The Zionist entity has set two goals for the war it is waging against Gaza: eliminating the Hamas movement and liberating the prisoners it holds. This came in the midst of an outburst and reaction to the defeat that the entity suffered on October 7, which placed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the pillars of his government in a severe dilemma, whether on the internal level by accusing it of failing to anticipate the attacks and failing miserably in confronting them, or on the level of national dignity that was exposed. A profound shock that made many occupation leaders talk about the battle being a battle of existence, not an ordinary battle.
The United States spoke about the aftermath of the war, as if it seemed confident that the occupation would achieve its goal of eliminating Hamas, by talking about a renewed Palestinian authority controlling the Gaza Strip, which sparked a dispute with the Netanyahu government, which rejects the existence of a single authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, because – in the first place… – Do not believe in a Palestinian entity in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
Failure, disagreements and evasion
It was clear from the beginning that the goal of eliminating Hamas was not practical, and that it was used by Netanyahu. To prolong the war to avoid his downfall once it stops; Considering that he will be tried on corruption charges, and will be held accountable for failing to anticipate or confront the “Al-Aqsa Flood.”
As for the goal of liberating prisoners, it was vetoed with the implementation of humanitarian truces after the fierce and brutal campaign launched by the occupation in northern Gaza, without succeeding in liberating any prisoner by force. Although Netanyahu was keen to stress that the release of about 100 Israeli women and children was done under military pressure, the reality is: This would not have been possible had the occupation not accepted a complete truce during the implementation of the release process, and that the entity paid the price for this by releasing 3 Palestinian women and minors, for every Israeli prisoner released.
The other thing that became clear after the Al-Qassam Brigades announced the killing of its prisoners as a result of the Israeli bombing, is that it is not possible to achieve both goals together, in light of the continued tightening of the resistance’s grip on the prisoners and the fierce and violent resistance it enjoyed, which made the continuation of the Israeli bombing a threat to the lives of the prisoners.
As the occupation continued to fail to achieve any achievement on the ground, the demands of the families of the prisoners escalated for the necessity of concluding an exchange deal with Hamas, while the voices of former prime ministers of the occupation – such as: Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, and other political and security leaders – became louder about the necessity of giving priority to the release of the prisoners. In light of the failure facing the occupation in its military mission against Hamas.
But Netanyahu continued to evade, starting by summoning the head of the Mossad from Doha, halting the humanitarian truces, and resuming the war, this time focusing on the south of the Strip.
As an inevitable result of the Zionist failure on the ground, things have begun to move towards the occupation – and its American sponsor – accepting the fact that it is not possible to end Hamas, not only as a resistance organization, but also as a movement rooted in the land, and with its broad Palestinian and regional reach.
But after the occupation failed in the second phase of the war – and the occupation forces suffered heavy losses in troops and equipment – followed by escalation of voices to move to the prisoner exchange phase, Netanyahu launched an initiative for a humanitarian truce through mediators, calling for the release of 40 Israelis to Hamas, in exchange for Israel releasing a number of prisoners. Palestinians with high sentences, which Hamas quickly rejected, demanding a ceasefire before talking about any truce, as well as demanding a comprehensive deal that includes emptying the occupation prisons of prisoners.
This was followed by Egypt submitting an initiative in which it coordinated with Israel and the United States, the first phase of which included the Israeli initiative, to be followed by two phases that end with Hamas releasing all of its captured soldiers, with negotiations over the Palestinian prisoners who will be released!
Hamas avoided criticizing the Egyptian initiative, which involved problems, the most important of which were: It did not specify the number of Palestinian prisoners who would be released, while it talked about forming a technocratic government, which is essentially a purely Palestinian mission that has nothing to do with it.
However, the movement has repeatedly stressed its demand to stop the aggression before starting any negotiations to whiten the prisons, provided that the exchange process includes the complete withdrawal of the occupation forces from the Gaza Strip, the presence of specific guarantees for reconstruction, and the non-re-arrest of the released prisoners.
It seems that Netanyahu, by reactivating the humanitarian truces – even though he was the one who failed them in the past – wants to achieve two goals: They are: rearranging his forces and his army’s plans to continue the battle after suffering high losses in it, and sending a message to the Israeli street that it is serious about releasing the prisoners, and that Hamas is the one that is disrupting the deal by imposing unacceptable conditions for its implementation.
However, these and other movements indicate the failure of the occupation army to achieve its goals in the war.
It also does not hide the truth of the differences between the government leaders: (Netanyahu – Gallant) and (Gantz – Eizenkot), which center around the nature of the third phase of the war that is supposed to begin at the end of this month: (reducing the targeting of civilians, and focusing on targeting resistance fighters). And the post-war plan, where Gantz is aligned with the plan to empower a renewed Palestinian authority – (excluding or marginalizing Abbas, and empowering figures more aligned with the occupation) – in Gaza, unlike Netanyahu.
In this context also comes the release of statements by the Zionist extremist duo: (Ben Gvir – Smotrich) that began with forced displacement and ended with voluntary displacement, which seem to come in coordination with Netanyahu. With the aim of disrupting the required Israeli plan for the post-war period.
In fact, despite the seriousness of this proposal, it cannot receive a Palestinian response, in addition to the United States’ opposition to it and its provoking disagreements within the occupation government itself.
It must be noted that this proposal is another expression of the failure of the Israeli campaign on Gaza, and the resistance’s continued advantage and steadfastness, which prompts the occupation to search for solutions to monopolize it and make it lose its popular incubator.
Step back and accept reality
As an inevitable result of the Zionist failure on the ground, things are beginning to move towards the occupation – and its American sponsor – accepting the fact that Hamas cannot be ended, not only as a resistance organization, but also as a movement rooted in the land, and with its broad Palestinian and regional extensions.
US National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed that his country “does not believe that the Israeli military attack will eliminate Hamas’ ideology, and we accept the idea that the movement will continue to exist.”
He also admitted that “Hamas still has great capabilities in the Gaza Strip,” which makes talking about a post-Hamas plan lose its true meaning, especially if Hamas’s power and dominance over Gaza continues.
Then came the statement of Mossad chief David Barnea, in which he said: “He is committed to settling scores with the killers who arrived on the Gaza Strip on October 7 and with the leadership of Hamas,” which, although it appears to be just a threat, indicates that the occupation has retreated from its goal of liquidating Hamas. Or ending its political and military presence, and reducing it to the goal of pursuing the perpetrators of the October 7 attack! The two statements demonstrate the formation of an American-Israeli conviction of failure to achieve the goal of eliminating the Hamas movement – due to the heroic resistance – and affirm the continued strength and effectiveness of this movement despite all the strikes that were dealt. Using excessive force with American technology and weapons.
This confirms that a people rooted in their land and homeland, adhering to their faith cannot be defeated, and their will cannot be broken. Even if the occupation succeeds in liquidating the symbols of resistance, this does not mean the liquidation of a resistance movement, nor the liquidation of a cause.
Smotrich and Ben Gvir’s talk about forced and then voluntary displacement is one of the signs of failure and defeat, and the search for solutions that is clearly difficult to achieve, in addition to the fact that the idea of removing the resistance fighters and their leaders out of Gaza by sea – as happened to the leadership of the PLO in 1982 – cannot be achieved. to succeed; Because the Zionist entity realized that it was dealing with a different group, and at a different stage as well.
In recognition of the failure of the Israeli entity and the United States – and behind them the partner countries in Europe, led by Britain – to resolve the battle against the Hamas movement, Josep Borrell – the European Union’s foreign policy official from the Spanish city of Lisbon – called on the international community to impose a solution to the conflict between “Israel” “, and the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas); Because the two warring parties are unable to reach an agreement.
Borrell’s call – which came as a comment on the assassination of Sheikh Saleh Al-Arouri, Vice-President of the Hamas movement in Beirut – constitutes an urge to deal with the Hamas movement realistically, as an effective force that has a solid and legitimate base on the ground and in the region. In this context as well, Lord Peter Hain warned – Minister for the Middle East and former Northern Ireland Minister – that Western policy towards Gaza represents an abject failure in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and will not lead to the permanent elimination of Hamas, or provide security for Israel.
In an article – published in the British newspaper The Guardian – he called on Britain to rethink the British approach towards the Israeli war on Gaza, and saw the necessity of involving Hamas in one way or another in the future governance of Gaza (which means recognizing it), explaining that Western attempts to choose leaders to represent their people have a record. bad.
Hein predicted that Israel would not be able to eliminate Hamas, as its leaders promised in Tel Aviv – even if it destroyed Gaza.
He added, “Despite the damage that Israel caused to Hamas’ military capacity, and perhaps importantly, as many tunnels were destroyed and a number of its fighters escaped, Hamas, in a number of aspects, is a movement and ideology, and Netanyahu’s extremism led to its rise.”
Dreams and fantasies
The course of the Gaza battle demonstrates that the occupation and its American ally will not be able to impose a post-war vision unless Hamas is defeated, which is a far-fetched matter even if the war continues for many years, as the occupation claims. In addition, prolonging the war is unlikely, in light of the interactions it is taking place on the global level, the Biden administration being harmed by it, the continued failure of the occupation to achieve any form of victory, and the decline in enthusiasm for it in Israel.
Indeed, it is expected that the Hamas movement will be able to determine the nature of the next phase, and it will have an important role in it, and it may resort to pushing for a temporary technocratic government that it will form on its own, and that will have purely civilian tasks, and will not contradict the resistance. After that, the Palestinian people are supposed to decide their political path and the national forms that achieve their goals of liberation and return.
Hence, the entity’s attempt to divide Gaza into districts, and entrust the management of each to a family it determines itself, as one of the post-war solutions, is nothing but an expression of illusions, as it will not find a single Palestinian to deal with. The Palestinian clans and tribes in Gaza have sent a strong message of rejection in response. On a plan to the occupation to hand over Gaza, and seek the voluntary displacement of the Palestinians.
In a unified statement, it considered that “the administration of Gaza is a Palestinian matter that is being discussed at the national table,” calling on the Palestinian people to “continue to protect the back of the resistance and secure the internal front.”
The statement said: “The Palestinian tribes, clans and families will only be a safety valve for our people and our valiant resistance.” The resistance to this plan will be on the lookout, as long as it is strong and effective.
In response to the occupation’s calls to displace the Palestinians, the tribes and clans of Palestine affirmed that the Palestinians “will not leave their land, no matter how great the sacrifices are, and that every price we offer for the sake of Palestine is cheap for the sake of this holy land.”
