One year after Oct. 7, Israel needs more than sympathy

Global reaction to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel split into two camps: sympathy and condemnation. Vigils were held worldwide, and leaders voiced their sorrow. Yet, these sentiments were quickly overshadowed by a surge of antisemitism. A year later, the divide remains. But Israel needs more than more sympathy. It needs understanding of the harsh realities it faces.

Hamas and Hezbollah, backed by Iran, are committed to Israel’s destruction. While the West has grown more secular, much of the world has not. Secular politicians assume that dialogue and rational compromise can resolve what Islamist extremists view as a holy war. They cannot.

Despite being labeled a terrorist group by the U.S. and European Union, Hamas is treated by some as a credible partner for peace. Billions in aid have flowed into Gaza. The largest single building project Hamas has completed to date with that international assistance? Not civilian infrastructure like energy grids or water systems, but a tunnel network for smuggling weapons, staging attacks, and now for keeping hostages in squalor.

Hezbollah has only grown despite global recognition as a terrorist group and a decade of unmet U.N. peacekeeping promises to Israel to stop Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel’s northern communities. Israel is left to confront the threat.

In the West Bank, the Palestinian Authority has an 88-year-old leader and no succession plan. Extremist factions (Fatah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad) are all too ready to seize control.

A Palestinian state is crucial to long-term peace and stability but won’t be achieved through naivete. Palestinian leaders have repeatedly rejected land-for-peace offers, prioritizing Israel’s destruction over state-building. The all-too-common call for a Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” is a call for a Palestine that replaces Israel, not coexists with it. International aid has propped up Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza rather than insisting on leadership that will guide Palestinians away from war and toward peace.

Israel is not an abstraction, it is a reality. It is a democracy of 10 million in a region where half a billion live under autocratic regimes. About 20% of Israel’s population is Arab, and more than half its Jewish citizens come from families expelled from Middle Eastern and North African countries. Losing Israel would mean losing a cultural and technological hub that benefits the world in profound ways. It would destabilize Israel’s regional allies like Egypt and Jordan and embolden Islamic extremists around the world.

One year after Oct. 7, Israel continues to face existential challenges and its decisive response is necessary. Only this approach can deter future attacks, forcing groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to reconsider aggression. It clarifies Israel’s nonnegotiable security needs and strengthens the confidence of regional allies and possible future regional allies like Saudi Arabia and Oman. The Abraham Accords show that normalization is possible when countries see their interests align with a strong Israel.

The civilian casualties in this war are tragic. However, war is about achieving strategic objectives, not balancing casualties. The disparity in casualties also highlights Israel’s massive investments in high-tech defense systems (e.g., Iron Dome, David’s Sling) and low-tech ones (bomb shelters and safe rooms) in order to shield its civilians. In contrast, Hamas opts to use its resources to wage war, and Gaza’s civilians as human shields.

A sustainable future for Israelis and Palestinians requires more than calls for peace. It demands moral clarity, challenging extremism, leadership that prioritizes coexistence over conflict, and yes — it requires a continuing decisive Israeli response to the invasion of Oct. 7.

This guest essay reflects the views of Todd Pittinsky, professor of technology  and society  at Stony Brook University.