A year and seven months after the October 7 operation, Israel remains far from achieving its strategic objectives. It is now increasingly apparent—even to Israeli commentators—that every delay, every hesitation, only strengthens Hamas, weakens Israeli deterrence, and strips Tel Aviv of the ability to restore its security, recover its captives, or secure its long-term future.
Noa Schusterman-Dvir, writing for Walla News, acknowledged that while the Israeli government continues to chant slogans about a military solution, Hamas is gaining political momentum. The movement is now engaging in direct dialogue with the United States, establishing itself as a central actor in the Palestinian political scene. Meanwhile, Israel—having failed to offer any political alternative—has lost control, effectively leaving the shaping of the Middle East to others.
In an article translated by Arabi21, Schusterman wrote that recent developments have begun to outpace the occupation’s influence:
-
- Renewed U.S.–Iran nuclear negotiations
-
- A halt to American pressure on the Houthis despite continued attacks on Israel
-
- The lifting of sanctions on Syria
-
- The release of Israeli-American Edan Alexander via U.S. mediation
-
- Calls to resume humanitarian aid
-
- And most strikingly: direct American communication with Hamas, bypassing Israel entirely
Each of these steps, she noted, is a slap in the face to Israeli decision-makers.
“Strategic decisions are no longer being made in Tel Aviv, but in Washington,” she wrote. The U.S. appears to be running out of patience with Israeli belligerence, opting instead for a vision of regional prosperity and stability. In the eyes of the Trump administration, Israel is increasingly viewed as a destabilising force that escalates rather than resolves.
Rather than capitalise on past military “gains” in Syria, Lebanon, or against Iran to pursue meaningful diplomacy or normalisation with the region, Israel falsely assumed that time was on its side.
Netanyahu’s government continues to argue that prolonging the war will lead to Hamas’ collapse, weakening its power structure, dismantling its leadership, and paving the way for a pro-Israel proxy authority in Gaza. The endgame, they claim, would be the disintegration of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and the fragmentation of Palestinian political identity into small, disconnected cantons.
But reality tells a different story.
Despite severe blows, Hamas has demonstrated remarkable resilience. It has recruited new fighters, rebuilt tunnel networks, appointed new senior officials, and continues to target Israeli soldiers. Even the assassination of top commanders has not led to collapse. Hamas operates on a deep-rooted ideological foundation, organised leadership, and a strong bond with the Palestinian people.
The core of Israel’s failure lies in its refusal to acknowledge Hamas’ political aspirations, the article argues. Hamas has become the dominant Palestinian force—one that Tel Aviv now must engage with, even if indirectly. The more Israel rejects a comprehensive deal and clings to a phased strategy, the more it gives Hamas the opportunity to demonstrate its authority.
Today, Hamas decides who leaves Gaza, how, and when—even the Americans are negotiating around them. And that, Schusterman writes, is precisely what Hamas has always wanted: legitimacy as the true representative of the Palestinian people.
These shifts underscore a harsh truth for Tel Aviv: Hamas’ strategy is working. Trump’s administration is negotiating with them, floating the idea of a technocratic Palestinian government with Hamas involvement, resuming humanitarian aid, and sidelining Israel’s insistence on “total victory.” Israel, meanwhile, is left reacting—not leading.
Israel’s persistence in continuing the war is not just futile—it is increasingly irrelevant in the face of massive geopolitical shifts. It must realise that this is not a military question alone, but a political reckoning.
Moshe Bozlov, also writing for Walla, echoed this perspective. After 19 months of war, he noted, Israel has failed to defeat Hamas, shatter its ideology, or destroy its image as a national resistance force. Tactical gains mean little when the strategic objective—Hamas’ complete defeat—remains out of reach.
Bozlov warned that unless Hamas is defeated militarily, politically, and ideologically, the war will remain unresolved. Without that, even efforts to secure the release of Israeli hostages will falter. He argued that Hamas is learning from Israeli indecision, leveraging international pressure, and using every pause to rebuild and dictate its own terms.
Even former President Trump, he noted, no longer hides his disappointment with Israel. Every hesitation, every delay, only enhances Hamas’ position and erodes Israeli deterrence.
Bozlov concludes that Israel has entered a grinding war of attrition, one that is exhausting its military reserves and public morale, with no clear path forward—while Hamas, despite the odds, continues to dictate the rhythm of the battlefield.
