-Analysis-
CAIRO — The discussions held in Qatar was initially meant to address overlooked aspects of the Palestinian cause in the context of international law. However, the focus shifted — not because of the recent truce announcement in Gaza between the occupation and Hamas, which is expected to remain fragile and unlikely to lead to further stages as we all hope, but due to the intense polarization within Arab public opinion, which has become deeply embroiled in a heated debate about ideas of victory and defeat.
For the latest news & views from every corner of the world, Worldcrunch Today is the only truly international newsletter. Sign up here.
On social media, in newspapers, and on television screens, a battle has erupted between those who argue that Hamas suffered a crushing defeat, citing the massive destruction in Gaza and the unbearable number of casualties, and those who insist that the ceasefire marks the victory of the resistance.
The latter point to the fact that the people of Gaza are not only relieved by a halting of the massacres but also celebrating publicly a comprehensive victory over the enemy, which failed to achieve any of its main objectives in the war. They cite various analyses inside Israel criticizing Benjamin Netanyahu and his government, accusing him of failure and of perpetuating the war as an end in itself to mask his defeat in a fundamentally unequal confrontation.
Polarized narratives
In truth, this debate oversimplifies the nature of the conflict and rushes to conclusions. The intensity of the argument can be attributed to three factors:
The first is the sharp political polarization regarding the meaning of resistance, particularly in light of the failure of the Arab Spring revolutions and the rise of propaganda campaigns against resistance factions, portraying them as extensions of political Islam. This has coincided with the growing acceptance inside certain circles of normalization with Israel.
The second factor is the widespread feeling of inadequacy toward the Palestinian cause, stemming from the insufficient (at best) and negative (at worst) stances of Arab governments. This sentiment is justified. However, it seems to have turned into an unconscious desire to present Palestinian resilience as a pure and complete victory, as if to honor the resistance and the people of Gaza in compensation for the collective failure to provide the necessary support and solidarity.
The third factor is the shift of all political discussions to social media platforms, which are characterized by haste, sharp rhetoric, and an oversimplified narrative aimed at rallying supporters and overpowering ideological opponents. As a result, multi-faceted, objective discussions rarely find the space they deserve on these platforms.
A double-edged sword
These combined reasons lead to a limited view of the issue, seeing it as a binary confrontation between the indigenous people and the Zionist occupiers, with the solution being the establishment of an artificial Palestinian state that lives alongside a strong Israel.
This extends to the malice some direct toward the resistance, either out of ill will or with good intentions, questioning its outcome as though it were in a position that guaranteed it would have a complete understanding of what happened last year — the systematic Zionist-American destruction of all the old rules of engagement and the foundations that once governed the conduct of battles in the Middle East, coupled with the complete indifference of major international powers and the steady decline of Arab influence, which left support limited to the Iranian axis, whose exposure became apparent to all.
Consequently, these individuals view what happened in Gaza since October 7, 2023, as a war detached from both its past and what will follow.
The Israelis understand the issue better than we do, led by Netanyahu, who is now not just a prime minister officially accused of committing genocide, but the most prominent figure in mobilizing the Zionist lobby, with a strong voice in all Western circles supporting Israel.
Shifting narratives
In his book, A Place Among the Nations, which Netanyahu published during the Oslo negotiations while in opposition, he lists the fundamental elements of the Middle East conflict: “The Arabs’ rejection of any non-Arab sovereignty in the Middle East, the desire of fundamentalist Islam to cleanse the region of any non-Islamic influence, and the deep and historic hostility of Arab peoples toward the West.”
If these words were today issued by an Arab politician or intellectual, they might be accused of swimming against the tide of history, with their ideas belonging to a bygone era. However, the conflict is indeed broader than it seems, and larger than just the Palestinian cause.
Indeed, the centrality of the Palestinian issue since the Nakba of 1948 is a double-edged sword. It remains the primary compass that cannot be broken or manipulated by the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, holding onto their land and roots, no matter how harsh the winds may be. Its continued vitality is the greatest bet in thwarting the imperialist-Zionist plot to dominate the region and its resources.
At the same time, the dominance of the Palestinian cause, alongside Israel’s repeated successes in neutralizing the frontline states and other Arab countries, has had a negative effect on the consciousness of successive generations. They now believe that steadfastness and resistance are inherently actions exclusive to the Palestinian people, and that the role of the Arabs is limited to cheering, chanting, delivering aid, and perhaps financing reconstruction.
As each country exits the arena of conflict, each round of fighting has come to be seen as an independent war, with its own beginning and end, isolated from its intended context. Consequently, it is expected to conclude either with overwhelming joy or with sorrowful lamentations.
Calculus of necessity
The conflict will not end with this latest round, even if Israel manages to achieve unprecedented strategic gains: a major regional setback for Iran and its axis, the collapse of the Assad regime, and setting back Hezbollah‘s capabilities by 30 years, which pushed Tehran into direct bargaining over its nuclear project after its defense and offensive lines outside its borders had collapsed.
Denying Israeli victory does not mean that the resistance has won.
Additionally, Israel has eliminated the symbols of the resistance — martyrs like Hassan Nasrallah, Ismail Haniyeh, Yahya Sinwar, and others — and ensured the transformation of Arab countries into peace brokers at best. In fact, I would not exaggerate if I said that the flourishing of Israel’s relations with some Arab countries in the face of the crisis is a significant gain that shatters an old taboo.
However, all these gains do not mean that Israel has achieved its goal in the conflict, which is to subjugate the region completely and impose peace through deterrence, according to Netanyahu’s vision as outlined in his book: “The stronger Israel appears, the more Arabs will agree to peace with it, and the weaker and more hesitant it appears, the greater the chances of war.”
Has Netanyahu succeeded?
Bibi, the victor? The answer is: No. Because the myth of deterrence remains a fantasy due to the actual gains made by the resistance, including: the economic exhaustion of the occupation, the continued ability to strike even if in limited ways across Palestinian territories, the success in killing over 400 Israeli soldiers, and the inability of the occupying army to free its prisoners in Gaza by force. The issue of prisoners is deeply symbolic, as it will remain a recurring nightmare for the Israelis, especially with the deepening of resistance in the occupied territories.
Politically, there is a notable return of Arab public interest in the great conflict, considering Israel an enemy, despite the infiltration and erosion of consciousness. The Al-Aqsa flood played a historic role in this, reinvigorating the issue among Arabs, Muslims, and internationally, in addition to the legal and diplomatic gains made at the United Nations, the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC) , for the first time in the history of the conflict.
There is no winner or loser in the Gaza war.
However, denying Israeli victory does not mean that the resistance has won either. One cannot ignore the immense destruction Gaza and its people have suffered: a humanitarian disaster with about 50,000 martyrs and around 120,000 injured, a large percentage of whom are left disabled, most of them young people of tomorrow.
In addition, there are approximately 10,000 prisoners, the obliteration of vital life components and basic services in about 75% of Gaza, a bleak future for political governance, Israeli control over crossings, the creation of buffer zones that effectively return the Strip to the status of occupation, and the encirclement of Hamas in the smallest geographical area of its military capabilities and infrastructure in a quarter-century.
The balance of gains and losses tells us that there is no winner or loser in the Gaza war, which has not yet concluded. It is not a final war, but rather a central phase in the conflict, which happens to have occurred in a poor era, where the international system is broken, and the price of lives and blood is cheap.
The balance also confirms that building popular awareness about and connecting with those who support the Palestinian cause is something we can no longer afford to neglect. These are the duties imposed in honor of the martyrs‘ sacrifices, and to compensate for the losses of the resistance. The hope is that doing so will ultimately protect the future of our children from the Zionist deterrence that they like to call ‘peace.’
