-Analysis-
BEIRUT — In correspondence with Hamas leaders outside Gaza, Yahya Sinwar, the group’s leader inside Gaza, has reportedly made it clear that his strategy is inspired by both ancient and more recent historical events, according to a recent article by The Wall Street Journal. The report cites Sinwar referencing Algeria’s War of Independence in the middle of the 20th century, but also the battle of Karbala in the year 680, during which Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, al-Hussein Ibn Ali, was killed alongside many of his family members and supporters.
Sinwar, in other words, views that Hamas will triumph in the long term, even if the Palestinian people will suffer many casualties along the way. The Wall Street Journal says it bases its reporting on “private messages,” though Hamas has denied the facts of the article.
But whether the report was true or not, the supposed content of the would-be messages is a reminder of the suffering of Gaza, where tens of thousands of Palestinians have been killed in 10 months of war, which has also caused mass destruction and an imminent famine as the Israeli war machine’s indiscriminate killing and collective punishment continues.
In a June 26 forum at the Zaytouna Center for Studies and Consultations in Beirut, Khaled Mashal, Hamas’ former leader, criticized those who condemned the Palestinian militant group and “waited for the defeat of the resistance.”
He said that the Oct. 7 attack and the ongoing war has finally returned the Palestinian cause to the global arena, and the armed resistance weakens Israel. “Some say that the price of resistance is high, and this is true, as Gaza was destroyed,” Meshaal said. “But since when was there liberation, resistance, and the achievement of national goals without a price?”
Ready for death!
There is no doubt about Mashal’s sincerity, but the realism of his logic is another matter. The willingness to accept death — and the death of close relatives — is evident in the case of Ismail Haniyeh, head of the political bureau of Hamas, who lost many of his family including children and grandchildren.
Following the martyrdom of his sister and her family in late June, he wrote that the loss of his family members would not affect his position. Haniyeh’s perspective is consistent with that of Mashal and Sinwar, according to the Wall Street Journal report.
In August 2014 when Hamas celebrated the “victory” in its war against Israel, Haniyeh said that “the victory of the resistance in Gaza paves the way toward … Al-Aqsa mosque, and the return of refugees to their land.” Next battle: Jerusalem.
Yet it’s worth noting that the 51-day war in 2014 killed more than 2,100 Palestinians, while on the Israeli side, 72 soldiers were killed. And in 2008/2009, another round of fighting killed 13 Israeli soldiers, some with friendly fire, and more than 1,300 Palestinians, most of them civilians. That death toll means one Israeli for every hundred Palestinians.
Haniyeh, then Hamas’s prime minister, declared “Hamas’ victory” in the battle, defining the “victory” as the failure of Israel’s plan to eliminate the group from Gaza.
What is defeat?
Such supposed victories force us to ask: Then, what is defeat? If we define merely thwarting the enemy’s plan as victory (note the negative definition), is there a possibility for an actual positive victory?
It was evident at least for Israel’s neighbors that the most extremist government in Israel will respond with the level of criminality and brutality that we have seen in the past nine months. But no one apparently took this into account.
There is nothing new here, neither from Hamas nor from anyone else. Didn’t Hezbollah declare what happened in 2006 a “divine victory” even though its losses and Lebanon’s losses in lives were more than six times those of Israel?
Nasrallah did not see a contradiction between supporting the Assad government, and citing al-Hussein.
And because of its declared “victory” in 2006, Hezbollah today threatens to wage another war. And the group will of course emerge victorious, no matter what happens.
Muslims — Sunnis and Shiites, alike — are inspired by the battle of Karbala, and its anniversary, Ashura Day, a Muslim holy day that is observed the first month of the Islamic calendar. That day is of particular importance for Shiites.
“Every land is Karbala”?
Iran has spread its ideology with the slogan: “Every land is Karbala and every day is Ashura,” signifying an eternal battle without limits of place, so that all followers of Imam al-Hussein Ibn Ali will follow his path.
In this context came the slogan of “Zeinab will not be taken captive twice,” which Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah would utilize in his recent battles alongside the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad. It refers to the suffering of Sayeda Zeinab Bint Ali, sister of Imam al-Hussein, following the killing of her brother in Karbala.
Nasrallah did not see a contradiction between supporting the Assad government, and citing al-Hussein, who had been known to oppose corrupt tyrants.
And in none of these cases did either Hezbollah or Hamas consult with their people about what should be done. Resistance groups claim absolute morality, with the word “resistance” supposed to somehow silence all questions.
However, the story of Karbala raises other questions. During Hussein’s journey from Hijaz (Saudi Arabia now) to Kufah in Iraq, he was promised an army would be awaiting his arrival. But there would be no soldiers, which became evident when his messenger was killed. Rather than hide the news, Al-Hussein told all his followers. Many of those who’d joined in hopes of reaping the spoils of victory abandoned him.
Al-Hussien’s actions were moral to the core, but in politics it wasn’t considered a wise decision. And so the question for resistance forces: do they seek al-Hussein’s idealism or realpolitik?
And yet, there are options other than the armed one.
The “resistance” and criticism
Militant groups used to say that as long as they are able to fight, and are not eliminated, they are not defeated. But there is a huge gap between “not defeated” and victorious — just as there is a fine line between the willingness to die for a just cause, and the path toward mass suicide. There is no victory in a confrontation with an enemy that it is simply too strong to defeat.
But this reversed logic is possible when history is read selectively. The slogan of the Muslim Brotherhood, from which Hamas was born, says: “God is our goal, the Messenger is our role model, jihad is our path, and death in the name of God is our highest aspiration.”
What has attracted sympathy for the Palestinian plight was always the brutal reaction of the Israelis.
They follow a version of history that says that Prophet Muhammed and his followers cared only about wars and weapons.
No. The Prophet — as Muslims and non-Muslims know — was much more a political than military genius. He was patient and waited for opportunities before going to war.
Contrary to what Hamas leaders believe, what has attracted sympathy for the Palestinian plight was always the extremely brutal reaction of the Israelis. The strength of the Palestinians is derived from their oppression by Israel, not from marginal victories. The Palestinians’ most important partners are civil societies and popular movements that support their rights peacefully.
It is true that resisting occupation is a legitimate right, but also a sacred duty. But this resistance is not limited to arms, nor is it a license to deny the will of people, or to belittle their suffering and discard their very lives in the face of a brutal enemy.
