The Straits Times recently published a comprehensive article examining international responses to the two-year anniversary of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. The report highlights a spectrum of perspectives from global leaders and individuals directly impacted by the conflict.
European leaders are united in their condemnation of the initial Hamas attacks. However, many also voice concern over the scale and impact of Israel’s military response in Gaza. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni criticized Israel’s actions as exceeding principles of proportionality and cited significant civilian casualties. Similarly, Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide argued that Israel’s operations surpassed the boundaries set by international law.
A central theme throughout the article is the universal call for the immediate release of hostages and a ceasefire. World leaders repeatedly stress the urgency of halting violence to prevent further loss of life. Support for a two-state solution is also prominent, with many viewing it as the only sustainable path to lasting peace.
The piece references former President Trump’s involvement and his proposed peace plan, noting its influence on ongoing diplomatic discussions. Israeli families of victims and hostages express gratitude for Trump’s efforts, while residents of Gaza share hopes for an end to the war and a return to normalcy.
Personal testimonies add depth to the coverage, illustrating the profound human cost on both sides. These accounts underscore the widespread anguish caused by both the attacks and the subsequent military operations.
In conclusion, The Straits Times article effectively captures the complexity of global reactions on the anniversary of the Hamas attack. By presenting both political statements and individual experiences, it reveals a world grappling with the balance between condemning terrorism and addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza.
Two years after the Hamas attack on Israel that reshaped the Middle East, the international community remains deeply divided on how to characterize both the initial assault and Israel’s subsequent military response. The October 7, 2023 attack—which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Israeli civilians and the kidnapping of over 250 people—triggered a conflict that has claimed tens of thousands of lives and displaced millions in Gaza. As world leaders marked the somber anniversary on October 7, 2025, their statements revealed not just diplomatic positioning, but fundamental disagreements about proportionality, international law, and the path to peace.
For Singapore, a small nation heavily dependent on international trade routes and regional stability, the ongoing conflict carries significant implications that extend far beyond moral solidarity.
The European Position: Condemnation Paired with Criticism
The Balancing Act
European leaders demonstrated a careful balancing act in their anniversary statements, universally condemning the Hamas attacks while expressing varying degrees of criticism toward Israel’s military campaign. EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen characterized the Hamas attacks as “horror” while emphasizing that peace efforts should honor victims’ memory. French President Emmanuel Macron called it “unspeakable horror of Hamas terrorism” but paired this with calls for immediate ceasefire and hostage release.
Direct Criticism of Israeli Response
More pointed criticism came from several European leaders. Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, despite condemning Hamas’s “ignominy,” stated plainly that “Israel’s military response has gone beyond any principle of proportionality, claiming too many innocent lives among Gaza’s civilian population.” This represents a significant statement from a leader often considered more sympathetic to Israel than some of her European counterparts.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Espen Barth Eide was even more explicit, declaring that “Norway has been clear that Israel’s response to the 7 October attacks has gone far beyond the limits set by these rules,” referring to international law, humanitarian law, and human rights. He noted that “Gaza lies in ruins and the Palestinian population has been subjected to unimaginable suffering.”
The Palestinian State Question
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen introduced another critical dimension, suggesting that Israel’s actions now involve “preventing a Palestinian state from ever becoming a reality.” Her statement that Palestinians “have the right to life, freedom and personal security” alongside Israel’s security concerns represents a fundamental tension in European thinking: how to acknowledge Israel’s security needs while insisting on Palestinian rights.
The Anglo-American Sphere: Solidarity with Caveats
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer described October 7 as “the worst attack on the Jewish people since the Holocaust,” employing language that frames the event in historical terms of Jewish persecution. However, even while expressing solidarity, he laid out a clear agenda: “release the hostages. Surge aid into Gaza. And a ceasefire that can lead to a lasting and just peace.”
The Swedish response, from Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson, focused heavily on domestic antisemitism, using the anniversary to address Jewish safety within Sweden itself. This reflects a broader European concern about how the conflict has amplified antisemitic incidents across the continent.
The Trump Factor: A Controversial Peace Broker
Multiple statements referenced former U.S. President Donald Trump’s involvement in peace negotiations, with the Israeli Hostages and Missing Families Forum expressing “profound gratitude to President Trump for his unwavering dedication and leadership.” One Israeli citizen at a protest even suggested Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.
This represents a notable development in international diplomacy. Trump’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict during his first presidency was marked by strongly pro-Israel positions, including recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and brokering the Abraham Accords with Arab states while sidelining Palestinian concerns. His re-emergence as a peace broker raises questions about whether his approach has evolved or whether the parties’ desperation has grown.
The Voices from the Ground
Israeli Trauma and Frustration
The personal testimonies from Israelis reveal ongoing trauma and frustration. Zohar Avigdori, whose sister and niece were kidnapped and later released, emphasized that “the war still goes on, and above all, we have 48 hostages who are still waiting to come home.” The continued captivity of hostages two years later represents both a humanitarian crisis and a profound failure of Israeli military and political leadership to secure their release.
Orit Baron, whose daughter was killed at the music festival attacked by Hamas, expressed the permanent devastation of loss: “I can never be happy or complete ever again.” Her daughter and fiancé were to be married on Valentine’s Day 2024—a future that was obliterated along with hundreds of other futures on October 7, 2023.
Palestinian Desperation
Mohammed Dib, a 49-year-old Gaza resident, spoke for millions when he said: “It’s been two years that we are living in fear, horror, displacement and destruction.” His hope for negotiations to “reach a ceasefire and a final end to the war” reflects the exhaustion of a population that has endured devastating bombardment, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.
The stark contrast between Israeli grief over specific individuals and named losses, and Palestinian testimony about collective suffering, reflects the asymmetry of the conflict itself: highly personalized Israeli losses versus massive, depersonalized Palestinian casualties.
Hamas and Militant Groups: Defiance Continues
The joint statement from Hamas and other militant groups was brief and uncompromising: “The choice of resistance by all means is the sole and only way to confront the Zionist enemy.” This language suggests no softening of position, no acknowledgment of civilian suffering, and no acceptance of Israel’s right to exist—positions that make diplomatic resolution extraordinarily difficult.
The Proportionality Debate
Central to international reactions is the question of proportionality. Under international humanitarian law, military action must be proportionate to the threat and must distinguish between combatants and civilians. While Israel has the right to self-defense against terrorist attacks, multiple international leaders explicitly stated their view that the Gaza campaign has exceeded these bounds.
The statistics support these concerns. While exact figures remain disputed and difficult to verify, the Gaza Health Ministry has reported tens of thousands of Palestinian deaths since October 2023, the majority civilians. The scale of destruction has been immense, with entire neighborhoods reduced to rubble and critical infrastructure destroyed.
Yet from Israel’s perspective, Hamas deliberately embeds military assets within civilian areas, uses hospitals and schools for military purposes, and constructs extensive tunnel networks beneath civilian infrastructure. This creates an impossible tactical situation where distinguishing between military and civilian targets becomes extremely difficult.
The Two-State Solution: Rhetoric vs. Reality
Multiple leaders invoked the “two-state solution” as the path to lasting peace. This formulation—an independent Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel—has been the official international consensus for decades. Yet it has never seemed more distant.
Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank has continued throughout this period, making a contiguous Palestinian state increasingly difficult to imagine. Palestinian political division between the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas control in Gaza creates no unified partner for peace negotiations. And Israeli public opinion, traumatized by October 7, has shifted further away from territorial compromise.
Danish Prime Minister Frederiksen’s suggestion that Israel is actively preventing a Palestinian state reflects a growing international perception that the two-state solution is not merely stalled but being deliberately undermined.
Regional Implications and Global Security
The conflict’s ripple effects extend far beyond Israel and Palestine. Regional actors including Iran, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and Houthi rebels in Yemen have been drawn into the conflict, creating a broader regional confrontation. Attacks on shipping in the Red Sea by Houthi forces have disrupted international commerce and raised insurance costs for maritime trade.
For global powers, the conflict represents competing interests. The United States has maintained strong support for Israel while facing domestic political pressure over Palestinian casualties. European nations are caught between historical guilt over the Holocaust, commitments to Israel’s security, concern for Palestinian rights, and domestic Muslim populations. Russia and China have used the conflict to criticize Western “double standards” on international law, particularly compared to reactions to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Impact on Singapore: Small Nation, Global Exposure
Economic Vulnerabilities
For Singapore, the ongoing Middle East conflict presents several significant challenges. As a major shipping and logistics hub, Singapore is highly sensitive to disruptions in global trade routes. The Houthi attacks on Red Sea shipping have forced vessels to take longer routes around Africa, increasing costs and delivery times. Any escalation that further disrupts maritime trade directly affects Singapore’s economy.
Singapore’s role as a global financial center also creates exposure. Volatility in oil prices—which tends to spike during Middle East instability—affects everything from Singapore’s substantial refining industry to the broader Asian economy that Singapore services. The city-state’s economic model depends on stability and predictability in global commerce.
Diplomatic Tightrope
Singapore has historically maintained a carefully balanced position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The nation does not have formal diplomatic relations with Israel, reflecting sensitivity to Muslim-majority neighbors Indonesia and Malaysia, yet maintains robust trade and security cooperation with Israel behind the scenes.
Singapore has consistently supported a two-state solution and called for respect for international law, while also unequivocally condemning terrorism. This balanced approach allows Singapore to maintain relationships across the divide while staying true to principles of sovereignty and international law that are existential for small nations.
Multiracial Harmony Concerns
With approximately 15% of Singapore’s population being Muslim and a small but established Jewish community, the government must carefully manage domestic communal relations. The conflict has historically had the potential to inflame communal tensions, though Singapore’s strict laws against hate speech and strong emphasis on racial and religious harmony have generally prevented spillover.
The government’s approach has been to allow peaceful expression of support for either side while firmly prohibiting anything that could incite hatred or violence. This requires constant vigilance and sensitive management, particularly given the emotional intensity surrounding the conflict.
Strategic Stability Interests
More broadly, Singapore has a profound interest in the principle that international disputes should be resolved through peaceful means and respect for international law, not through force. As a small nation that has prospered through adherence to international rules and norms, any erosion of these principles poses an existential threat.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict tests whether the international system can enforce its own rules. If international law becomes viewed as selectively applied—enforced against some but not others—it undermines the entire framework that protects small nations from larger powers.
Regional Muslim Sentiment
Singapore must also navigate regional sentiment in Southeast Asia. Malaysia and Indonesia, key neighbors and economic partners, have strong pro-Palestinian positions reflecting their Muslim-majority populations. Popular sentiment in these countries has been strongly critical of Israel’s Gaza campaign.
Singapore cannot ignore regional opinion without risking its relationships and standing in ASEAN. Yet it also cannot simply align with regional positions if doing so contradicts Singapore’s own principles regarding terrorism and self-defense. This requires diplomatic dexterity and clear communication about Singapore’s principled positions.
The Path Forward: Pessimism and Possibility
Two years after October 7, the prospects for peace appear dim. The cycle of violence has deepened trauma on both sides, hardened political positions, and destroyed trust. Israeli society, traumatized by the brutality of the attacks and the ongoing hostage situation, has shifted decisively toward hardline security positions. Palestinian society in Gaza has experienced devastation that will take generations to recover from, creating deep wells of grief and anger.
Yet the involvement of Trump as a potential broker, mentioned repeatedly in anniversary statements, represents a possible opening. Trump’s transactional approach and willingness to ignore diplomatic convention could potentially produce outcomes that traditional diplomacy cannot. His previous success in brokering the Abraham Accords demonstrated an ability to reshape Middle East diplomacy.
However, any sustainable peace requires addressing fundamental issues: Israel’s security concerns, Palestinian aspirations for statehood and dignity, the status of Jerusalem, the question of refugees and right of return, and economic viability for any Palestinian state. None of these issues has become easier to resolve in the past two years.
Conclusion
The international reactions to the two-year anniversary of October 7 reveal a world community united in grief over suffering but deeply divided on solutions. The universal condemnation of Hamas’s terrorist attack coexists with widespread criticism of Israel’s military response. Calls for hostage release, ceasefires, and two-state solutions coexist with continued violence and hardening positions.
For Singapore, the conflict serves as a reminder of how quickly regional stability can collapse and how distant conflicts can have profound local impacts. It reinforces the importance of Singapore’s commitment to international law, peaceful dispute resolution, and maintaining relationships across divides.
As the conflict enters its third year, the question is not whether there is enough blame to go around—clearly there is—but whether there is enough will, wisdom, and courage to break the cycle of violence and move toward a just and lasting peace. The anniversary statements suggest international engagement remains strong, but rhetoric alone cannot end wars. What is needed are concrete steps: hostage releases, humanitarian access, cessation of violence, and ultimately, difficult compromises by all parties.
Until then, the suffering continues, and the world watches with a mixture of horror, frustration, and diminishing hope.