Israeli analysts agree that Israel has failed in its war on Gaza, and the objectives set by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, to eradicate Hamas, liberate Israeli hostages by force, and eliminate the threat Gaza poses to Israeli security, have not been achieved. Some argue that Israel should cease the war in exchange for the release of the hostages, as the conflict will only drag on without end, causing further unnecessary damage.
Israel’s most significant loss is not just the large number of casualties since October 7th, including civilians, but more critically the soldiers and officers. However, the more profound loss is political and moral, as Israel has been exposed as a brutal occupying force engaged in mass killings, destruction, and collective punishment of the civilian population, amounting to genocide. This stands in stark contrast to the image Israel has long projected as a beacon of democracy in the Middle East and a state of law that upholds Western values and norms.
Politically, Israel has become isolated, even from its allies, who can no longer continue defending it and have begun publicly criticizing it. Israel has lost the support of international public opinion, especially in the West, which had always been in its favor. The global consensus now prioritizes ending the conflict and implementing a two-state solution.
This shift in international opinion is not due to the successes of the resistance or the achievements of fighters on the ground, which are minimal compared to Israel’s killing, destruction, and invasions. Instead, it is a reaction to Israel’s crimes against civilians, which have been widely exposed by the media, particularly social media. This reality must be considered in curating the Palestinian media narrative, focusing on the suffering of civilians and the spilled Palestinian blood as the most crucial moral force. It is important to avoid a rhetoric of heroism that portrays us as equals to the might of the Israeli war machine, heavily supported by the Western bloc, and sometimes even greater, despite the limited capabilities of the people in Gaza.
This does not mean perpetuating suffering but rather seeking to end it within a comprehensive political framework. Historically, the negative aspect of our struggle has been the strongest, with the first intifada being the best example of the political achievements stemming from nonviolent, popular resistance. This does not diminish the importance of other forms of resistance, but in our specific context, popular resistance played a crucial role in advancing the Palestinian political and media discourse acceptable to the international community.
We are currently in a situation where Palestinian blood and the immense suffering that reaches the level of catastrophe play a significant role in garnering unprecedented international support. This practically presents a rare political opportunity to achieve national progress, leading to tangible steps toward the realization of a Palestinian state and the implementation of the two-state solution.
To leverage the situation emerging from the immense suffering of our people, we need not only a more realistic political and media narrative that aligns with the demands of the current phase, but we also require leadership that is up to the task. Leadership that prioritizes the rights of the people, seeks to alleviate their suffering, and creates a situation where such a tragedy does not recur, pushing the cause of national liberation forward.
We desperately need a unified leadership capable of speaking with one voice and presenting a single, persuasive narrative first to the Palestinian people and then to the international community. Unity at the leadership level requires concessions from everyone, but not on the national issue, as long as all factions adhere to the principle of ending the occupation and establishing an independent Palestinian state on the lands occupied since 1967, and resolving the core issues of the conflict. There is no serious disagreement among the factions on these matters, and this should not prevent reaching an agreement, regardless of external interventions.
To be practical and avoid merely repeating calls that everyone makes, certain actions must be taken immediately. These begin with a rapid national dialogue to discuss Gaza’s situation from all aspects, such as agreeing on relief efforts, the ceasefire, and even the reconstruction of Gaza and the unification of institutions in the West Bank and Gaza, some of which are already on the agenda of the new Palestinian government, and ultimately leading to the upcoming political process.
Hamas must consider relinquishing control of Gaza as a condition for unity, reconstruction, and political engagement regionally and internationally. However, Hamas should not be excluded from the decision-making process within the framework of comprehensive national consensus.
Author: Ashraf Ajrami