Yahya Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, and Mohammed al-Deif, head of the movement’s military wing, the Al-Qassam Brigades, have been named as the principal architects of Hamas’ plan to strike Israel on October 7. The report notes that this assessment comes from sources within Israel and is quoted by a guardalike outlet that cites Israeli sources for its information.
The account describes the operation, referred to as the Al-As Flood, as having caught many Hamas members off guard. Verbal orders to attend prayer at 4:00 a.m. were issued suddenly, followed by the final directives delivered orally at around 6:00 a.m., marking the moment the plan was set in motion and the units began moving toward their objectives. This sequence highlights the chaotic, tightly coordinated nature of the attack and the tight schedule that governed its execution.
According to the publication, every Hamas unit involved had a distinct target, with one notably controversial element being the assault on the camp housing participants at an electronic music festival where 260 people were killed. The report suggests this particular strike might not have been part of the original operational design aimed at a Hamas-wide plan, implying a possible deviation or escalation that stretched beyond the initial tactical framework.
In addition to the assault on specific sites, Hamas units reportedly had three main missions: to strike Israeli forces near the Gaza boundary, to fend off Israeli countermeasures, and to maximize the number of hostages taken. This multipronged objective reveals a strategy aimed at inflicting significant immediate damage, complicating Israel’s response and enhancing leverage in any potential negotiations.
Earlier statements from the IDF indicated that an individual responsible for Hamas operational planning was killed by Israeli air power, underscoring the dynamic, ongoing security conflict in the region and the swift, targeted nature of Israeli actions against figures tied to Hamas operations.
The Middle East situation deteriorated swiftly after thousands of Hamas militants crossed from the Gaza Strip into Israel on October 7, leading to the capture of more than two hundred hostages. The rapid expansion of violence and the scale of the assaults triggered a broad security and humanitarian crisis, drawing international concern and prompting various regional reactions.
In response to the October 7 events, Hamas announced the launch of a massive rocket campaign against Israel. This escalation produced a direct, high-intensity confrontation, prompting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to declare that the country was at war. The declaration signaled a broad mobilization of military resources and a shift to a sustained, government-led wartime posture, with the aim of disabling Hamas capabilities in Gaza.
The Israeli Defense Forces named their campaign Iron Swords, with a stated objective of dismantling Hamas infrastructure within the Gaza Strip. The air campaign targeted a wide array of Hamas facilities and assets, as the Israeli government authorized measures to disrupt the movement’s ability to operate. In parallel, the Israeli National Security Council approved measures to cut off essential supplies to Gaza, including water, food, goods, electricity, and fuel, a decision intended to pressure Hamas and degrade the group’s operational capacity—while highlighting the harsh human consequences of the conflict for Gaza’s civilian population. The unfolding military actions and policy responses reflect a high-stakes effort by both sides to gain strategic advantage in a deeply entrenched confrontation.
In analyses offered by political scientists, the recurring flare-ups of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are attributed to a blend of long-standing grievance, security dynamics, and changing political calculations among regional actors. These assessments explore how episodic spikes, such as the October 7 events, fit within broader patterns of violence, provocation, and retaliation that have shaped the region for decades. The discussion underscores that such cycles are not easily resolved by military means alone and require careful consideration of humanitarian, political, and diplomatic dimensions as part of any long-term path toward stability, security, and coexistence. (Source: academic commentary and regional reporting attribution)