The surprise and audacious attack by Hamas on Israel from the Gaza Strip on 07 Oct 23 has drawn parallels with the 9/11 terror attacks on United States in terms of surprise, shock action and casualties. Several media & state reports have even compared the attacks with an ISIS style attack in terms of brutality and depravity. The attacks have drawn massive military retaliation by Israel which has vowed to eliminate Hamas in terms of capacity, capability and desire to carry out an attack on Israel in future^[1]. Israel’s military aim indicates towards a long drawn conflict that could be casualty-intense with a potential of destabilising West Asia, which in recent times had shown positive trends of returning to political, diplomatic and economic normalcy.

Reasons for Success of Hamas Attacks

What is most glaring in the Hamas attacks is the unexpected and unprecedented success of the attacks. The literally uncontested attacks by Hamas for the initial few hours resulted in loss of more than a thousand lives and taking of more than 150 hostages including few foreign nationals. Even Hamas may not have contemplated such success given the kind of focus and resources Israel has committed on intelligence, surveillance and border security.

Hamas had achieved a complete tactical surprise. The militant group sent hundreds of fighters through breached walls, breaking through with bulldozers, aerial insertions through para motors & para gliders and carried out rocket attacks from the sea. It executed a sophisticated attack that required coordinated land, air and sea strikes. Initial assessments suggest that success of Hamas and Israel’s failure to prevent the 07/10 carnage could be attributed to the following:-

1. Intelligence Failure: Israel’s intelligence agencies - Mossad, Shin Bet and military intelligence are widely considered as world’s most effective because of their string of achievements within Israel and abroad. Israel has foiled plots seeded in the West Bank, allegedly hunted down Hamas operatives in Dubai and has been accused of killing Iranian nuclear scientists in the heart of Iran^[2]. However, the 07/10 attacks have cast a serious shadow over their current effectiveness, especially amidst reports that Hamas was planning and preparing for the attacks since past two years. Some probable reasons could be: -
• Reports suggest that in the wake of low level violence and operations in West Bank and against Hezbollah in the North, Israel perhaps was too focussed on threats from Hezbollah and the West Bank, and had rather reduced its military and intelligence focus on Gaza^[3].
• Retired IDF officers have opined that in the absence of a foothold in Gaza, IDF’s ability to gain HUMINT had become difficult. Israel’s security services have come to rely increasingly on technological means to gain intelligence, and militants in Gaza have found ways to evade technological intelligence gathering giving Israel an incomplete picture of their intentions. Militants weren’t using phones or computers and were conducting their sensitive business in rooms specially guarded from technological espionage^[4].
• Media reports suggest that Hamas terrorists had organised themselves into small cells and each cell was preparing independently for the impending attacks without interacting with others, to maintain secrecy.
• Whatever be the reasons, the 07/10 attacks have given a painful blow to the famed Israeli Intelligence agencies calling for more dynamism in the Tactics, Techniques and Procedures for intelligence collection. Questions as to how Hamas managed to build such a big arsenal of rockets and missiles without Israeli intelligence detecting them will continue to haunt the Israeli Intelligence agencies for a long time.
2. Hamas Deception: Israel’s security establishment has in recent years increasingly seen Hamas as an actor interested in governing, seeking to develop Gaza’s economy and improving the standard of living of Gaza’s 2.3 million people. Israel in recent years had allowed up to 18,000 Palestinian labourers from Gaza to work in Israel, where they could earn a salary several times higher than in Gaza^[5]. It was an important employment opportunity which Israel felt will not be jeopardised by Hamas through any violent action. These issues could have possibly lured Israel to believe that an attack by Hamas may not be on the cards, consequently resulting in lowering of its guard, a fatal mistake, despite Egypt warning Israel that Hamas may be planning ‘something big’ in Southern Israel, as reported in media^[6].
3. Internal Instability: Israel has also been preoccupied in past few months with strong anti-government protests resulting from the Israeli governments judicial overhaul plan. Israel politics has been fractured in recent times and has struggled to maintain internal calm. Repeated warnings were given by the defence forces, as well as several former leaders of the country’s intelligence agencies that the political imbroglio was creating instability and was also affecting the cohesion of the country’s security services^[7]. Internal divisions over the legal changes have possibly been an aggravating factor contributing to Israel being caught off guard.
4. Delayed Response by IDF: Initial assessments indicate that possibly due to reduced threat perception from Hamas, Israeli forces were either thin on ground or distant from the Southern border, allowing Hamas to overrun Israeli military bases near Gaza without significant resistance. Further, initial Hamas attacks focussed on destroying key nodes and communication towers of IDF, which resulted in significant breakdown of control for initial few hours resulting in inability of IDF to correctly assess the extent and magnitude of the catastrophe and consequently to plan a swift and appropriate counter. Initial efforts of IDF focussed on regaining control, which resulted in delayed response and gave Hamas sufficient time to execute its attacks with impunity. Further, the barrage of rockets fired by Hamas on several parts of Southern Israel could have deceived Israeli forces to believe that it was the main attack and making it responded accordingly, which allowed literally uncontested insertion of terrorists close to Israeli settlements near Gaza, resulting in the subsequent carnage.
5. Overwhelming of Iron Dome System: Past rocket barrages by Hamas have been blunted in part by Israel’s missile defence system - the Iron Dome. But on 07 Oct the system appeared overwhelmed by the nearly 5000 rockets and missiles fired in rapid succession, potentially more than the system’s interceptors could handle. The Iron Dome is designed to protect population centers and does not shoot if it determines an incoming missile or rocket will land harmlessly. The system has a limited number of Tamir interceptors, and reloading the system can take time. Hamas appeared to have studied the system’s vulnerabilities and evidently exploited them. Hamas for the first time on 07/10 also used a new missile system known as Rajum^[8] that may have been harder to intercept and could have also played a role in defeating the Iron Dome system. Reportedly, Hamas also employed small drones that dropped munitions on Israeli military positions that were difficult to intercept, according to Janes, a defence and open-source intelligence agency.

The next question that arises is - what are the possible aims of Hamas for carrying out the unprecedented shock and awe campaign knowing very well that an attack of this magnitude and destruction will draw a massive punishing military response from Israel which would not only be catastrophic for its own existence but also for the Palestinian community, as the same is playing out now.

One thing that emerges from the scale, magnitude, detailed planning, preparation, coordination and execution of this attack is that Hamas must have had a clear understanding of its objectives prior to undertaking the attacks. Some possible ones could be:-

1. Derail Peace Initiatives in the Middle East: Arab-Israeli normalization is one of key policy areas of the United States and the West. The Abraham Accords—which promised normalization between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain on September 15, 2020, and later between Israel and Morocco and Sudan had been a positive step towards facilitating normalisation of relations between these nations. Similarly, UAE has been expanding its interaction with Israel, and Saudi Arabia and Iran have also been trying to normalise relations, with Saudi Arabia reopening its embassy in Tehran. Whether the Abraham Accords or the initiatives to normalise relations between the Middle East nations have had the intended impact or not, they apparently were not able to facilitate any significant progress on Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Extremist organisations such as the Hamas and Hezbollah could have perceived that these initiatives were putting the Palestinian cause on the back burner and normalisation of relations of Arab nations with Israel would dilute their respective positions on the Palestinian cause.
2. Creating Humanitarian Crises in Gaza: One of the likely Hamas aim could have been to provoke uncontrolled rage of Israel so as to create a humanitarian crises in Gaza and put the Palestine issue at the centre of global politics. It may have succeeded to some extent in this, as the civilian deaths in Gaza (more than 2750 till now^[9]), especially children, women and the old aged has been able to draw widespread international sympathy and support. Several protests against Israeli action are now taking place world over, including in the West. The UN has called for Israel to allow aid to reach Gaza and also urged it to prevent civilian casualties. The US and NATO members have also urged Israel to follow the ‘rules of war’. The ongoing bombings in Gaza and its complete siege since 09 Oct 23 has subjected nearly 2.3 million Palestinians in Gaza to immense hardships and has resulted a grave humanitarian crises that is likely to aggravate in the days to come and further polarize world opinion on the crises.
3. Widen the Scope of Conflict. Hamas could have carried out the attacks and with a possible objective to widen the scope of the conflict by provoking Israel to increase the intensity of its military action. The same appears to be the case as we witness Hamas carrying out regular rocket attacks as the conflict nears two weeks of fighting. Hezbollah has already pledged support to Hamas and could open another front on Israel’s Northern borders. Iran has also warned Israel of regional escalation if Israel Defence Forces enter Gaza for a ground invasion. Warning Israel of a possible escalation Iran’s Foreign Minister in a recent statement said “If Israel aggressions do not stop, the hands of all parties in the region are on the trigger"^[10].
4. Secure Release of Palestinian Prisoners: Hamas was able to secure release of over 1000 Palestinians in exchange of one Israeli hostage in 2006. Thus, knowing the sensitivities of Israel towards safety of its citizen’s, Hamas could have carried out the attacks to secure release of the nearly 5000 Palestinians^[11] in Israeli prisons by taking large number of hostages. Taking a large number of hostages could only be possible through a well-planned, coordinated large scale attack on vulnerable targets, which is what Hamas executed on 07 Oct.
5. Revenge Killings of the Jews: It is the most simplistic explanation of the attacks. It may have been one of the reasons, but certainly not the only reason, given the clear understanding Hamas would have had of the likely consequences of such a stunning and savage attack. The sentiments of exacting revenge on Israel could have been one of the contributing factors that drove the nature and scale of the massacre, but could not have been the prime reason.

Geo-Political Landscape of the Conflict

International reaction to Hamas’ attack on Israel has ranged from outright support for Israel to strident support for Hamas from few countries like Iran. Most Muslim countries have come out in support of Palestine, without condemning Hamas.

United States: The US has condemned the attacks in strongest words and has put its full weight behind Israel. It has expressed ‘surging support’ to Israel to defend itself. The United States has also warned pro Hamas entities/nations not to take advantage of the situation and put regional stability at risk. It has placed its largest carrier group, the USS Gerald R. Ford Carrier Strike Group to the Eastern Mediterranean Sea as a deterrent signal to anti-Israel forces across the region who might be considering exploiting the situation to escalate the conflict. At the moment it seems that it may not be in the best interests of the US to let things escalate in the Middle East considering its current military and geo-political engagements in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and in the Indo-Pacific. US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has visited Israel to demonstrate support, followed by a visit to Qatar, where most likely the hostage issue was on the table. The US is also planning to send financial assistance to Israel, amidst growing concerns that the same could be at the cost of financial aid to Ukraine, especially when aid to Ukraine lapsed last month when it met with strong resistance by the Republicans. While the United States seems to be standing solidly behind Israel, it has asked Israel to follow the ‘Rules of War’ and has also cautioned Israel that occupation of Gaza strip by Israel could be a big mistake^[12]. It appears that as the days pass by, the United States seems to be getting more concerned about the humanitarian crises in Gaza and could be upping its efforts to diffuse the situation.

Arab Nations: Arab Nations seem to have polarised along three lines. Nations such as Bahrain and UAE, that are signatories to the Abraham accords have condemned Hamas attacks and are reasonably reserved in overt criticism of Israel’s military attacks. They have asked both sides to show restraint and de-escalate the crises. On the other hand are nations to include Iran, Syria and Qatar which have come out in support of Hamas and have squarely blamed Israel for the ongoing crises. Iran and Qatar have been accused by Israel of funding and arming the Hamas. In the third group are other nations such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Egypt which have shown solidarity with the people of Palestine and have blamed Israel for the crises, without condemning Hamas. It is more likely that in the current climate, no Gulf country is likely to risk angering its population or inflaming anti-Israel sentiments in the Arab and Islamic world by pursuing normalisation negotiations with Israel.

Egypt: In the ongoing crises Egypt has an important role to play as it shares its border with the Gaza Strip in the Sinai region. While Egypt has condemned the Hamas attacks it has also shown concern for civilian casualties by Israeli military action. It has called for both sides to cease military action and has even offered to mediate to stop the ongoing escalation. Importantly the only crossing at the Gaza-Egypt border (Rafah) had remained closed and only few Palestinian foreign national have been allowed to cross through. Even though Egypt has expressed its willingness to use its borders with Gaza to get humanitarian aid to the strip and to transport injured civilians, but till now very little aid has passed through the Rafah border. However, lately some aid has been allowed to flow in for Gaza. Apparently, Egypt remains concerned about stability in the Sinai region which till few years ago had been suffering from Islamist terrorism. Egypt has said that it will not tolerate influx of Palestinians in its territory. With a complete and unrelenting siege around Gaza by the Israeli Defence Forces the humanitarian crises in Gaza might be heading towards a worse situation.

Russia: Russia in its initial response blamed the failed Middle East policy of United States for the ongoing crises. Russia on 12 Oct 23 presented a draft resolution to the UN Security Council, calling for an “immediate” ceasefire and the secure release of all hostages, and to “strongly condemn all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorism”^[13]. Russian President, Mr. Putin has also offered to mediate in the conflict. Russia is one of the few countries to have good relations with Israel and a number of countries in the Middle East, and could potentially use those relationships to act as a mediator. Russia would also see this as an opportunity to regain some of its geo-political space it has lost in its conflict with Ukraine. President Putin has already held talks with his counterparts in Israel, Iran, Egypt, Syria and the Palestinian Authority. On the flip side if the violence engulfs the wider region, it could pose a big challenge for Russia, which has vested interests in Syria, Iraq and Iran, particularly on a military level. Interestingly, Ukraine President Mr. Zelensky accused Russia of supporting Hamas and causing “destabilising actions” all across the world^[14]. The statements given on a French news channel may have been due to Ukraine’s perceived concerns of international attention turning away from Ukraine – Russia conflict. To the contrary, another media report mentions that some arms supplied from Pakistan to Ukraine have found their way to West Asia through black markets, including Hamas^[15].

China: Beijing’s initial statement, failing to condemn Hamas for the 07/10 attacks on Israel, drew immediate backlash from Israeli and U.S. officials for undermining the brutality of the Hamas attacks. China seemingly considers that its road to greater global clout lies through favourable positions with the Muslim Nations and hence a pro Palestine position will fetch it greater dividends than the likely hits it may take by going soft on Hamas. China is likely making a long-term investment of gaining favour in the Middle East as well as with countries sympathetic to the Palestinian cause in regions such as Africa and Latin America, many of which increasingly are looking for alternative partners to the United States. However, alienating Israel could come at some cost for China as China has a lucrative tech-sector trade with Israel. Also Beijing’s efforts to position itself as a mediator between Israel and the Palestinians may now be damaged.

UN: The UN Security Council, in charge of the maintenance of international peace and security, has failed to adopt a common position on the violence in the Gaza Strip and southern Israel. Inability of the UN to intervene and have any positive impact on the ongoing crises, especially to ensure humanitarian aid reaches Gaza, yet again highlights its inadequacies to effectively deal with global security issues.

India: In its response to the Hamas attacks, Govt. of India has described the strikes by Hamas on Israeli cities as "terror attacks" but at the same time reaffirmed its long-standing position, advocating negotiations towards establishing a "sovereign, independent and viable" state of Palestine living side-by-side at peace with Israel^[16]. Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi has also expressed strong and unequivocal condemnation of the terrorist attacks. Indian Govt’s concern for the safety and welfare of its citizens was once again visible as it launched ‘Operation Ajay’ to extricate Indian citizens from the war torn region.

Current Situation

Air and Missile Strikes: Israel has been relentlessly striking likely Hamas hideouts in Gaza Strip since 07 Oct 23 with air and missile strikes. While Israel has been stating that it is duly warning civilians through various means about the air and missile strikes, however the strikes are exacting a growing toll on Gaza's population. As per Palestinian Ministry of Health, by 16 Oct 2,750 people had been killed and 9,700 wounded. Israel has reported nearly 1,400 people killed and 3,400 injured in the Hamas attacks^[17]. Hamas has also been carrying out daily rocket attacks on Israel, however Israel is now effectively engaging them with the Iron Dome system and has also deployed a newly introduced Iron Beam System– that works by using a powerful LASER beam to neutralise incoming missiles, rockets and mortar projectiles.

Preparations for a Likely Ground Invasion

1. IDF has been preparing for a potential ground invasion since past few days. The Israeli Defence Forces are making preparations through extensive logistical efforts and mobilisation of nearly three thousand reservist soldiers to execute the plans. Israel has persistently asked Palestinians in Northern Gaza (more than one million) to move to Southern Gaza. The initial deadline for vacating Northern Gaza was 24 hours, which drew sharp criticism and concerns across the world for being unrealistic and insensitive to human sufferings. Israel has since, extended the deadline several times now, however there are reports that Hamas has been trying to blockade and prevent Palestinians to vacate Northern Gaza, trying to use them as human shields^[18].
2. Israel's ground assault is most likely planned to eliminate the top political and military leadership of Hamas in Gaza as also to secure release of hostages as experts believe that a ground attack is the only viable method for achieving it. One key target of the ground attack will be to eliminate Yahya Sinwar, the second-ranking Hamas leader after Ismail Haniyeh. According to Israel, Sinwar was responsible for the atrocities against Israelis on 07/10.
3. Israel's army has deployed over 30,000 troops along the Gaza border in southern Israel. Hamas has also reportedly gathered their fighters in the northern part of the city. Several of their gunmen are thought to have camped inside hundreds of miles of underground tunnels and bunkers beneath Gaza City and the surrounding parts of northern Gaza. As per the International Institute for Strategic Studies estimates, Hamas has 15,000 to 20,000 fighters while Israel puts the number, at up to 30,000 fighters.
4. While a ground offensive by Israel could kill more Hamas operatives, urban combat in a crowded territory poses the risk of far more casualties - both civilian and military. In Operation Protective Edge in 2014, more than 2,000 Palestinians were killed in ground and air assaults and at least 73 Israelis, including 67 soldiers, were killed in the seven-week war^[19].

Siege of Gaza: Gaza strip has been completely blockaded by Israel and diplomatic efforts to allow hundreds of tons of humanitarian aid to enter Gaza and foreign nationals to exit through Gaza’s Rafah border crossing with Egypt has not yet yielded progress. Food, water, fuel and power is supplied to Gaza from Israel, which remains disrupted since more than 10 days now. Reports indicate that on 17 Oct Israel had partially restored water supply to Southern Gaza, however lack of food, fuel, power and adequate water is resulting in a grave humanitarian crises. As per reports, hospitals in Gaza remain overcrowded with emergency generators that power machines like ventilators and incubators down to about one day of fuel, and supplies of medicine have almost exhausted. The UN relief camps in South Gaza were filled to the brim, after the first two days of conflict itself and are hardly able to meet daily needs. The ongoing displacement of Palestinians from North Gaza to South Gaza is likely to make matters worse.

Situation on Lebanon Israel Border: Situation on the Israel- Lebanon border continues to remains tense with Hezbollah carrying out sporadic fire assaults and infiltration attempts with suitable retaliation from Israel. However, till now Hezbollah has designed its moves to be limited in scope, preventing a big spill-over into Lebanon while keeping Israeli forces occupied. Israel has stated that it has no interest in waging war on its northern front and that if Hezbollah restrains itself then Israel will keep the situation along the border as it is. But, actions of Hezbollah will be dictated by developments in Gaza and by its supporting nations. It may be noted that Hezbollah, with a reported strength of around 100,000 fighters^[20], is far better organised, equipped and trained than Hamas and has been able to hold its ground in various military operations against Israel in the past.

Situation in West Bank: Tensions have also gripped the West Bank region, where reportedly 65 Palestinians were killed over the past 10 days in clashes with Israeli troops. Since the deadly Hamas attacks on 07/10, Israeli forces have held the West Bank under a tight grip, closing crossings into the territory and checkpoints between cities.

Near Future Possibilities

Will Israel Reoccupy Gaza? As Israel prepares for a ground offensive there are speculations in some quarters of a possible Israeli reoccupation of Gaza. US president has cautioned Israel that any long term occupation of Gaza could be a ‘big mistake’. Israel also possibly realizes the futility of occupying Gaza else it would not have vacated it in 2005 which resulted in unilateral dismantling of 21 Israeli settlements in the Gaza Strip and Israeli settlers and IDF evacuating from inside the Gaza Strip. It is likely that Israel may remain in Gaza only till such time its ground invasion lasts, if it goes through. After the US president’s remarks, Michael Herzog, the Israeli ambassador to the United States, confirmed to a news channel that Israel has no intentions to occupy Gaza following the conflict^[21].

Can Israel Completely Dismantle Hamas? Israel’s security rationale has been to destroy its enemy rather than to contain it and that is exactly what it is pursuing against Hamas. However, considering the preparedness levels of Hamas in terms of the weapons and ammunition it has amassed, its cadre strength, the network of underground tunnels it has built and the advantage it has of fighting a guerrilla war in the dense built up area of Gaza, it could be a tall order for Israel to achieve its declared aim. After the IDF operations cease, Hamas may lose its effectiveness for some time, however, given the support it has from Iran and Qatar, possibility of Hamas getting reorganized and reequipped cannot be ruled out.

What is the Likelihood of Escalation of the Conflict? Unlike the Russia – Ukraine conflict, escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict could result in a much larger conflict and possibilities of military intervention by the United States and eventually NATO cannot be negated if Israel gets into serious pressure due to a regional conflict. Escalation of the present conflict largely depends upon how Hezbollah and its decision makers, within the organization and outside, deal with the situation. Hezbollah and Iran may decide to open a second front against Israel depending on the level of violence committed in Gaza. Also it is likely that if there is a threat of Hamas getting eradicated, Hezbollah could get involved. Despite the risks, Iran and Hezbollah are likely to exercise restraint as Hezbollah serves as a major deterrence against any possible Israeli and US military intervention plans in Iran and it would not like its capabilities to get diluted. Also, if Hezbollah attacks Israel and the US opens a front against Iran, it could complicate issues for Iran. Further, any conflict with Israel would inflict disproportionate military and civilian damage on Lebanon, which was evident in the 2006 Israel- Hezbollah conflict. Nonetheless, if there is an overwhelming global outcry against Israel inflicted violence in Gaza, it could embolden Hezbollah and its backers to open the Lebanon front and make the conflict a regional one. Deadly attacks such as the one on the Gaza City Hospital on 17 Oct 23 could serve as possible triggers, even though Israel and Hamas both have been blaming each other for the unfortunate tragedy.

Is the Two State Solution a Possibility? Israel's official position endorses a two-state solution, but on the condition that the Palestinian side demilitarises - as it sees Hamas and other militant groups, as an existential threat. Fatah and the governing Palestinian Authority in the West Bank support the solution, while Hamas, which till now controlled Gaza, has committed itself to an armed struggle with Israel. However, in a revised charter published in 2017, it said it would accept a Palestinian state along the 1967 borders^[22]. The lack of consensus on the Palestinian side makes the solution difficult and an increasing number of Israeli politicians too now reject the idea^[23]. A large number of nations, the US and UK support a separate Palestine State. Although the UN and international community have expressed concerns over the expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and consider them a major barrier to peace - little has been done to find a solution. The US president in an interview televised on 15 Oct 23 said that “There needs to be a Palestinian Authority. There needs to be a path to a Palestinian state”^[24]. However, the recent crisis has cast a serious shadow on this possibility, especially when Israel is looking to re-establish its position of power in the region.

Current indicators point out that, Israel is likely to put full weight of its military might to subjugate Hamas and secure release of the hostages while the western powers will continue to exert strong diplomatic pressure along with deterrence measures to prevent any escalation of the crises. However a full scale ground invasion without providing safe zones for the Palestinians in Gaza may lead to rapid rise in casualties which could risk escalation. Israel is unlikely to reoccupy West bank and could handover Gaza to Palestinian Authority once its military operations are over. Peace, for the time being seems to be a distant prospect.

Endnotes

^[1] The Indian Express, 09 Oct 23
^[2]The New York Times, 26 Oct 21
^[3]AP News. 09 Oct 23
^[4]abc NEWS, 09 Oct 23
^[5]India Today, 28 Sept 23
^[6]The Gaurdian, 12 Oct 23
^[7]AP News, 09 Oct 23
^[8]The New York Times, 08 Oct 23
^[9]Reuters, 16 Oct 23
^[10]Hindustan Times, 16 Oct 23
^[11]Al Jazeera.com, 08 Oct 23
^[12]The Guardian, 16 Oct 23
^[13]AP News, 13 Oct 23
^[14]NDTV, 10 Oct 23
^[15]The Economic Times, 11 Oct 23
^[16]The Times of India, 13 Oct 23
^[17]Reuters, 16 Oct 23
^[18]Associated Press, 15 Oct 23
^[19]India Today, 15 Oct 23
^[20]Al Jazeera.com, 10 Oct 23
^[21]Business today, 16 Oct 23
^[22]Sky News, 17 Oct 23
^[23]Sky News, 17 Oct 23
^[24]CNBC, 15 Oct 23

(The paper is the author’s individual scholastic articulation. The author certifies that the article/paper is original in content, unpublished and it has not been submitted for publication/web upload elsewhere, and that the facts and figures quoted are duly referenced, as needed, and are believed to be correct). (The paper does not necessarily represent the organisational stance... More >>