Once again, thorny questions arise about the decision of the Resistance to launch “Al-Aqsa Flood” over a year ago, especially after the martyrdom of its leader Yahya Sinwar this month, and its previous leader Ismail Haniyeh on July 31st. Was the Resistance’s decision to attack the usurping Israeli entity on October 7th last year a mistake? And is it justified for it to decide to wage war against a state backed by the West, which perhaps benefits from its existence as much as, or even more than, it represents its values and principles that it wishes to continue imposing by force on our region; hence demonstrating its power, authority, and prestige in today’s world? And finally, did the Resistance and the cause gain anything from this decision? Or does it continue to lose some of its finest sons and daughters of Palestine in general? And thus, does the enemy gain new grounds, both materially and morally, in addition to continuing the war and using it as a pretext for an unprecedented contemporary genocide?
Firstly, it must be said that despite our view of the Palestinian Resistance as the last line of defense for the honor of the entire nation, and as the last liberation movement in a world where no other state is directly occupied except Palestine; and despite acknowledging that the members of the Resistance fight a fierce enemy that believes in nothing but racism, tyranny, and the presence of arms on a land that historically has no claim to them, while we have been observing for over a year as the beloved people of Gaza are exterminated, bombarded, starved, and erased from existence, sometimes merely pursing our lips, and at other times choosing to forget so life can go on. Despite all this, we cannot deny that the leaders of the Resistance are human and prone to error, and in a world where assumptions and subtle concepts are mixed, examining its political events requires patience and scrutiny that may not be available to some who are quick to judge the Resistance or against it due to prior biases, and sometimes due to overwhelming emotions or personal interests.
Some imagine the safety of Gaza and its people and the preservation of the Resistance’s strength if the latter had not started the attack then faced enormous human and structural losses. However, on the other hand, did the Resistance start the war or the battle? This question represents an important point of order, for things were not peaceful before the storm; the people of Gaza and Palestine in general endured the bitterness, follies, and atrocities of a brutal enemy that does not hesitate to exterminate a human just because “his appearance” did not appeal to him; let alone imprisonment, confiscation, expulsion, and forced displacement. Does any of us know the feeling of the drained who watches a wound he knows will bring him down, yet he is resignedly hopeful for mercy or aid? If we knew that the enemy, with American blessings, intended to eliminate the cause in an unprecedented manner, whether through mass displacement or more overt normalization with new Arab countries, then in all cases, Gazans and other Palestinians would have moved from one massive suffering to another deadly one; from loss of refuge, dispersal of families, and the declaration of the death of usual income sources and the waiting for others that are reluctantly acknowledged as hard to come by.
For the desperate and distressed, avoiding death has a lexicon of handling unknown to those secure or distressed by ordinary life disturbances; if it is said that the war brought upon the people of Gaza unbearable suffering—and it still does—and hastened their collective demise, and that surrendering and laying down arms now is the duty of the time; the decisive response is clear: the plan was carefully prepared whether the Resistance initiated the attack or not, then can any of us possibly feel the pain and danger more acutely than Gazans themselves, or the owners of the cause? If the latter are unanimous on the necessity of the Resistance and its continuation, and they are looking for another solution, then what are we doing speaking as if we are the afflicted, not them?
The war has been ongoing since before 1936 through armed Zionist gangs, and its battles have evolved to today; therefore, the battle of “Al-Aqsa Flood” is within the series of the war—a branch and not the original or authentic war—and its absence would not have prevented the escalation of the cause to extermination but rather hastened the Resistance in activating its role—not activating the battle—to influence the saviors of the world, perhaps prompting them to act!
Perhaps the strategic error in which the Resistance and the people of Gaza erred with their goodness and chivalry; is assuming our complete silence as Arabs and the continuation of our lives as usual, they calculated that we would not act, yet if the continuous Zionist massacres that have reaped tens of thousands previously passed through periods, then these massacres are happening now and under an unprecedented media revolution that transmits the image and more Arabs know it than ever before.
We have very clearly let down Gaza in a way it never anticipated; we must not cover this “nakedness” of ours by faulting them and their decisions, and if our thinking about ourselves and what humanity remains of and within us after these fierce massacres, then our future should be our primary concern, but the Resistance will continue with the departure of Sinwar as it continued with the departure of dozens of leaders before him, it will continue for the justice of its cause, not thanks to our analyses and blame of its owners; so should we ponder and reason, perhaps we can preserve what remains of us and our image before our children and future generations, as well as before history?!
