And the Resistance Held Firm

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

From the very beginning, I wrote in my article titled “The Battle of Gaza” that the resistance would hold firm, and this is the achievement. There were those who challenged me, in writing and in speech, saying that Gaza was an easy morsel to swallow, and that “the sheikhs” (meaning Hamas and Islamic Jihad) knew nothing of wars. And there were those who mocked, saying that university professors build castles out of fantasy, and are often driven by their own personal interests. I received the very same reactions when, in 2006, three days after the start of the war on Hezbollah, I predicted that Hezbollah would prevail — meaning that it would hold firm, and that Israel would fail in its military campaign. A foreign analyst at the time described me as an ignorant university professor who knew nothing about Israel.

There are those who measure military achievement or failure by the losses one side inflicts on another. Battles, in truth, are not measured by losses but by results. Every people on earth that fell under colonialism or occupation suffered losses far greater, many times over, than the losses suffered by the occupying power, yet these peoples ultimately triumphed. Israel is now bombing, killing civilians, and demolishing homes, but this does not mean it is achieving victory. Its victory in this war would mean eliminating the resistance, bringing down Hamas, and changing the political situation prevailing in Gaza.

On the first day of the assault on Gaza, I saw jubilant faces over the killing of a large number of Palestinian police officers, and heard many comments in the media from defeatist Arabs placing the blame on Hamas, and threatening Hamas with dark days that Israel would inflict upon it. And there were those among the “Daytonists” (followers of [General Keith] Dayton) who packed their bags to head to Gaza with their forces the very next day.

If you understand mathematics and dialectical relationships, it becomes easy to understand the present and predict the future to a fair degree. My constant view is that whoever does not understand mathematics, nor the logical dialectical relationships between phenomena, and cannot make the dialectical connections between different behaviors, ought to stay away from politics. Whoever lacks this kind of understanding cannot be a successful politician, a victorious leader, or an accurate analyst. Today’s politicians in the Arab homeland have no relation to science, so how could they have any relation to mathematics and logic? This is the case with many “political analysts,” who in truth master nothing but idle bluster.

Israel believed that its first shock blow, which exposed shortcomings on Hamas’s part, would shake the foundations of the Palestinian resistance fighters, and that gaining control of Gaza would then be easy. The resistance absorbed the first blow, and responded with rockets whose range was already known to Israel. Israel then shifted to its familiar wartime policy: using aircraft against what it believes are military targets, then striking civilians and civilian targets in order to bring the fighters to their knees, and to this day it continues pouring its fire down on the heads of children and women.

[The resistance concealed how much] it possessed of weapons all at once, keeping surprises in reserve for the Zionist army should it decide to enter the cities with its armored vehicles. The Israeli tactic failed, and the Palestinian tactic remained cohesive. This is in addition to the media and political attacks Israel faces because of the images of children and demolished homes collapsing on their owners’ heads.

Israel has become certain that Palestinian resistance has entered a new stage of scientific thinking and programmed action based on scientific foundations, and that the past era, which relied on improvisation and bluster, has passed and ended; and it has become certain that its enormous military capabilities have not reached the trenches of the resistance fighters, nor even their rocket launch platforms. For this reason the goal of changing the existing situation in Gaza is no longer viable, and the objectives have begun shrinking to the point that the matter has now come down to monitoring the border with Egypt to prevent smuggling.

Israel will continue striking Gaza for more days, and will try once again to achieve what it has failed to achieve, but it has no option before it except entering the cities, particularly Gaza City, Khan Yunis, and Rafah. Will it dare to do so? My assessment is that it will try again to touch the edges of the cities, but it would be exceedingly foolish if it pushed its tanks into the heart of populated areas. If it does, it will find Palestinians emerging against it from beneath the ground, and they will clash with its forces with strength and ferocity, and the tables will turn against its soldiers. But is it likely that Israel would resort to weapons of mass destruction and strike Gaza with them? At this stage, it is unlikely to do so. But Israel now recognizes that its military standing has been shaken for a third time (twice before, at the hands of Hezbollah), and that military developments in the region are moving against what it desires.

What are they searching for now? It is noticeable that the Egyptian draft resolution submitted to the Security Council regarding a ceasefire implicitly acknowledged Palestinian resistance, Hamas specifically, as a force present on the ground, asserting itself through a clear, steadfast military achievement in confronting Israel. I do not think America differs with Egypt on this matter, and the issue comes down to a disagreement over how Israel can emerge with some kind of military achievement. It is possible they are trying to give Israel some time in order to achieve a modest military accomplishment that fits with modest Israeli objectives. We are accustomed to Western states, America in particular, being keen to pass a ceasefire resolution in the Security Council only after Israel has achieved a military breakthrough, and trying to secure a diplomatic concession from the other side if the Israeli war machine fails to achieve a breakthrough. These states tried to save Israel’s face in 2006, but Hezbollah’s refusal left them with a feeble resolution — Resolution 1701 — which does not practically bind Hezbollah to anything. And perhaps now they will search for a resolution stipulating measures to prevent smuggling across the hypothetical border between Egypt and Palestine, a resolution with no value, since smuggling is already prohibited by the Egyptian government.

I note here that the Battle of Gaza is a historic battle, the first battle fought between Israel and Palestinian resistance on the soil of Palestine itself. This is a great historic development, with lessons and consequences of its own that I will discuss later.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “وصمدت المقاومة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.