I cannot exactly tell which of leaderships of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad or Hamas ordered the launch of the latest "Gaza War". But frankly, given the enormity of what we have seen and what we may still see, such a question becomes insignificant.
What happened has happened; and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime minister, has promised a new regional map, with a "chorus" of absolute support from Western government led, of course, by Washington.
However, given that in every crisis there are two "camps", let us ask about what considerations brought about the actions and counteractions of the Likud and Hamas; and begin with the "camp" that fired the first shot, i.e. Hamas and allies.
What reaction did the planners of the Hamas large-scale assault expect from Israel's most extremist and anti-Palestinian government since 1948.
Didn't these planners recall what happened to Lebanon in 2006, after Hezbollah's cross-border operation, which was much smaller than the attack on the several settlements in the "Gaza Envelope"?
Didn't they remember that Israel responded with a massive operation that destroyed much of Lebanon's infrastructure to the extent that Hassan Nasrallah, Hezbollah's Secretary General, admitted his miscalculations. In fact, until today Nasrallah's local opponents continue to taunt him by his words "had I known" phrase?!?!
Furthermore, I guess that there is a multi-dimensional query that does beyond the Palestinian-Israeli confrontation itself. It is whether those who took the decision to start the war really expected Iran - both its government or/and its affiliated militias - would rise and "wipe Israel off the face of the earth", as we are frequently told by the orators of Iran's Revolutionary Guards and the Mullahs of Tehran, Beirut and Baghdad?
Weren't they surprised by Washington's claim, a couple of hours after the Hamas assault, that there was no proof of Tehran's involvement? Weren't they even shocked by Iran's initial silence, before its vocal orators overcame the embarrassment of being acquitted by the "Greater Satan" and the "Lesser Satan"?
Well, forget about Iran for a moment, and let us look at the regional players. Was it logical to bet on regional players burdened by their own concerns, worries, and fears?
Moreover, did the assault planners take in consideration that Russia and China were too busy (with the Ukraine and Taiwan respectively) to stop Washington from defending an entity that it has always regarded an inseparable part of its national security and the spearhead of its Middle East influence?
In the other camp, i.e. Israel, I reckon that "finishing off" the notion of "Palestine", as an identity, an entity and a cause, has always been a top priority for the Israeli Right; indeed, not only the Israeli Right!
The mere existence of "Palestine" has been a moral, demographic, political and national security problem for Israel since the days of its founders. However, if some of the "founders" comfortably repeated during the days of relatively weak media and scant education the slogan "a land without people for a people"; many still believe this falsehood in the days of Netanyahu's current government... despite the media and education advances!
Extremists, like the National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, do not accept the existence of the Palestinian people, and actively seek the full "transfer"(of the Palestinians) as a final solution. This uprooting and displacement "solution" has been recently commended by the former Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, when he defended the idea of transferring 1.1 million Palestinians to Sinai (despite Egypt's refusal) and settling them there just like the resettling of the Syrian refugees escaping the massacres of the Assad regime!
By the way, Ben Gvir is a former disciple of Kach, the militant Zionist organization founded by the late Rabbi Meir Kahane who once described the Arabs as dogs. He was recently busy distributing assault weapons to Israeli settlers, thus, proving his militant credentials.
As for Smotrich, he recently said and repeated in both France and America that historically there was no Palestinian People, but was only "invented" in the 20th century!
Dangerous people like these, Netanyahu has no qualms as having as allies in order to keep him in power, and assure him of immunity from prosecution for corruption charges. For this end, the Israeli prime minister, has been more than willing to undermine the legal system through "reforms" opposed by hundreds of thousands of Israelis, who have been demonstrating in the streets for months.
All the above promises a gloomy future for the Palestinians. However, for some like the prominent Jewish American columnist Thomas Friedman, it does not bode well for the Israeli either.
Friedman wrote a few days ago "America cannot protect Israel in the long run from the very real threats it faces unless Israel has a government that reflects the best, not the worst, of its society, and unless that government is ready to try to forge compromises with the best, not the worst, of Palestinian society."
As for the Middle East, as whole, a lot depends on what one concludes from Iran's stances.
Washington's keenness on preventing the "expansion of the conflict" really means allowing Israel's war machine to isolate Palestinian... some of whom have naively gambled Iran's support. It may also mean that Joe Biden's administration still wants Tehran as a "security partner" in the Near East, just as it was after the "invention" of ISIS, and the exploitation of its atrocities.
So, the regional map that may be sought by Netanyahu – including the Iranian corridor to the Mediterranean – may very well be based on "confirming" and "perpetuating" the regional zones of influence in Iraq, Lebanon, and specifically, Syria.
Here, indeed, all previous illusions fall.
