The Israeli entity has identified two goals for the war it wages on Gaza: the eradication of Hamas and the release of prisoners held by them. This comes amidst a surge of reaction to the defeat experienced by the entity on October 7, which put Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his government's top brass in a severe predicament, both domestically – where they're accused of negligence in anticipating the attacks and a dismal failure in countering them – and in terms of national dignity, which has been deeply shaken, prompting many occupation leaders to describe the battle as an existential one, not just an ordinary conflict.
The United States has spoken about the post-war era as if it is confident in the occupation's accomplishment of eradicating Hamas, with talks of a reinvigorated Palestinian Authority taking control of the Gaza Strip. This has sparked a disagreement with Netanyahu's government, which rejects the presence of a single authority in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, primarily because it fundamentally denies Palestinian statehood in both territories.
Failure, Disputes, and Evasion
From the onset, the goal of destroying Hamas was impractical, used by Netanyahu to prolong the war to avoid his downfall upon its cessation – given that he would then face corruption charges and accountability for failing to predict the "Al-Aqsa Flood" or to counter it.
The goal of freeing the prisoners was invalidated as humanitarian ceasefires were put into effect after the brutal and savage campaign the occupation waged in northern Gaza, without succeeding in forcibly releasing a single captive. Although Netanyahu insisted that about 100 Israeli women and children were released under military pressure, the reality says that this would not have happened if the occupation had not accepted a complete ceasefire during the release operation, with the entity releasing three Palestinian women and minors for every Israeli prisoner set free.
Another issue that became apparent after the Al-Qassam Brigades announced the death of captives from the Israeli shelling was the impossibility of achieving both goals simultaneously, amidst the resistance's tight grip on the captives, ferocious and violent resistance that made the continued Israeli shelling a threat to the lives of the captives.
As the occupation's failure to achieve any on-ground achievement continued, demands intensified from prisoners' families for the necessity of a prisoner exchange deal with Hamas. Former occupation prime ministers like Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert, and other leaders, politicians, and security officials called for prioritizing the release of prisoners in light of the occupation's military mission failure against Hamas.
However, Netanyahu continued with his evasive tactics, from summoning the Mossad chief from Doha, stopping humanitarian truces, and resuming the war – this time focusing on the southern sector of the Strip.
As a natural result of the Zionist on-field failure, the situation has increasingly leaned toward acceptance by the occupation – and its American sponsor – of the reality that Hamas cannot be eradicated, not only as a resistance organization but also as a movement deeply rooted in the land, with widespread Palestinian and regional extensions.
Acknowledging this, the U.S. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby confirmed that his country "does not believe that the Israeli military attack will annihilate the thought of Hamas, and we accept the idea that the movement will continue to exist."
Additionally, he acknowledged that "Hamas still possesses significant capabilities in the Gaza Strip," rendering the talk about a post-Hamas plan meaningless, especially if Hamas's strength and dominance in Gaza persist.
Then came the statement from Mossad chief David Barnea, asserting his "commitment to settling scores with the murderers who reached the outskirts of Gaza on October 7 and with Hamas's leadership." Even if it seemed like mere threats, it points to the occupation's retreat from the goal of annihilating Hamas or ending its political and military presence, and minimizing it to pursuing the perpetrators of the October 7 attack. Both statements demonstrate the formation of an American-Israeli conviction of failure in achieving the goal of destroying Hamas due to its heroic resistance, asserting its continued strength and effectiveness despite all the strikes dealt with it using excessive force with American weapons and technology.
This confirms that a people rooted in their land and nation, who cling to their beliefs, cannot be defeated nor can their will be broken. Even if the occupation succeeds in liquidating the symbols of resistance, this does not mean the end of a resistance movement or a cause.
Hence, Smotrich and Ben Gvir's talk about forced displacement and voluntary migration is another sign of failure and defeat, a search for solutions that are clearly difficult to achieve.
In light of the Israeli entity's and the United States' – supported by their European allies, led by Britain – failure to settle the battle against Hamas, the European Union's foreign policy chief Josep Borrell, from the Spanish city of Lisbon, called upon the international community to impose a solution to the conflict between "Israel" and the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas). His call came in response to the assassination of Sheikh Saleh al-Arouri, Deputy Chief of Hamas, in Beirut – urging realistic engagement with Hamas as an effective force with a solid support base and legitimacy on the ground and in the region.
Additionally, former UK Minister of State for the Middle East, Lord Peter Hain, warned that Western policy towards Gaza represents a dismal failure of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and will not lead to the permanent eradication of Hamas or provide security for Israel. In a piece for The Guardian, he urged Britain to reconsider its approach to the Israeli war on Gaza and pointed to the need to involve Hamas in Gaza's future governance (which implies recognition) in some way or another. Hain predicted that Israel would not be able to eradicate Hamas, as its leaders pledged in Tel Aviv, even if it destroyed Gaza.
Hope and Illusion
The course of the Gaza battle shows that neither the occupation nor its American ally will be able to impose a vision for the post-war era unless Hamas is defeated, a notion that is far from reach even if the war continues for many years, as the occupation portrays. Moreover, extending the war is unlikely, given its global repercussions, the damage it inflicts on the Biden administration, the continued failure of the occupation to achieve any form of victory, and the waning Israeli enthusiasm for it.
It is foreseeable that Hamas will be pivotal in the next phase, possibly pushing for a temporary technocratic government formed to its liking, tasked solely with civilian duties, and not conflicting with the resistance. Subsequently, the Palestinian people should decide their political path and the national forms to achieve their goals of liberation and return.
Therefore, the Zionists' aim to divide Gaza into regions and designate a family for each as post-war solutions is mere illusion, as they are unlikely to find any Palestinian to cooperate with. Palestinian tribes and families in Gaza have sent a strong message of rejection to the occupation's plan for Gaza and voluntary migration, declaring that "administering Gaza is a Palestinian affair to be discussed at the national table."
In response to the occupation's calls for the Palestinians' displacement, Palestinian tribes and clans reaffirmed their refusal to leave their land no matter the sacrifices required, stating, "All the price we pay for Palestine is cheap for this holy land."
