Nadav Eyal, prominent Israeli political journalist and senior research scholar in Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA), led a conversation in Barnard’s Diana Center last week about Middle East politics and the implications of new developments in the region. Eyal began: “The elephant in the room, of course, is that these kinds of discussions have been largely missing from U.S. campuses since the war began. Those who have relied solely on narratives that we have heard, sometimes painted with racism, antisemitism or legitimizing violence, would remain completely incapable of grasping the full scope of these transformations in the Middle East today.”
Eyal gave a comprehensive history of the changes in the region over the last year, beginning with the domination of the Middle East by the Iranian-led Axis of Resistance, which includes Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Northwestern Yemen and the Gaza Strip. As Eyal explained, “This axis was not an idea. It was a very practical thing as far as Iran’s sphere of influence.” Beyond the axis’s clear goals of eradicating Zionism, their goals posed a direct threat to other Arab countries, such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, which tried to counteract the advances of the axis.
Eyal labeled the intense dissent within Israeli politics as a potential catalyst for the current conflict. Figures like terror chief Hassan Nasrallah saw Israel as a country “weak as a spider’s web” and on the verge of collapse from within; this internal conflict fueled that rhetoric—“Israel was caught before October 7 between internal challenges and unpopular government,” Eyal said. However, this was obviously a planned attack in which Hamas demonstrated an unprecedented and shocking degree of violence and destruction, which cannot be entirely (or even largely) traced to Israel’s instability. The IDF’s delayed reaction on October 7 and the evacuation and displacement of tens of thousands of residents in the subsequent days further exposed this insecurity.
Fourteen months after the war began, all of the architects and leaders of Hamas are dead, and it is losing popularity in polls. Thousands of people are dead. Many residential areas have been destroyed. Hezbollah is significantly weakened as well; despite initial claims that the group would remain in the war until Israel pulled out of Gaza, it has agreed to terms for a ceasefire. The Axis collapsed as soon as the ceasefire agreement was made; less than 24 hours after the agreement was signed, rebel groups in Syria mobilized. “Iran lost Syria; Iran saw Hezbollah weakened and Hamas crippled,” Eyal said. “One reason for these failures are deep miscalculations of Israeli capabilities. Hamas believed that internal divisions over Netanyahu’s leadership would fracture Israeli unity on the road to a war. The opposite happened.” The demonstrations regarding judicial overhaul actually proved the active and engaged nature of Israeli society.
“Now, another element that I think is worth mentioning is false hope from demonstrations and protests against Israel abroad.” Hamas and the Iranian powers behind it saw the demonstrations in the West, and especially on college campuses, as growing international support for their cause.” This false narrative fed into the plans of the Axis and catastrophically led to its collapse, along with the military force that Israel and the United States placed upon it. The United States provided intense pressure on Iran’s regime because Trump finally provided not just a threat, but a deadline. After the fall of Assad, even radical forces in the Middle East are recognizing the recklessness and misjudgment in Sinwar’s decision to launch the October 7 attack.
In response to my question regarding a plan for Israel and the Gaza Strip, Eyal reminded the crowd that whatever happens, Gaza will remain a neighbor to Israel. The question is simply who will rule the area. The three viable options right now are the IDF, Fatah and Hamas; Eyal believes that in the best interest of Palestinians and Israelis alike, Fatah is the lesser evil of the three choices. A rule by either the IDF or Hamas will lead to more of the instability the region has seen thus far. The war would only end when one side stands down, which is highly unlikely and would only lead to more violence than has already ensued. Unfortunately, Fatah is the best option the region has, but it is still a bastion of violence.
On campuses like Columbia’s, support for Fatah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine is equal. All armed resistance is seen as a worthy cause, without discrimination. Fatah is less violent than the PFLP, and Barnard students were shocked to find stickers and posters supporting Fatah—not because Fatah is violent, but because the typical support is for the more radical PFLP. Eyal specifically stated on Barnard premises that he believes “protests that we have seen that were legitimizing violence … actually made an either small or a bigger contribution for this war being such a long war.”
The collapse of the Axis of Resistance, despite vastly shifting the situation of the Middle East, does not automatically mean stability for the Middle East or a win for Israel. First, Iran’s weakness opens the possibility for nuclear weapons use, because this weakness can lead it to a much more extreme retaliation. Second, Israel has yet to present a vision for a new reality in Gaza. “The collapse of Assad, the weakening of Hezbollah, the destruction of Hamas, marked a major shift. It’s a win for moderates in the Middle East with the fall of the Axis of Resistance. It is already clear that military victories alone are not enough. What the region and Gaza in particular need is a coherent political vision supported by a bold and competent leadership.” nding his address, Eyal added, “And unfortunately, both are in a desperately short supply.”
Eliana Birman is the assistant digital editor for The Jewish Link. She is a student at Barnard College and lives in Teaneck.
