October seventh in the circle of reading and analysis: between those who boast and those who accuse!

Anyone who reads what has been written about "October 7" by thinkers, writers, and analysts both inside and outside will notice wide disparities and striking contradictions in evaluating the event and its effects. Some see what happened as a strategic shift in the course of the conflict, while others consider it a catastrophic mistake that has brought Gaza to a level of suffering beyond human endurance. Between the two sides of the debate stands a third voice that tries to view the scene without emotion, realizing that the truth – in the end – does not belong to one party alone.

The supportive current sees that October 7 has brought the Palestinian cause back to the center of global attention and revealed the true face of the Zionist project. Academic Dr. Samer Khalil states: "For the first time in decades, the Zionist certainty has been shaken, and the Palestinian has regained some of the initiative." Palestinian writer in exile A. Raed Awad believes that the operation was a "moment of breaking the global silence," adding: "If it weren't for the flood of Al-Aqsa, millions would not have taken to the streets in Western capitals to expose the Israeli genocide."

For these individuals, the wave of international solidarity and the rapid decisions taken by significant Western countries to recognize the Palestinian state or restrict military cooperation with Israel confirm that a tangible shift has occurred. They also view the resilience of the resistance in the face of the Israeli war machine for more than two years as evidence of a change in the balance of power, even if partially.

On the other hand, the critical current holds Hamas responsible for what happened, considering that October 7 provided the Israeli right with the perfect pretext to launch a genocide against Gaza. Palestinian thinker Dr. Adnan Dahbour states: "Gaza was pushed into an unequal war, and civilians found themselves fuel for a battle whose costs were not calculated." Political analyst Dr. Mona Abdel Razek sees the humanitarian and political repercussions as "huge and unjustifiable," adding: "What happened has set the sector back years, leaving people without homes or a political horizon."

Proponents of this view remind that the sector has turned to rubble, that thousands of bodies remain under the debris, and that residential, service, health, and educational infrastructures have been destroyed in an unprecedented manner, while more than two million people have been subjected to harsh displacement that has stripped them of safety and dignity. They criticize what they see as a "strategic recklessness" that overlooked the balance of power and the occupation's ability to commit massacres without accountability.

What complicates the scene further is that Arab visual media have become arenas for circulating these debates, each according to its agenda and the interests of the supporting party, which naturally reflects on the type of guests and, consequently, on the narrative presented to the public. While some channels lean towards a discourse of heroism and resilience, others favor a discourse of responsibility, cost, and consequences, without either approaching a complete picture.

Between the two sides, a third voice emerges that attempts to reconcile the two readings without falling into the trap of justification or schadenfreude. Palestinian journalist A. Laith Nasser states: "Between those who boast and those who accuse, the truth gets lost; the operation revealed the fragility of the Zionist project, but it dragged the Gaza Strip into a tragedy that cannot be ignored." He clarifies that a final judgment cannot be made before the picture of "the day after" and its arrangements becomes clear, whether in terms of the occupation's continuation, the imposition of international guardianship, or the emergence of a completely different political reality.

In short, the final word will remain suspended, and a generation of the children of this second Nakba will come to re-read what we write today, and they may see in it much emotion, inadequacy, or inability to foresee the consequences. Every generation writes its history from the perspective of its experience, not from the perspective of its wishes.