Hamas views the October 7 massacre as a historic achievement, and Israeli security experts warn that preventing another attack requires dismantling the organization’s military power and ability to rule Gaza.

By Hezy Laing

For Hamas, October 7, 2023, was more than a surprise attack on Israel. It was an attempt to demonstrate that the Jewish state could be overwhelmed, its defenses breached, and its civilians terrorized on a massive scale.

That is the central argument of Meir Ben Shabbat, head of the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy and a former Israeli national security adviser. In an October 2026 analysis, Ben Shabbat argues that the attack gave Hamas and its supporters a sense of capability they had not previously possessed: the belief that Israel could ultimately be destroyed.

The danger, he warns, is that this belief could inspire future attacks even after Hamas has suffered severe military losses.

Hamas Still Celebrates October 7

Hamas has continued to portray the October 7 assault as a historic victory rather than a catastrophe that should never be repeated.

In a statement marking the third anniversary of the attack, the organization described it as a milestone in its struggle against Israel. Hamas-linked media also presented the assault as a source of national pride, reinforcing the group’s determination to continue its campaign.

The message is consistent with statements made by senior Hamas official Ghazi Hamad shortly after the massacre. Hamad declared that the attack would be repeated, describing October 7 as only the first in a potential series of assaults.

Such statements matter because they offer insight into the organization’s stated objectives. Israel cannot assume that inflicting heavy military losses will automatically persuade Hamas to abandon its ambitions.

Winning Battles Is Not Enough

The IDF has inflicted extensive damage on Hamas, eliminating commanders, destroying military infrastructure, and disrupting its operations. Yet Ben Shabbat argues that battlefield losses alone do not guarantee a lasting strategic victory.

Hamas could attempt to present its survival as a victory, even if its military capabilities have been severely reduced. If the organization retains enough influence to rebuild its forces and continue ruling Gaza, it could claim that October 7 achieved its purpose.

This is the danger of allowing a terrorist organization to survive a war while preserving the belief that its strategy ultimately worked.

In a separate 2024 analysis, Ben Shabbat warned that Hamas could use a ceasefire to replenish ammunition, gather intelligence, reorganize its forces, and restore its authority over Gaza’s population. A pause in fighting, he argued, could become an opportunity for recovery rather than a step toward lasting peace.

The Challenge Goes Beyond Weapons

Ben Shabbat also highlights a deeper problem: Hamas spent years exercising control over Gaza’s schools, media, religious institutions, and government bodies.

Many residents grew up under Hamas rule, exposed to its ideology and messaging. This history presents a significant challenge for any effort to prevent the organization from returning to power.

Destroying weapons and tunnels is therefore only part of the task. Israel must also ensure that Hamas cannot restore its governing machinery, intimidate the population, or use civilian institutions to rebuild its influence.

That does not mean treating Gaza’s civilian population as synonymous with Hamas. It means recognizing that a lasting security arrangement must prevent the organization from reestablishing the structures that supported its military rule.

Preventing the Next October 7

Ben Shabbat’s conclusion is clear: Israel must prevent Hamas from retaining the military and governing capabilities needed to repeat its attack.

That requires dismantling the organization’s military infrastructure, demilitarizing Gaza, and maintaining security arrangements that prevent Hamas from rebuilding its strength. It also requires recognizing that a ceasefire, by itself, does not establish that the threat has ended.

The broader lesson of October 7 is that Israel must measure success not only by the damage inflicted on its enemies, but also by whether those enemies can recover and threaten the country again.

Hamas has demonstrated what it was willing to do when it believed it had the opportunity. The challenge for Israel is to ensure that the organization never again possesses the capabilities—or the confidence—to attempt it.