TV7 Israel News – “Sword of Iron”: Israel at War – UPDATE 07.10.23

Israel Under Attack: A Multi-Front War

Israel is under attack by Hamas, suffering a significant surprise assault involving widespread rocket fire and ground incursions. The attack’s scale and brutality have shocked the nation, raising questions about intelligence failures and military preparedness. Experts discuss the multifaceted challenges facing Israel, including the need for a robust response, the handling of numerous hostages, and the potential for wider regional conflict. The conversation also explores the international response, particularly from the United States, and the political ramifications within Israel. The discussion emphasizes the uncertainty and complexity of the evolving situation.

Israel’s 2023 War: A Study Guide

Crisis in Israel: A Study Guide

Quiz

Answer each question in 2-3 sentences.

1. What event is the broadcast marking the 50th anniversary of?
2. What are the three key goals of the Hamas attack, as stated in the broadcast?
3. According to General Gilad Kohn, what is the main idea of a defensive operation that is more important than intelligence?
4. How did Colonel Ren Ben Shalom say that international allies were supporting Israel?
5. What was the initial response of the US government, as mentioned in the broadcast?
6. According to General Gavish, how many rockets had been fired at Israel within the first 12 hours of the attack?
7. What is the risk that Colonel Ren Ben Shalom mentions regarding the “hourglass of legitimacy” during wartime?
8. According to General Hin, what analogy is drawn to explain Israel’s response to the attack?
9. What does Colonel Ben Shalom say about Hamas and Iran?
10. According to the broadcast, what is one of the most challenging aspects for Israel as mentioned by Colonel Ben Shalom?

Answer Key

1. The broadcast is marking the 50th anniversary of the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which is described as the worst intelligence failure in Israel’s history. The broadcast reflects on lessons learned from the 1973 war.
2. The three key goals of the Hamas attack were to murder as many Israeli civilians and troops as possible, to kidnap if possible, and to destroy anything in their path.
3. The main idea of a defensive operation, according to General Kohn, is that troops should be prepared in a basic position to be ready for a surprise attack, regardless of any intelligence alert. It’s more about preparedness than relying on intelligence.
4. Colonel Ben Shalom noted that allies were showing support by stating that Israel has the right to defend itself and by offering material support. He said such support is critical for morale and for the means to conduct the necessary campaign.
5. The US government quickly voiced strong support for Israel, publicly stating that they would ensure Israel has the means to defend itself and threatened Hamas and other proxies not to join the fight. They also pledged eight billion in financial support.
6. General Gavish stated that approximately 3,000 rockets had been fired at Israel in less than 12 hours. To provide context, he compared this number to the 4,000 rockets fired during the entire month of the 2006 conflict with Hezbollah.
7. Colonel Ben Shalom explains that the “Hourglass of Legitimacy” starts draining quickly during wartime. He emphasizes the importance of working with international allies to maintain support, as offensive actions could cause the support to drain.
8. General Hin analogizes Israel’s need to achieve decisive victory to the American response to Pearl Harbor, suggesting an absolute dedication to achieving a decisive victory. This implies the need for an unconditional surrender from Hamas.
9. Colonel Ben Shalom says that Hamas is not a direct proxy of Iran that is turned on and off, but that the relationship is more complex. He says all of the entities in the region act on their own interests.
10. One of the most challenging aspects for Israel is the number of hostages and prisoners of war held in Gaza. The strategic implications of this situation could affect how Israel conducts its military campaign, including how it uses weapons.

Essay Questions

1. Analyze the key intelligence and strategic failures that led to the Hamas attack, drawing parallels and differences to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. How do these failures impact Israel’s response to the current conflict?
2. Discuss the significance of international support for Israel in this conflict. How does this support influence Israel’s strategic and military decisions?
3. Compare and contrast the different strategic perspectives offered by the panel, focusing on the balance between military actions, long-term goals, and international law/morality.
4. Examine the potential for a multi-front war, considering the involvement of Hezbollah, Iran, and other regional actors. How might these dynamics further complicate Israel’s military response?
5. Discuss the strategic implications of the hostage situation in Gaza, particularly in the long-term. How does this hostage situation affect Israel’s operational plans and future strategies?

Glossary

IDF: Israeli Defense Forces, the military forces of the State of Israel.

Hamas: A Palestinian Sunni-Islamist fundamentalist organization. It is considered a terrorist organization by several countries, including the US and the UK.

Yom Kippur War: A war fought by Israel and a coalition of Arab states in 1973, also called the October War.

Iron Dome: An Israeli mobile all-weather air defense system designed to intercept short-range rockets and artillery shells.

Gaza Strip: A self-governing Palestinian territory on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea, often referred to in the broadcast as “the geodist infested terror Enclave”.

Hezbollah: A Shia Islamist political party and militant group based in Lebanon. They have been a proxy of Iran.

Multisector War: A conflict involving multiple fronts and theaters of engagement, as opposed to a single point of conflict.

Legitimacy (in a military context): The degree to which a military operation is seen as just, necessary, and lawful, particularly in the eyes of the international community and domestic population.

Proportionality (in the context of war): A principle of international humanitarian law that dictates that the harm caused to civilians during an attack must be balanced against the military advantage gained.

Axis of Resistance: An alliance of groups and countries primarily in the Middle East that have an anti-Western and anti-Israeli stance, often led by Iran.

Prisoner of War (POW): A person, whether a combatant or a non-combatant, who is captured and held by the enemy during or immediately after an armed conflict.

Hostage: A person held captive by a group or individual, typically for the purpose of demanding a ransom or concession.

Counterinsurgency: Military and political actions taken against insurgency, which is an armed rebellion against an established authority.

Strategic Goal: The broad overall objective to be achieved through a military or political campaign, providing direction and purpose.

Tactical Goal: A specific objective of a military operation, typically on the immediate battlefield, designed to contribute to the overall strategic goal.

Judicial Coup: Reference to the controversial judicial reforms in Israel, which caused political unrest.

Hamas Attack on Israel: Analysis and Implications

Okay, here is a detailed briefing document summarizing the key themes, ideas, and facts from the provided text:

Briefing Document: Analysis of Recent Events in Israel

Date: October 8, 2023 (Based on context of the text)

Subject: Analysis of the Hamas Attack on Israel and Immediate Aftermath

Sources: Excerpts from TV7 Broadcast (Pasted Text)

Executive Summary: This briefing document analyzes a broadcast following a large-scale attack on Israel by Hamas on October 7th, 2023. The attack, occurring 50 years after the Yom Kippur War, represents a significant intelligence and military failure for Israel, raising serious questions about preparedness and defensive doctrines. The broadcast features discussions with military experts and analysts on the nature of the attack, Israel’s response, international support, potential for escalation, and long-term strategic implications.

Key Themes & Ideas:

1. Intelligence and Preparedness Failure:

• The broadcast highlights a significant intelligence failure, echoing the unpreparedness of the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
• General Kohan emphasizes that defensive readiness shouldn’t rely solely on intelligence, stating, “The main idea of defensive operation as a concept is that you must prepare the troops in a basic position in order to be ready to get a surprise attack without the capability to be prepared before according to intelligence alert.”
• There is a criticism of over-reliance on intelligence, with the assertion that “commanders in the way they are planning and conducting the forces in the field are more important than their intelligence effort.”
• The broadcast acknowledges that despite training and clear scenarios, the scale and execution of the attack were unprecedented. This underscores the need for vigilance and a reevaluation of existing defense strategies.
• The concept of conception and wrong preconceptions is blamed for the failure: “We are witnessing another exemplification of what everyone spoke after 1973 the conception actually we cannot think without conception on the other side we cannot get rid from wrong conception and here’s a conception is really responsible to the idea that Hamas are really deterred from going to such an operation.”

1. Nature of the Attack:

• Hamas launched a coordinated attack, using a massive rocket barrage followed by a ground invasion.
• The attack involved “hundreds of Palestinian Terror operatives” with three clear objectives: “murder as many as possible Israeli civilians and troops, kidnap if possible and destroy whatever is in their path.”
• The sheer volume and intensity of the rocket fire were unprecedented, with reports of “3,000 Rockets plus minus…in less than 12 hours”.
• The attack deliberately targeted civilians, confirming it as “classic classic terrorism,” per Colonel Ben Shalom.

1. Impact on Israeli Military Doctrine:

• The attack is described as a “stunning and stinging defeat” for Israel, undermining the perception of the IDF’s power and deterrence capabilities.
• The broadcast mentions that “the ruin that has befallen the Israeli defense Doctrine the Terence the prowess usually ascribed to the Israeli Armed Forces” is a crucial takeaway of the attacks.
• There’s an assertion that the situation has moved from a “campaign” to a “war,” requiring a different strategic and operational approach.

1. Israeli Response and Objectives:

• Initial responses involved containing the situation on the ground and launching counterattacks in Gaza.
• The focus has shifted towards a more decisive military action, with General Kohan arguing that “Israel has no choice but to defeat Hamas actually to bring it to unconditional surrender.”
• The importance of defining clear objectives for the campaign is highlighted: “I think we learned the lessons and hopefully tomorrow we will know what the government laid out as the plan what are we trying to achieve and then how to achieve it”.
• The discussion of rules of proportionality is mentioned, where it is noted that, unlike terrorists, Israel is bound by international law and morals.
• The long-term goals of the campaign are unclear and debated, raising concerns about the future of Gaza.
• There’s a recognition that the fighting will be challenging due to the tactics of Hamas, which “are embedded in their population.”

1. International Support and Geopolitical Implications:

• The United States has pledged significant support, including “8 billion to support Israel.”
• There is strong international support for Israel’s right to self-defense. However, it’s acknowledged that this support could diminish as civilian casualties in Gaza rise.
• The broadcast notes calls from world leaders: “three first phone calls of course uh the first was of President Joe Biden the second was of prime minister markut and the third one of President Emanuel mcon the United States the Netherlands and France.”
• The threat to Hezbollah and other proxies by the US Administration is noted: “…the United States came out and openly threatened hasah and other proxies saying that if they join the fight they would bear the brunt”.
• There is a discussion of the potential for a multi-front war, involving Hezbollah and other actors in the region, particularly given past Iranian rhetoric, “…A Al speaking at a Islamic Unity conference in tan during which he Proclaim that the end of Israel is near”.
• Concerns are raised that the judicial reforms and domestic political challenges in Israel weakened its deterrence capacity in the eyes of its enemies.
• There is concern about international opinion in a protracted war, with the recognition that the “Hourglass of legitimacy starts draining and it drains fast.”

1. Hostages and Prisoners of War:

• A key element is the abduction of Israeli civilians and soldiers to Gaza.
• A distinction is drawn between captured soldiers (prisoners of war) and kidnapped civilians, although it is acknowledged that for Hamas, there is likely no distinction.
• There’s concern that Hamas will use hostages to extract concessions, such as the release of Palestinian prisoners.
• The families of those held in Gaza are expected to organize and lobby for their release.
• Colonel Ben Shalom notes that “we do pay the price once in a while we stopped and recalculated what are we going to do to do tomorrow I don’t know.”
• The broadcast acknowledges the emotional toll and strategic challenges posed by the hostage situation

1. Potential for a Multi-Front War and Strategic Considerations:

• The possibility of a multi-sector war involving Hezbollah, Iran, and other actors is a significant concern.
• The need to consider all potential adversaries and “the head of the snake” is discussed.
• The importance of the US as a deterrent factor is highlighted, “the United States is very important to the det turns of Israel and mainly through the north but also through the East”.
• The broadcast notes that Israel has been preparing for multi-sector conflict.

1. Internal Israeli Politics:

• The broadcast touches on the potential for a unity government in Israel, to navigate the crisis.
• A potential for a political restructuring, “These were obviously uh discussions that were held between Nan and laid uh and uh Benny gun respectively.”

Key Facts:

• The attack occurred 50 years after the 1973 Yom Kippur War.
• Hamas launched a massive rocket barrage, followed by a ground invasion.
• Over 250 Israelis are confirmed dead, and over 1100 wounded as of the broadcast’s recording.
• Thousands of rockets were fired by Hamas in less than 12 hours.
• Many Israelis, including civilians, are held in Gaza as hostages.
• The United States has pledged 8 Billion in support of Israel.
• The Biden administration has warned other proxies not to engage in the conflict.

Conclusion:

The Hamas attack on October 7th represents a significant strategic and intelligence failure for Israel, forcing a reevaluation of its defense doctrines and creating a complex geopolitical situation. The attack could potentially escalate into a wider regional conflict, and the hostage situation creates an extremely sensitive political and strategic dynamic. The broadcast underscores the need for clear strategic objectives, decisive military action, and careful consideration of international ramifications, while acknowledging the painful lessons of past conflicts.

Recommendations:

• Conduct a thorough investigation of the intelligence failures that led to the attack.
• Re-evaluate Israel’s military doctrine and preparedness.
• Develop a clear and cohesive strategy for dealing with Hamas in Gaza.
• Engage in diplomacy to ensure continued international support for Israel.
• Address the hostage situation with sensitivity, while also safeguarding national security interests.
• Prepare for the possibility of a multi-front conflict.

This briefing document serves as a preliminary analysis of the unfolding situation. Further updates and analysis are required as the conflict develops.

The 2023 Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

FAQ on Recent Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

• What prompted the recent large-scale attack by Hamas on Israel?
• This attack, occurring on the 50th anniversary of the Yom Kippur War, was initiated by Hamas with a massive rocket barrage followed by a ground assault aimed at killing Israeli civilians and soldiers, kidnapping people, and destroying property. This operation was characterized by a level of planning and intensity that took many by surprise. It has been suggested the timing was also intended to derail the peace process with Saudi Arabia.
• What initial impacts has the attack had on Israel?
• The attack has had a significant human cost, with hundreds killed and wounded and Israelis taken prisoner. Beyond the tragic human toll, the attack has shaken the prevailing Israeli defense doctrine and cast a shadow on the perceived strength and preparedness of the Israeli armed forces. The sheer scale and sophisticated execution of the attack have led to many calling it a major intelligence failure and military defeat for Israel.
• How does this conflict compare to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and what lessons are being discussed?
• Similar to the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the current conflict has exposed a critical failure in intelligence and a reliance on the assumption that Hamas was deterred. It highlights the importance of basic troop preparedness that isn’t solely reliant on intelligence warnings. The need to be vigilant, to avoid preconceived notions, and to maintain strong defensive positions regardless of perceived threats are among the key lessons from 1973 that are once again being emphasized.
• What is the international community’s response to the attack on Israel?
• There has been a prompt and significant outpouring of support for Israel from its allies, particularly the United States, which has quickly pledged financial and military support. Many countries, including the US, the Netherlands, and France, have offered strong backing for Israel’s right to defend itself. The international community largely condemns the brutal attacks by Hamas. It remains to be seen how this support will shift as the conflict continues, particularly with regards to large scale military actions by Israel into Gaza and their potential impact on the civilian population.
• What are the key military strategies being discussed and implemented by Israel?
• Israel’s initial military response involves containing the situation on the ground and conducting air strikes in Gaza. A core aspect of Israel’s defense is its Iron Dome system, which has been utilized to intercept a large volume of incoming rockets. There is also a focus on strategic thinking, not just within the Gaza strip, but with an eye to broader regional threats. Further actions are being contemplated that would target not only Hamas in Gaza, but also the leadership in other countries like Lebanon, Qatar, and Iran.
• What is the perceived long term aim of Hamas and its motivations?
• Hamas, as well as other actors like Hezbollah, are perceived to be highly calculated actors who are playing out their interests with patience, determination, and resilience. Hamas’s long game strategy is to exploit weakness from its adversaries to achieve a long term victory, even if that means a protracted conflict and a large loss of civilian life. While not a forward operating base of Iran, its operations align well with the overarching goals of groups that oppose Israel.
• What challenges does Israel face in the context of the current conflict?
• Israel faces complex challenges, including the presence of hostages in Gaza, and how that will impact military strategy, the long term goals of its campaign, the need to balance proportionality and legitimacy in its response and the potential for escalation on multiple fronts. It must also navigate the international political landscape, and maintain support while taking robust action. The influence of extremists in the Arab world and Iran also pose complex counter insurgency challenges.
• What is the potential long term outcome of the conflict in the region?

The long-term outcome remains uncertain. There is a widespread understanding that this campaign will extend beyond a limited engagement, with the potential for broader regional involvement. It is seen as an open-ended duration with a change in the normal paradigm of engagement, necessitating a long term commitment. The outcome in Gaza will have a broader impact on both the region, and a long term influence on Israel’s relationship with its enemies, allies and its own citizens.

Hamas Attack on Israel: Analysis and Implications

The sources discuss the Hamas attack on Israel, which occurred 50 years after the Yom Kippur War, and provide analysis of the events and their potential consequences [1].

Here are some key points about the attack:

• Timing and nature: The attack began at 6:31 AM with a barrage of rockets, followed by a ground assault by Palestinian operatives [1]. The attack involved murder of civilians and troops, kidnapping, and destruction [1].
• Scale: The attack was described as a “full-scale ground attack” and included “thousands” of rockets [1]. There were 3,000 rockets fired in less than 12 hours [2]. The scale of the attack is described as “unprecedented” [3].
• Casualties: The sources report that at least 200 Israelis were murdered and over 1,100 wounded in the initial attack, with the number of confirmed deaths later rising to 250 [3-5]. Many Israelis were taken as prisoners of war or hostages, and this is considered a major challenge [6].
• Intelligence Failure: The attack is considered an intelligence failure, similar to the Yom Kippur War, with the failure to maintain vigilance and avoid preconceptions [1, 3]. Some argue that the failure is not only in intelligence but in the defensive operations, and that commanders are more important than intelligence efforts [3].
• Motivations: Hamas’s goals included killing as many Israelis as possible, kidnapping individuals, and destroying property [1]. It’s also suggested that the attack might have been intended to disrupt the peace process between Israel and Saudi Arabia [7].
• Israeli Response: Israel has declared a state of war, which is described as different from a campaign [8]. Israel’s initial response focused on containing the situation in the south, with ground forces engaging in fighting, along with counterattacks in Gaza [9].
• International Response: The United States has pledged support to Israel [10]. The U.S. also threatened Hezbollah and other proxies [9].
• Strategic Implications: There is concern that the conflict could escalate into a multi-front war, potentially involving Hezbollah and Iran [9, 11]. The conflict raises questions about Israel’s defense strategy, and its ability to deter future attacks [2, 5].
• Hostage Situation: The hostage situation is considered a major component of this conflict, and may become a central bargaining point with Hamas [12]. There are concerns about how the Israeli government will respond to the hostage situation, with the possibility of releasing Palestinian prisoners in exchange [12].
• Potential for a Longer Conflict: The sources indicate a concern that this may be a protracted conflict and not a brief engagement, and that Israel must be prepared for an “open-ended duration” [6]. Some believe that to achieve victory, Israel must commit to a long campaign [6].
• Internal Israeli Politics: There are discussions about the potential for a unity government in Israel to address the crisis [13, 14].

The sources highlight that the Hamas attack was a significant event, revealing vulnerabilities in Israel’s defense and raising questions about the future of the region.

Israel’s Response to the Hamas Attack

The sources discuss Israel’s response to the Hamas attack, which includes military actions, strategic considerations, and political ramifications. Here’s a breakdown:

• Declaration of War: Israel has declared a state of war [1, 2]. This is described as a significant shift from a “campaign” to a full-scale war, which impacts how the military, police, and defense establishment operate [1, 2]. This declaration signifies a commitment to decisive action [3].
• Initial Military Response: The initial response focused on containing the situation in southern Israel [4]. Ground forces are engaged in fighting in areas where there are still Hamas operatives and hostages [4]. There is an effort to clear these areas [4].
• Counterattacks in Gaza: Israel has launched aerial attacks into Gaza [5]. These are expected to intensify in the coming hours and days [4]. There are reports of intense rocket fire from Gaza, with 3,000 rockets fired in less than 12 hours [6].
• Focus on Offense: There is a recognition that Israel needs to move to the offensive [4, 7]. The military is preparing for a potentially long and broad campaign [4, 8]. It is understood that the way Israel behaves on the offensive will be a signal to other potential adversaries in the region [4].
• Strategic Considerations Israel’s military strategy includes attack operations, alertness, and decisiveness [3]. There is an emphasis on applying these elements of the defense strategy [3]. There is also concern that the conflict could expand to other fronts, and Israel must be prepared for a multi-sector war [4, 9]. The possibility of confronting Hamas’s leadership in Qatar and the Iranian regime are also noted [9].
• Potential for a Longer Conflict: It is recognized that this conflict may be protracted and not a brief engagement [8]. Israel must be prepared for an “open-ended duration” [8]. Some sources suggest that to achieve a decisive victory, Israel must be prepared for a longer campaign [8].
• Hostage Situation: The hostage situation is a major challenge for the Israeli government [2, 8]. It is anticipated that the families of those held in Gaza will put pressure on the government to release Palestinian prisoners [2]. The government’s response to this issue is expected to be a major component of the campaign [2].
• Internal Political Ramifications: The attack and the government’s response have sparked discussions about a potential unity government in Israel [10]. There is a sense that major politicians want to be part of a unified effort, but there are disagreements about policy [10].

In summary, the Israeli response to the Hamas attack is multifaceted, involving military operations, strategic planning, and political considerations. The sources suggest a shift towards a more decisive and potentially prolonged engagement, with a clear focus on containing the immediate threat and preparing for a broader conflict. The hostage situation and the potential for political changes are also significant factors shaping the Israeli response [2, 8, 10].

Israel-Hamas War: Consequences and Implications

The sources discuss various potential consequences of the current war between Israel and Hamas, ranging from military and strategic implications to political and social ramifications. Here’s a breakdown of the key consequences mentioned:

• Military and Strategic Consequences:
• Protracted Conflict: The sources suggest that this conflict is likely to be protracted with an “open-ended duration” [1]. It’s not expected to be a short campaign [1-3]. This means Israel needs to prepare for a long-term engagement.
• Multi-Front War: There’s a significant risk of the conflict expanding into a multi-front war, potentially involving Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Iranian proxies [4, 5]. Israel must prepare for a wider conflict [4]. The possibility of confronting Hamas’s leadership in Qatar and the Iranian regime are also noted [5].
• Increased Military Activity: Israel is expected to intensify its attacks in Gaza [4]. There is a sense that Israel has no choice but to achieve a decisive victory, potentially leading to a large-scale offensive [3, 6].
• Shift in Military Strategy: The conflict has led to a shift in Israel’s approach, with the declaration of a state of war. This means a move towards a more decisive and aggressive strategy, encompassing attack operations, alertness, and decisiveness [7, 8].
• Need for Preparedness: Israel needs to be prepared for potential surprises, and also the possibility that the conflict could expand beyond Gaza [7]. There is an emphasis on the need to be prepared for a multi-sector war [5].
• Impact on Regional Deterrence: The way Israel behaves on the offensive will send a signal to other potential adversaries in the region [4].
• Political Consequences:
• Potential for Unity Government: The crisis has sparked discussions about forming a unity government in Israel [9]. Major politicians may want to join forces, but there are also disagreements regarding policy.
• Policy Changes: The conflict could lead to significant policy changes, particularly regarding the approach to the Palestinian Authority and the peace process [9]. The attack exposed the weakness of the policy of diminishing the Palestinian Authority [9].
• Leadership Challenges: The war is a challenge to the current government, and the Prime Minister may see this as the last straw, potentially leading to a political shakeup [10].
• International Pressure: There is a concern that international pressure and criticism could limit Israel’s actions, especially if there are high casualties in Gaza [3, 11]. The “Hourglass of legitimacy” will drain quickly, so Israel will need to work with allies and manage perceptions [2].
• Hostage Crisis:
• Central Bargaining Point: The hostage situation is expected to become a central point of the conflict [1, 12]. The families of those held in Gaza will likely put pressure on the government to negotiate their release.
• Potential Prisoner Exchange: There’s a possibility of a large-scale exchange of Palestinian prisoners for Israeli hostages. This has the potential to be a major point of contention, with the potential for the release of thousands of Palestinian prisoners [12].
• Long-term Issue: The hostage issue may not be resolved quickly. Even if the military campaign is over, the issue of the abducted Israelis could be drawn out [8].
• Social Consequences:
• Psychological Impact: The attack and the hostage situation will have a significant psychological impact on the Israeli population [13]. There is a sense of shock, sadness, and a loss of faith in Israel’s defense capabilities [13, 14].
• Need for a Change in Paradigm: It is argued that there needs to be a change in how Israelis view the war, moving away from the desire for an immediate return to normalcy and accepting a longer duration of conflict [1].
• Other Potential Consequences:
• Disruption of Peace Process: The attack may have been intended to disrupt the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia [6].
• Impact on Regional Stability: The conflict could further destabilize the Middle East, especially if it expands beyond Gaza [11].
• Shift in Hamas’s Role: There is a discussion regarding whether Israel will topple Hamas. But, there are also considerations about what would come after [10].

In summary, the consequences of the current war are far-reaching, impacting military strategy, political dynamics, social well-being, and regional stability. The sources emphasize that this is not a short-term crisis and that Israel must be prepared for a prolonged and complex conflict with multiple consequences [1, 2, 4, 13, 14].

International Support for Israel After Hamas Attack

The sources discuss the international support for Israel following the Hamas attack, focusing primarily on the United States and other allies. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• United States Support:
• Immediate and Strong Support: The United States has shown immediate and strong support for Israel, with President Joe Biden making one of the first phone calls to Israeli leadership [1, 2]. The U.S. has explicitly stated its support for Israel’s right to defend itself [1].
• Financial Aid: The United States has allocated $8 billion to support Israel in the event of this war [1, 3]. This is considered an unprecedented level of financial support [1].
• Military Assistance: The U.S. has pledged to provide Israel with “all the means you need” [1]. This indicates a willingness to supply Israel with military equipment and other forms of support for a potentially long campaign [1].
• Deterrent Threat: The United States has openly threatened Hezbollah and other proxies, warning them that they would “bear the brunt” if they joined the fight against Israel [4]. This is interpreted as a move to deter other actors from escalating the conflict [4]. The US wants to maintain stability in the Middle East and avoid a new war or front [5].
• Strategic Importance: The support from the U.S. is viewed as a crucial factor in Israel’s deterrence strategy, particularly regarding potential threats from the north and east [6]. The US support is not surprising, according to one source, based on previous discussions and close working relationships between the US and Israeli forces [6].
• Support from Other Allies:
• Vocal Support: Other countries, such as the Netherlands and France, have also voiced support for Israel [2].
• Air Support: Some allies have offered air support for Israel [2].
• General Support: There is a sense that many of Israel’s friends and allies are standing with them [1].
• Significance of International Support:
• Moral Boost: The support from allies, especially the U.S., provides a significant moral boost for Israelis [1]. The feeling of having allies stand with them is important during this time of crisis.
• Legitimacy: International support is important for maintaining the legitimacy of Israel’s actions, especially as the conflict continues [1]. During times of war the “Hourglass of legitimacy starts draining and it drains fast” [1].
• Longer Campaign: The support from the U.S., especially, may be needed for a longer military campaign [1].
• Limitations and Concerns:
• Public Opinion: The sources note that international support for Israel may diminish, particularly if there are high civilian casualties in Gaza. The US government may be less tolerant of Israeli actions if there are many pictures and movies of casualties in Gaza [5].
• Endurance of Support: There are questions about how long the Biden administration’s support for Israel will last, especially if Israel launches a ground maneuver into Gaza [5].
• Need to Manage Perceptions: Israel needs to work with its allies and manage the international perception of the conflict, especially as it moves to the offensive [1].

In summary, the sources indicate that Israel has received significant international support following the Hamas attack, particularly from the United States, which has offered financial aid, military assistance, and a strong deterrent message to other potential adversaries. This support is seen as vital for Israel’s military operations, as well as for maintaining its legitimacy and morale. However, there are also concerns about the potential for this support to wane, especially if the conflict intensifies or if there are high civilian casualties.

Israel’s Political Ramifications: Conflict and Unity

The sources suggest several potential political ramifications stemming from the current conflict between Israel and Hamas. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

• Potential for a Unity Government: The crisis has sparked discussions about the possibility of forming a unity government in Israel [1, 2]. There’s a sense that major politicians across the political spectrum want to be part of a unified effort in response to the crisis [2]. However, there are also significant disagreements regarding policy that could impede the formation of such a government [2].
• Desire for Unity: The electorate seems to want everyone to put aside political differences and pull together during this time of war [2].
• Challenges to Unity: Despite the desire for unity, there are significant divisions regarding the makeup of the cabinet, the goals of the war, and the policies that should be implemented [2].
• Challenges to the Current Government: The conflict poses a challenge to the current government led by Prime Minister Netanyahu [1-3].
• Fragile Government: The current Netanyahu government has been described as fragile in the months leading up to the conflict [3]. The war may be seen as the “last straw” that could break the government [3].
• Leadership Questions: The conflict raises questions about the government’s preparedness and its ability to handle the crisis effectively [4].
• Potential for Political Shakeup: The situation could potentially lead to a political shakeup, with the possibility of the current government collapsing [3].
• Policy Changes: The conflict could lead to significant policy changes, particularly regarding the approach to the Palestinian Authority and the peace process [2].
• Rethinking the Palestinian Authority: The attack exposed the weakness of the policy of diminishing the Palestinian Authority [2].
• Normalization with Saudi Arabia: The attack may have been intended to disrupt the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, and the conflict could lead to a reevaluation of that process [2, 5].
• Extremist Elements: There appears to be broad agreement that extremist elements in the Arab world and Iran need to be confronted, however, there is a need to also consider a counterinsurgency approach by supporting moderates in the region [2].
• Internal Political Divisions: Despite a desire for unity, there are still significant political divisions within Israel [2].
• Disagreements on Policy: There are disagreements between Netanyahu and his domestic opponents regarding the goals of the war and the policies to be implemented [2].
• Extremist Parties: The role of extremist parties within the government, specifically whether they will remain in power, is a point of contention in a potential unity government [2].
• Judicial Reforms: There are mentions that the judicial coup may have to be cancelled, as a minimum price of enlarging the cabinet [3].
• Public Opinion: The public seems to be in favor of political unity to address the crisis [2].
• Demand for Unity: The electorate seems to want all politicians to put aside their differences and work together during this time of crisis [2].
• Impact on Leadership: The conflict has placed significant pressure on Israeli leadership and will test their ability to make decisive choices under difficult circumstances [6, 7].
• Central Bargaining: Leadership needs to be a central bargaining point in every activity related to the war [7].
• Need for Clear Goals: There is a call for the leadership to define the long-term goals of the campaign and work backward from those goals, including addressing the issue of prisoners and hostages [3].

In summary, the political fallout from the conflict is significant and multifaceted. It includes the potential for a major shift in the makeup of the Israeli government, a reevaluation of policies, and a test of leadership. The sources suggest that the conflict could lead to a more unified front, but also highlight the challenges of overcoming existing political divisions and implementing effective long-term strategies.

By Amjad Izhar
Contact: amjad.izhar@gmail.com
https://amjadizhar.blog

Affiliate Disclosure: This blog may contain affiliate links, which means I may earn a small commission if you click on the link and make a purchase. This comes at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support helps keep this blog running and allows me to continue providing you with quality content. Thank you for your support!