Two years of barbarism

The attack of October 7, 2023, was not a typical terrorist attack. I say this not only because of the death toll (1,195, plus 251 people taken hostage, many of whom subsequently died), a figure far higher than what terrorist acts usually produce, but above all because of how the operation was conceived and carried out. On October 7, a Palestinian force led by Hamas invaded and occupied Israeli territory, breaching the defensive barriers and the separation wall in Gaza. To do so, it had to mobilize more than 2,000 militants from the Al-Qassam Brigades (the armed wing of Hamas), suffering around 1,600 casualties during the two days the attack lasted. An attack of this magnitude by a non-state force had never before occurred in Israel’s history.

An operation with such special characteristics must be understood as an act of war and not a terrorist attack. However, Hamas has never had the capacity to launch a sustained military confrontation with Israel. The October 7 attack, in reality, beneath its guise as a military action, was not intended primarily to start a full-scale war with Israel, but rather to demonstrate the vulnerability of the Zionist state, once again place the Palestinian cause at the center of world attention, and undermine the Abraham Accords, which represented Israel’s recognition by numerous Arab countries.

On the few occasions when Hamas has attempted to justify the October 7 attack, it has done so by citing two achievements. The first would be having brought the Palestinian issue into headlines around the world, becoming the most relevant global issue of our time. The second would have been provoking such a brutal and disproportionate response from Israel that it has sunk the country’s reputation globally. Indeed, in the United States — the nation that has always been the most vocal in its support of Israel — a recent Pew Research Center survey showed that 59% of Americans have a negative opinion of the Israeli government and 38% of the Israeli people. Israel’s prestige has never fallen so low.

Faced with these rather meager achievements, Hamas has been left out of any future solution, will not be able to participate in the government of Gaza, and its militias have been decimated. In a rare gesture of sincerity, one of its historical leaders, Moussa Abu Marzouk, acknowledged in February 2025 that had he known in advance the cost the Palestinian people would have to pay, the initial attack would not have taken place. Hamas quickly qualified his statements, saying they had been taken out of context.

Hamas’s miscalculation is striking, especially given its history. There is a recurring pattern in Israel’s history that is easily recognizable. Israel does not usually attack unilaterally, but when attacked, it uses it to advance resolutely toward what appears to be the ultimate project of the most radical Zionist movement, Greater Israel. Boasting a formidable military capability, it has responded to external attacks by annexing new territory and eliminating any possibility of coexistence with a Palestinian state. This was the case when, following the creation of Israel in 1948, Arab countries attacked, and Israel took advantage of the situation to significantly expand the territory established by the United Nations, displacing hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and killing more than 10,000 of them (this period is known as the Nakba). It happened again after the Six-Day War in 1967, when, once again faced with the mobilization of armies from several Arab countries, Israel quickly gained military control and annexed Gaza and the West Bank (plus the Sinai Peninsula and the Golan Heights). And it’s happening again now, as the October 7 attack has been the alibi used by Israel to make life unviable for Palestinians in Gaza (as well as to advance settlements in the West Bank).

I don’t mean to deny that Israel has a serious security problem, surrounded as it is by hostile regimes and with a Palestinian population in the occupied territories suffering decades of oppression. Israelis often insist that those of us who don’t live there are incapable of gauging what it means to live under constant threat. They use this thesis to justify the brutality of their response. In the current context, their position is clear: coexistence with Hamas is impossible, and therefore the priority is to exterminate the Islamists (regardless of the cost in Palestinian civilian lives). They maintain that, had it not been for the October 7 attack, they would never have undertaken a military campaign like the one carried out in the last two years. This is the response that, for example, former minister Benny Gantz defended in the pages of The New York Times in response to criticism from Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez.

Now, it’s one thing to have to confront a security problem, and quite another to consider any action against Hamas justified regardless of the human lives at stake. The Israeli army has killed more than 65,000 Palestinians (with many thousands more missing), of whom it is estimated that around 80% were civilians. To get an idea of the profound asymmetry in this conflict, it’s worth remembering that the number of Israeli combatant casualties since October 7, 2023, is less than 1,000. Not only is there an unprecedented destruction of human lives, but Israel has also devastated the urban and economic fabric of Gaza, making civilian life unviable in a place already severely damaged before the current Israeli offensive. Hence, we speak of genocide (beyond legal considerations). Genocide, however you look at it, is not a way to guarantee the security of the Jewish State in the future, but a crucial step in the realization of an Israel that stretches from the river to the sea.

At the time of writing, we appear to be approaching a cessation of hostilities. Hamas is likely to release the remaining hostages in the coming days, and Israel will halt its attacks. This is a breakthrough and will give the Palestinians a respite after two years of suffering, deprivation, and hunger. What will happen next is unknown. In any case, it is doubtful that, if the peace plan presented by Donald Trump bears fruit, it will mean a future of hope for the Palestinians. With Israel having come this far, the United States may be able to prevent large-scale ethnic cleansing, but everything indicates that the Palestinians who remain in Gaza will be a nuisance and will live in heavily guarded and controlled enclaves.

Never has Israel reacted so inhumanely to an attack. The barbarity of its offensive on Gaza is the result of an ultra-nationalist, far-right government. Israeli public opinion itself displays chilling ruthlessness. Among many other lessons, the war in Gaza should make us more cautious about the risks of the far right in the world and the political and moral degradation it brings.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition