By John Q. Hosedrinker Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas official, lauded October 7th as a significant victory, highlighting Hamas’s ability to inflict damage on the IDF. He denied requesting Hezbollah’s assistance, although it was offered. Despite this claimed success, Hamas reportedly intends to cede control of the Gaza Strip to the Palestinian Authority, a decision reportedly influenced by Egyptian pressure. This transfer would include provisions for Hamas employees. Simultaneously, Israel is sending a delegation to Cairo for negotiations concerning hostages and a ceasefire.
Read the original article here
October 7th, according to a Hamas official speaking at an Al Jazeera forum, marked a “historic success.” This declaration, however, requires careful examination, as the definition of “success” in this context seems drastically different from conventional understandings. The official highlighted the significant damage inflicted on the IDF’s Gaza Division, emphasizing the sheer scale of destruction and disruption achieved. This perspective frames the event as a strategic victory, demonstrating the potential for challenging Israel’s military capabilities.
The official’s statement also positioned the October 7th events as both an opportunity and a challenge. The opportunity lies in proving the possibility of defeating Israel, while the challenge involves assessing the willingness and preparedness for such large-scale conflict. This statement reveals a long-term strategic vision that transcends the immediate aftermath of the conflict, hinting at broader ambitions beyond Gaza.
This framing of the October 7th events as a “success” is deeply troubling, considering the immense human cost. The attack resulted in widespread destruction and loss of life, including the targeting of civilians and the use of children to lure families into deadly traps. The scale of the brutality, involving killings, kidnappings, torture, and the burning of homes, paints a stark picture of the devastation. Entire communities, like Nir Oz, were left in ruins, with families still missing and unaccounted for months later.
The casual dismissal of the devastating consequences for Gazan civilians is particularly striking. The immense suffering of Palestinian civilians appears irrelevant to the Hamas official’s assessment of the situation. This suggests a prioritization of broader political goals over the well-being of the civilian population, revealing a cold, strategic calculation.
The official’s comments reveal a belief that leveraging civilian casualties to generate international pressure against Israel is an effective strategy. This points towards a cynical understanding of the international stage, where the goal is to garner support and sympathy through the suffering of civilians, regardless of the human cost. Such a perspective is fundamentally incompatible with any notion of peaceful resolution or humanitarian concern.
The Hamas official’s statement can also be analyzed through the lens of public relations and strategic messaging. Acknowledging significant losses—both in military personnel and the long-term occupation of Gaza—would likely undermine support and funding for Hamas. Therefore, characterizing October 7th as a “historic success” serves to maintain morale, attract recruits, and ensure continued financial backing.
This perspective underscores the limitations of evaluating this event solely within the parameters of conventional military victories. For Hamas, the “success” seemingly hinges on achieving specific political goals, including potentially derailing normalization efforts between Arab nations and Israel and influencing international perceptions of the conflict. The scale of civilian casualties and the destruction of Gaza are not seen as setbacks, but potentially as tactical successes in achieving broader political aims.
Furthermore, the comments raise critical questions about the future. The focus on the possibility of a unified Islamic front capable of defeating Israel suggests an enduring commitment to conflict, rather than a path toward peaceful coexistence. This framing underscores the immense challenges to achieving lasting peace in the region and the need for a fundamental shift in perspectives from those seeking the complete destruction of Israel.
Ultimately, the assertion that October 7th was a “historic success” is a deeply problematic declaration that reveals a profound disconnect from common moral and ethical understandings. The statement highlights the need for critical analysis of the conflict, moving beyond simplistic narratives of victory and defeat to grapple with the complex realities of political violence and the human cost of conflict. The consequences of this event will continue to reverberate, shaping the political landscape and requiring sustained engagement to address the underlying issues that fuel such intense and destructive conflict.