Former Israeli leaders and the Hamas challenge
A former Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, characterized Hamas’ attack on Israel as a profound intelligence and policy failure. In a discussion with Der Spiegel, he argued that Benjamin Netanyahu and successive right‑leaning administrations bore responsibility for indirect support to Hamas. Barak asserted that years of policies allowed money from Qatar to flow into Gaza, a dynamic he described as part of a strategic calculus that complicated any prospect for Palestinian negotiation while Hamas remained active in the region.
Barak emphasized that Netanyahu’s approach, he believed, undermined the Palestinian Authority, which governs parts of the West Bank and is seen by many as more moderate than Hamas. He contended that Netanyahu aimed to block negotiations on establishing a Palestinian state at all costs, viewing such talks as untenable while Hamas continued its operations in Gaza.
Reflecting on military strategy, Barak stated that a ground operation in the Gaza Strip would be necessary because he doubted that airstrikes, diplomatic outreach, televised appeals, or broad international sympathy could curb Hamas’ activities. He described the recent attack as the most severe setback Israel has faced since its founding, underscoring the scale of the danger Hamas posed at that moment.
In Barak’s view, Israel’s policy toward Palestine and the broader regional balance had reached a critical point where negotiations appeared blocked from multiple directions. He also noted that prior to the latest events, there had been a sense that negotiation with Palestinian authorities was not prioritized by the guarantor states, shaping the regional environment in which Israel acted.
The comments reflect a broader debate about the optimal balance between security measures and political diplomacy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They underscore the tensions within Israeli leadership about how best to respond to Hamas’ influence, the role of external funding in Gaza, and the policy choices that shape prospects for peace. The discussion also highlights how changes in leadership and policy can ripple through the security landscape, influencing both immediate responses to crises and longer-term strategic goals in the region.