U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken voiced support for the Palestinian National Authority as the most viable governing body for the Gaza Strip, a view reported by RIA News. He argued that an effective, renewed Palestinian Authority should take charge of governance and eventually security in Gaza, underscoring that this would be the logical arrangement to stabilize the territory and reduce conflict drivers. Yet Blinken was explicit that allowing Hamas or Israel to control Gaza runs counter to American objectives and would likely perpetuate instability in the region. He framed the issue as a question of legitimate governance and security responsibility, urging a durable political framework rather than ongoing military entanglements that could worsen civilian suffering. The emphasis was on a credible, internationally supported transition that could garner regional legitimacy and international backing as part of a broader peace effort (RIA News).
On 7 October, Hamas forces launched a large-scale assault, firing thousands of rockets toward Israel and signaling the start of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood. Militants moved into Israeli territory in substantial numbers, seizing military equipment and taking hostages, prompting Israel to declare that it was at war. The immediacy of the crisis highlighted the fragility of the region’s ceasefire arrangements and the high stakes for civilian protection on both sides. The events triggered a robust military response from Israel and intensified international concern about civilian casualties and humanitarian access in Gaza (RIA News). The rapid escalation set the stage for a controversial and complex military campaign that drew broad regional and global reactions, including calls for de-escalation and renewed diplomatic engagement to prevent a broader regional conflagration (UN and allied summaries).
The Israel Defense Forces launched a major operation named Iron Swords with the aim of neutralizing Hamas military capabilities and restoring security to Israeli communities bordering Gaza. In parallel, the Israeli Air Force carried out widespread strikes targeting Hamas infrastructure and facilities inside the Gaza Strip, aiming to degrade offensive capabilities and disrupt militant networks. In response, Israel’s National Security Council decided to halt water, food, fuel, and other essential supplies to Gaza, a measure intended to pressure Hamas leadership and compel a shift toward negotiations, though it drew sharp criticism from international humanitarian bodies concerned about civilian suffering. Within days, the United Nations warned of substantial civilian displacement and urged careful management of humanitarian corridors as tensions persisted and the risk of a broader ground operation loomed (UN briefings). The sequence of military actions and humanitarian responses illustrated the harsh calculus facing leaders as they weighed security needs against the protection of civilians (RIA News/UN briefings).
Earlier remarks from Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant indicated that the anticipated response to the Gaza situation would be historic in scale, describing it as an unprecedented mobilization whose impact would be remembered for generations. His comments reflected the intensity of the security calculus for Israel’s leadership as events unfolded, emphasizing deterrence and long-term strategic objectives in the context of a volatile security environment. Observers noted that such statements underscored the persistence of urgent security concerns in the Israeli-Gaza corridor and the ongoing tension between immediate military objectives and the humanitarian implications of prolonged conflict (RIA News).