Last week, Queen Rania of Jordan—a country largely dependent on Israel for its national security—gave a sickening interview with the highly sympathetic Christiane Amanpour of CNN. Yet her opinions are not necessarily typical of thinking in Arab capitals. Ghaith al-Omari, writing shortly after Hamas’s attack on Israel, provides some crucial analysis:

Like the rest of the world, Arab governments were caught off guard by the unprecedented scale and brutality of Hamas’s attack. They shared Israel’s assumption that Hamas was not currently interested in a major escalation but was instead busy with the demands of governing Gaza and deterred by Israel’s carrots and sticks.

Consider Israel’s close neighbors, Egypt and Jordan, both of which reacted cautiously in the immediate aftermath of the attack. Egyptian officials refrained from condemning Hamas, called for de-escalation, and criticized Israeli policies toward the Palestinians. Jordan reacted similarly, expressing support for the Palestinian cause. . . .

In fact, Israel’s offensive against Gaza has already provoked unrest in both countries: an Egyptian policeman murdered two Israeli tourists and their Egyptian tour guide in Alexandria on October 8, a day after Hamas conducted its attack, and thousands of Jordanians demonstrated in Amman against Israel. As a result, both countries are on heightened alert. Egypt has explicitly stated that it will not allow large refugee flows from Gaza into its territory. And Jordan banned demonstrations near its border with Israel.

By contrast, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates condemned Hamas, with the Emirati government calling the group’s actions a “serious and grave escalation” and declaring that it was “appalled” by the attacks on civilians. These statements come at a time when diplomatic relations between Israel and the two countries are delicate.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.