Skip to content
The Cambridge Middle East and North Africa Forum (MENAF) hosted a panel discussion examining the Hamas–Israel war and its wider implications for regional security, diplomacy and international relations. Held in the weeks following the attacks of 7 October 2023, the event explored Israel’s military and political response, the possibility of a broader regional conflict, the positions of Iran and neighbouring states, and the challenges of establishing a sustainable political settlement in Gaza.
The discussion considered both the immediate security crisis and the longer-term questions of Palestinian governance, Israeli political accountability and the future of regional normalisation.
Israel’s Security Crisis and Political Leadership
The discussion opened with an assessment of the profound impact of the 7 October attacks on Israeli society, political leadership and security institutions.
The attacks were described as a major intelligence and military failure that had undermined longstanding assumptions about Israel’s surveillance capabilities, deterrence and border security. Comparisons were drawn with the 1973 war, particularly regarding the failure to anticipate a major assault and the potential consequences for political and military leadership.
Israel’s military response was examined in the context of its declared objective of dismantling Hamas’s operational capabilities and leadership. The scale of military mobilisation reflected the significance attached to restoring deterrence and preventing further attacks.
Domestic political considerations were also central. The conflict placed considerable pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose previous political achievements and security credentials were being reassessed. Although Israeli society had experienced substantial political divisions before the war, the discussion suggested that immediate security priorities had temporarily overshadowed disputes over domestic governance.
The prospect of a comprehensive investigation into the intelligence failures and political decisions preceding the attacks was identified as an important issue for the post-war period.
Risks of Regional Escalation
A major theme was the possibility that the conflict could spread beyond Gaza and develop into a wider regional confrontation.
Particular attention was given to Hezbollah’s activities along Israel’s northern border and the risk that exchanges of fire could escalate through miscalculation. The discussion distinguished between deliberate decisions to enter a broader war and the possibility that limited military actions could unintentionally trigger a larger conflict.
Iran’s relationships with armed groups in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Yemen were examined as potential channels for escalation. However, the discussion cautioned against assuming that all Iranian-supported organisations operated under direct Iranian command.
The distinction between Iranian influence and the independent political or military objectives of individual groups was considered essential to understanding regional risks. Iran’s interests in maintaining influence in Iraq and Syria could also provide reasons to avoid an uncontrolled confrontation.
Disinformation, propaganda and competing interpretations of battlefield developments were identified as additional dangers. In an environment of heightened public emotion and uncertainty, inaccurate reporting could affect political calculations and intensify pressure for military action.
Iran, the United States and International Security
The war was also situated within a changing international strategic environment.
Iran’s network of regional partners and armed groups was presented as a central challenge to Israeli and Western security calculations. The possibility of escalation involving Hezbollah, Iraqi militias or the Houthis raised concerns about the emergence of multiple fronts.
The United States was regarded as the principal external actor capable of containing such escalation. Its deployment of military assets to the region, including aircraft carriers, was discussed as an attempt to deter further intervention and communicate the potential costs of expanding the conflict.
At the same time, questions were raised about the broader direction of American Middle East policy. The limited progress of efforts to revive the Iranian nuclear agreement and perceptions of reduced American engagement had contributed to uncertainty about Washington’s regional strategy.
The discussion also connected the crisis to wider competition involving Russia and China, although the extent to which the Gaza war formed part of a broader geopolitical confrontation remained a matter of interpretation.
Arab States, Turkey and Regional Normalisation
The positions of major Arab states were examined through their differing relationships with Israel, Hamas and the Palestinian cause.
Egypt and Saudi Arabia were presented as having strong interests in preventing regional destabilisation. Their opposition to Islamist militancy did not remove the political and humanitarian pressures created by the suffering of Gaza’s civilian population.
The United Arab Emirates and Bahrain had developed significant economic and diplomatic ties with Israel following the Abraham Accords. The discussion considered how these relationships might withstand the crisis and whether the war would alter prospects for further normalisation.
Saudi–Israeli normalisation received particular attention. Negotiations before the conflict had raised expectations of a major diplomatic development, but the renewed prominence of the Palestinian question complicated that trajectory.
Turkey’s position was also explored. Ankara had sought a diplomatic role in the crisis while maintaining longstanding political relationships with Hamas. Its increasingly critical rhetoric towards Israel, particularly following reports of civilian casualties, demonstrated the tension between regional mediation ambitions and domestic political considerations.
Qatar’s relationship with Hamas and its wider diplomatic role added another dimension to the question of which regional governments might contribute to negotiations or future governance arrangements.
Gaza’s Future and the Palestinian Political Question
The discussion devoted considerable attention to the distinction between dismantling Hamas as an armed organisation and eliminating its political influence or ideology.
Military operations might substantially weaken Hamas’s leadership and infrastructure, but the underlying political grievances and ideological commitments could not be resolved through military means alone.
The consequences for Gaza’s civilian population were central to this assessment. The territory’s existing restrictions, the intensification of the siege and the destruction associated with military operations raised urgent questions about humanitarian conditions and longer-term reconstruction.
Participants examined possible alternatives to Hamas rule, including a renewed role for the Palestinian Authority and governance arrangements supported by Arab states and international partners.
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states and the United States were identified as potentially important contributors to a future political and reconstruction framework. However, significant uncertainty remained about whether these governments would accept the responsibilities involved.
The discussion emphasised that opposition to Hamas should not be conflated with opposition to Palestinian self-determination. A credible political pathway addressing Palestinian rights and aspirations was regarded as essential to preventing further radicalisation and renewed conflict.
Political Legitimacy, Trust and the Path Forward
The concluding discussion examined political legitimacy, public confidence and the possibility of rebuilding trust.
Questions were raised about the representativeness of Hamas and Israel’s governing coalition, the distinction between political support and moral legitimacy, and the responsibilities of leadership during conflict.
Israel’s domestic divisions and the prospect of post-war accountability were considered alongside the absence of recent Palestinian elections and the challenges facing Palestinian political representation.
The importance of trust emerged as a central conclusion. Military outcomes alone were unlikely to produce lasting stability without institutions, political leadership and diplomatic arrangements capable of supporting a negotiated future.
The event concluded that the Hamas–Israel war represented a critical test for the regional security order. Its consequences would depend not only on developments in Gaza but also on the decisions of Iran, neighbouring Arab states, Turkey and the United States.
While the immediate outlook remained highly uncertain, the discussion highlighted the need to address regional escalation risks and the unresolved Israeli–Palestinian conflict together, rather than treating them as separate challenges.