����ֱ��

RIYADH: The year 2023 began with signs of shifting regional dynamics. On March 10, senior security officials from China, Iran and ����ֱ�� met in Beijing to formalize an agreement restoring diplomatic ties between Riyadh and Tehran after more than four decades of tensions.

While both sides described the rapprochement as cautious, the deal marked a turning point. Previous rounds of talks, hosted by Iraq and Oman, had paved the way for dialogue but the final agreement signaled a broader shift toward diplomacy and direct engagement over longstanding hostility.

In the months that followed, Iran and ����ֱ�� reestablished diplomatic missions, with Tehran reopening its embassy in Riyadh and the Kingdom resuming operations in the Iranian capital. The agreement provided a framework for the two countries to focus on shared regional challenges rather than their history of rivalry. For Riyadh, in particular, the easing of tensions with Iran was a crucial step toward achieving the stability needed for its long-term development goals.

This momentum toward regional realignment was further reflected in reports of ongoing Saudi-Israeli normalization talks, brokered by the US. Speculation intensified until Sept. 21, when Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman confirmed, in an interview with Fox News, that ����ֱ�� was moving “closer” to a deal with Tel Aviv, describing it as “the biggest historical agreement since the end of the Cold War.” However, he also stressed that the Palestinian issue remained a key factor in any potential accord.

In hindsight, his words seemed to foreshadow what would come next. Two weeks later, on Oct. 7, Hamas launched a large-scale attack on Israel, shattering hopes of a breakthrough in Saudi-Israeli relations.

More than that, the attacks represented a seismic event that left Israelis and Palestinians, and the rest of the Middle East, badly bleeding. The scars will remain on the two peoples and their societies, and many others far beyond their borders, for decades to come.

The brutality of the Hamas attacks, during which more than 1,200 people were killed and about 250 abducted, followed by the relentless nature of Israel’s massive military response, have left a legacy of death and destruction that spread to other countries in the Middle East.

It remains to be seen what the two societies, and the others directly or indirectly involved, have learned from this. But the first lesson must surely be that allowing a conflict to fester without meticulously addressing its root causes is a disaster waiting to happen, the consequences of which will be considerably more dire than any painful efforts to resolve them.

The second lesson that must be internalized by those involved in the conflict is that the concept of “status quo” can be dangerously misleading and ends only in bloodshed.

Thirdly, setting unrealistic war objectives, especially maximalist ones, will only result in a never-ending war, inevitably with large numbers of victims.

Moreover, underestimating the capabilities, determination and intentions of the enemy can only have disastrous consequences; both sides in this conflict are at fault for that.

Finally, decades of mutual demonization and dehumanization can only result in a complete loss of empathy and legitimize the kind of carnage we have witnessed during this war.

It is still unknown whether Hamas, and the others who joined their attacks, expected to be able to execute the massacre they committed on the scale that unfolded, or whether they were surprised by the complete lack of Israeli preparedness for such an incident. Regardless, nothing can excuse the brutality that was on display that day.

Israel’s response was as much expected as it was condemnable, even allowing for the trauma and sense of grief that engulfed the country. It entered into this war as a red mist descended on the entire nation, including its leaders, who neglected any thoughts of morality and had no political vision for ending the war or its aftermath, nor any consideration for their country’s international reputation.

Depicting the entire population of Gaza as culprits complicit in the attacks, and simply collateral damage in the war against Hamas, legitimized, in their eyes, the mass killing of civilians.

Israel initially garnered the sympathy and support of the world to go after Hamas — but never to kill more than 48,000 people, more than half of them women and children, or reduce the entire Gaza Strip to rubble.

The Israeli government — the most far-right in the country’s history, led by a prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who was thoroughly compromised by being a defendant in a corruption trial — was ill-equipped to protect its people in the first place, and then set two unachievable objectives: the elimination of Hamas, and the rescue of the hostages through the application of military pressure.

Israeli authorities ended up negotiating with their sworn Islamist enemy, at a very heavy price, a ceasefire agreement that included the return of the remaining hostages in exchange for the release of Palestinian detainees.

Still, the ceasefire deal, reached during the final days of the Biden administration in Washington, with the active encouragement of the incoming Trump administration, presented an opportunity to establish a horizon for the reconstruction of Gaza. However, a genuine peace process between Israelis and Palestinians is under threat from US President Donald Trump’s proposal to take over Gaza and relocate the Palestinians there to Egypt and Jordan.

In response, Egypt proposed an alternative plan, calling for $53 billion to rebuild Gaza without displacing its population. However, the resistance in Israel and Washington to the Egyptian plan, which Arab leaders adopted during the Cairo Summit on March 4, compounded by unanswered questions about the fate of Hamas and who will rule Gaza, means the future of the enclave remains uncertain.

The Arab gathering to discuss Egypt’s plan reflects the impact that Oct. 7 had, and will continue to have, on the rest of the Middle East.

The hostilities were not confined to Gaza; they spread across the Middle East as old enmities bubbled back up to the surface, mainly among Iran and its “Axis of Resistance” allies.

It is true that Hezbollah, the military threat Israel most feared along its immediate borders and was probably the best-prepared to deal with, proved hesitant when the Israelis were at their most vulnerable in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, and offered only halfhearted support for Hamas.

However, the continual barrage of missiles and rockets from southern Lebanon rendered northern Israel too dangerous for much of the population to remain there and forced their displacement, eventually leading to a powerful, if delayed, response by Israeli authorities in late September 2024.

The resultant elimination of much of the Hezbollah leadership, in particular its chief Hassan Nasrallah, and the severe damage inflicted on its military capabilities changed the equation of fear between this Shiite movement and the Jewish state, giving Israel the upper hand. Their ceasefire agreement on Nov. 27 has the potential to ensure the Israeli-Lebanese border remains quiet in the long term.

Combined with this truce, the election of Joseph Aoun as Lebanese president on Jan. 9, after two years of a power vacuum that followed the end of his predecessor’s term, marked the start of a journey of political change in the country.

However, it remains to be seen what the lasting effects of the Oct. 7 attacks will be on the Israelis and the Palestinians, as well as the wider Middle East.

One can only hope diplomacy will prevail and peaceful resolutions to conflicts can be reached. The alternative, as we saw during this most recent war, is immense suffering, mainly among innocent civilians.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and senior consulting fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House.