operation as a strategic step that turned the international scene upside down, and those who considered it an ill-considered adventure that opened the door wide to an unprecedented devastating war.
For the supporting team, the operation came as a natural response to the marginalization of the Palestinian issue in recent years, in light of the spread of settlements in the West Bank, and the settlers' encroachment on the lives, farms, and lands of the Palestinians, amid a clear inability of the Palestinian Authority to protect the population and stop settlement. These also saw that the long siege on Gaza, and the accompanying international and Israeli attempts to isolate Hamas politically, prompted the movement to a "strategic shake" that restores the issue to its central presence in global awareness.
In this context, Palestinian researcher M. Badr Nirokh says that the operation "came after years of trying to dilute the Palestinian issue, and it succeeded in redefining the conflict before global public opinion." As for Jordanian journalist Yasser Al-Zaatreh, he considered that "October 7th demolished the Israeli wall of illusion and revealed the fragility of its deterrence, and the subsequent international interactions showed that the issue is still alive despite attempts to obliterate it."
American researcher Norman Finkelstein adds that "what happened on October 7th was not just a security event, but an explosive moment that revealed the amount of anger accumulated under the rubble of the siege," while British researcher Helena Cobban wrote that "Israel won on the field, but it lost in the global street; and this is a transformation that Tel Aviv may find difficult to contain."
In the same context comes the opinion of academic researcher Dr. Walid Abdel-Hai, who believes that what happened "was not separate from the historical context of the conflict, but a natural result of a long accumulation of blockage of the political path, erosion of Israeli deterrence, and the occupation's ease of assaulting Palestinians under the assumption that their response would be limited." He adds that "the attack constituted an attempt to break the pattern of managing the conflict, and restore balance through a strategic shock that reopens the questions that Israel tried to close by force."
In the opinion of the supporters, the major demonstrations that swept through the cities of Europe and America, and the accompanying demands for recognition of the Palestinian state and the cessation of genocide, confirm that the battle was not only military, but was a battle over the narrative and global awareness.
In contrast, the criticizing team - and I am one of them - raises a number of objections regarding the timing, form, and consequences of the decision, as these see that the operation was not taken within the framework of a national consensus, and that the Palestinian division made the arena fragile and unqualified for an event of this magnitude. They also considered that the movement did not properly read the Israeli and international reaction, and that it ignored the fragility of the Arab position, which remained mostly "silent or hesitant," as one Saudi analyst wrote.
As for Palestinian politician Hanan Ashrawi, she saw that "the operation placed Gaza in the face of an open war without Arab or international political cover, and other options could have been considered that are less costly humanly." While Lebanese writer Sateh Nour El-Din said that "October 7th was a huge dramatic act, but it opened the way for Israel to market the war of extermination as a defense of existence."
Other Western analyses go to a similar conclusion. The Israeli left-wing analyst Gideon Levy wrote that "what happened was the result of seventy years of occupation, but it also gave the Israeli right the opportunity to pass its most dangerous project against the Palestinians." As for the American researcher Mark Langfan, he considered that "the operation enabled the extremist right in Israel to rally the West behind its narrative, and provided cover for policies of displacement and destruction."
These fears have been reinforced with the emergence of the extremist Israeli right-wing discourse, especially what was put forward by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich in what he calls the "decisive plan," which is based on forcing the Palestinians to choose between full submission to Israel's sovereignty, or forced migration, or confrontation that will end with their political demise. This discourse, which has begun to permeate the institutions of government, has raised a real fear of mass deportation scenarios, especially with calls from some right-wing leaders to empty Gaza and push its residents towards Sinai. Analysts believe that these threats were one of the factors that prompted Hamas to try to shuffle the cards before irreversible facts are imposed on Gaza, considering that ignoring this path may open the door to an existential project that threatens all Palestinians.
Between the two opinions, the question remains open about the results and repercussions. The first team believes that what happened revealed to the world the extent of the injustice inflicted on the Palestinians, and may open the door to rebuilding a new political vision with unprecedented global popular pressure. While the second team believes that Gaza has paid—and is still paying—a heavy price because of a decision that did not receive Palestinian consensus, and that the magnitude of the humanitarian disaster will leave long scars on awareness and the future of the issue.
The moment of October 7th has re-raised the major questions: Was what happened a necessity imposed by the blockage of the horizon? Or was it a premature and ill-considered step? And will this moment lead to a new political path, or will it remain an open wound in Palestinian and Arab memory?
Between those who describe it as a "battle whose strategic results will appear after years,” and those who see it as a "serious error in calculations and timing," the event remains part of a long path in the open confrontation with the occupation. What the Palestinians need today is a courageous and careful reading of this station, away from glorification and accusation, and with an awareness built on experience and the data of reality, so that mistakes are not repeated and the compass is lost amidst the noise of events, and paths of wandering, blood, and displacement.