On the occasion of the 100th day since the inception of the “Israeli” war on the Gaza Strip, the spokesperson for the Al-Qassam Brigades, Abu Obeida, delivered a filmed speech brimming with numerous messages in both form and substance. This speech is considered a refutation of a significant part of the occupation state’s narrative and the recent claims of its political and military officials.
Hundred Days
The occupation state, known for engaging in brief wars that seldom lasted more than days or weeks, has reached the 100th day in its latest aggression on the Gaza Strip. This milestone served as an opportunity for reassessment and an accounting of the war’s course, its objectives, and an attempt to anticipate its possible outcomes, from various parties involved.
The Palestinian Ministry of Health announced that the toll of martyrs and missing persons had reached thirty-one thousand by the 100th day of aggression. This stark figure highlights the severity of the humanitarian situation in the sector, especially when adding the destruction of infrastructure and targeting of all vital facilities from hospitals, government centers, bakeries, and shelters to places of worship including mosques and churches, in addition to the policy of siege and starvation as part of the occupation’s displacement strategy — which has been thoroughly thwarted by Gazans thus far.
Abu Obeida’s speech marks the first of its kind since the last week of November 2023, almost two full months since some Hebrew sources claimed he was targeted and killed, at which time he disappeared from the public eye for about ten days, only to return afterward with audio recordings.
Coinciding with the 100th day, and shortly before that, alongside the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken to the region, some “Israeli” officials began to discuss what they called “the third phase” of the war on Gaza. This involves an almost complete withdrawal from the northern sector, maintaining presence only at its margins and resorting to “localized” operations sporadically, in addition to a decrease in the targeting of the central and southern sectors.
Despite the United States not wanting a complete ceasefire, it desires a reduction in the targeting of civilians — and the attrition of the occupation army — to avoid the embarrassment and political damage it causes, particularly with the International Court of Justice beginning to consider the genocide case brought by South Africa.
In practice, after about a hundred days of a reckless war that knew no bounds or respected no law or convention, the occupation is forced to retreat as it has not achieved any of its objectives, while continuing to suffer draining losses. This has led it to succumb to the pressures exerted upon it, domestically and internationally, painting the retreat under the guise of “managing the war and repositioning” — which, in reality, is a part of acknowledging defeat.
At the same time, the occupation army spokesman and some political officials claimed that they had substantially weakened Hamas’s military capabilities (some mentioning up to 80% in certain areas), specifically the rocket threat. The response came directly with volleys of rockets toward the vicinity of the Gaza Strip, including areas deeper inside like Tel Aviv, directly and clearly refuting these claims, prior to Abu Obeida’s speech completing the task.
The Message of the Speech
Abu Obeida’s speech, given on the 100th day of aggression, constitutes an additional message refuting the allegations of his death. Although being targeted is possible for anyone involved in the conflict, and whether he is injured or martyred — if that were to happen — it wouldn’t represent a significant achievement for the occupation.
However, the most prominent message and clear indication of the speech lie in the strength of “Al-Qassam” and its resilience and presence on the 100th day of the war, contrary to the occupation’s claims of its weaknesses and declining performance. The visual media message, exemplified by videos documenting resistance operations topped by the “masked man’s” speech, is the end product in a long chain of military and media actions including surveillance, planning, execution, documentation, communication, editing, crafting the media message, and the appropriate political speech, sending central signals, and more. The delivery of these materials produces strong and clear final output, indicating the soundness of all the previous chains and steps, and thus Abu Obeida’s speech typically — and the latest in particular — is a message of strength, continuity, and well-being in Al-Qassam Brigades’ leadership, control, and communication, as well as military and media war management.
In terms of content, the speech was robust, optimistic, and defiant, as always, including clear challenge language and confidence in imminent victory and defeat of the occupation, stating that its leadership is “drinking pain and sinking in the mire of failure and defeat,” in his own words. This may be why the speech made no mention of mourning the political and military leaders martyred during the war, including Hamas’s second-in-command, Sheikh Saleh al-Arouri.
Despite recognizing the occupation’s military capabilities and support, the speech also appreciated the sacrifices of the Gazan community and the Palestinian people in this war, expressing pride and appreciation, where he deemed the military performance and defense industries reliant on the “manufacture of man,” as he put it.
One of the speech’s key messages reaffirmed the “Palestinian” nature of the “Deluge of Al-Aqsa” battle, in terms of the driving reasons, which he reminded of, affirming their legitimacy and the appropriateness of their timing, and with regards to the weapons, most of which were manufactured in Gaza, as well as in terms of the field and political performance. Yet, he did not miss the opportunity to praise the performance of those engaged in the war with the occupation outside Gaza, especially in Lebanon, Yemen, and Iraq.
When Abu Obeida alluded to the possibility of the war expanding geographically and named it within the context of “partners in battle,” he was indirectly pointing to the readiness of the brigades and general resistance factions for this potential.
In asserting the condition of halting aggression before any other political step, there’s an additional confirmation that the resistance is neither in crisis nor pressed in the field; rather, it bets on the ongoing draining of the occupation forces such that the latter would eventually submit to its conditions.
The speech directly refuted some of the occupation’s and its army spokesman’s claims regarding controlling the ground or uncovering important tunnel networks or destroying rocket launch platforms or weapon depots, placing all these within the framework of “alleged achievements.” One of the strongest messages was related to prisoners and detainees, holding the occupation accountable for the death of many and the unknown fate of others, while the rest “have entered the tunnel of uncertainty due to aggression,” practically indicating the difficulty of discussing any exchange deal before halting the aggression.
Finally, the speech highlighted targeting a thousand occupation vehicles of various kinds and disabling them since the beginning of the war, estimated by military experts to be equivalent to the vehicles of three entire military divisions, in addition to noting the large number of officers and soldiers lost by the occupation in Gaza without specifying their number. This was coupled with the emphasis on their loss of motivation and courage in confrontations.
In sum, Abu Obeida’s speech, complemented by a barrage of rockets toward Ashdod from the Gaza Strip, was a direct response to the occupation’s plans and a refutation of its claims about annihilating Hamas, dismantling its leadership infrastructure, and undermining its military capabilities, thus affirming the presence and strength of the general resistance and Al-Qassam Brigades, in particular, and their preparedness for future war prospects, including its expansion and extent, and rejecting any initiatives that don’t start by stopping the aggression, all from a position of power.
