After the Israel-Hamas War Israeli Perspectives

Key Findings:

Desired Outcomes

Shai Feldman: (1) Eradicate Hamas by destroying its military and governing capabilities. (2) Ensure the safe return of the 242 hostages via rescue. (3) Establish a new post-war temporary governing framework in Gaza, ideally led by a consortium of Arab countries and transitioning to Palestinian Authority (PA) control, reviving the Oslo Accords framework. 

Michal Ben-Josef Hirsch: (1) Prioritize hostage recovery above all. (2) Reach both a military and political resolution to the war, with an emphasis on a broader diplomatic solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. (3) Address the need to restore Israeli society’s trust in its political and military institutions.

Leadership and Future Political Changes

Current political figures like Benny Gantz or Yair Lapid lack a track record for transformative political-diplomatic action. A potential figure like ex-General Yair Golan, described as a "militaristic dove," could emerge as a leader for systemic change. Feldman notes a revival of the political center in Israeli society, spearheaded by leaders from the protest movements against judicial reforms. These individuals have proven their organizational and crisis-management capabilities post-October 7.

Challenges and Historical Reckonings

Feldman addresses the aftermath of the 1973 Yom Kippur War and the Oslo Accords, to emphasize the need for a reevaluation of failed policies - particularly the de facto support of Hamas to weaken the PA. Ben-Josef Hirsch underscores the erosion of democratic values in Israeli society, cautioning that systemic changes require addressing both governance and public narratives.

Both experts stress the need to confront competing victimhood narratives (e.g., Holocaust trauma vs. Nakba trauma). These deep-seated perspectives shape how Israelis and Palestinians perceive threats and justify actions. Feldman contrasts Hamas’s unchanged extremist stance with the transformative shifts seen in Egypt (1979 peace treaty) and the PLO (1988 recognition of Israel). He argues that Hamas’s rigidity complicates any diplomatic resolution.

Short-Term Impacts

The ongoing war risks escalating regional tensions, particularly as the humanitarian crisis in Gaza deepens. Arab countries may reach a breaking point if Palestinian casualties surpass their "red lines," potentially jeopardizing their normalization agreements with Israel. Violence in the West Bank, fueled by actions of Israeli settlers, also acts as a destabilizing factor.

Despite shared interests in countering Hamas, the war may strain relationships between Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA), and Arab states participating in the Abraham Accords. Political sensitivities and public opinion in Arab countries limit overt collaboration with Israel.

Long-Term Implications

Both Ben-Josef Hirsch and Feldman emphasize that a regional approach alone is insufficient to address the core Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The Israeli-Palestinian peace process must be revitalized. While normalization agreements create potential leverage, they are not substitutes for direct engagement with Palestinian leaders and addressing their aspirations.

Shared economic interests are extremely important - the Israel-Lebanon maritime agreement exemplifies how pragmatism can outweigh deep-seated hostilities in the wider conflict. Economic interests remain relevant during the war, but may take a backseat to emotional and political responses to ongoing violence.

Erosion of Palestinian Support in Arab States:

Arab states' diminishing patience with the Palestinian leadership, due to internal disunity and perceived missed opportunities, influences the regional calculus. However, widespread violence could rekindle public and political solidarity with Palestinians, therefore altering this trajectory.