Defeat is Not Destiny and Surrender Will Not Stop the Catastrophe

Author: جمال زقوت

Sada News - Despite the clarity that Netanyahu and his fascist government's stance represents the fundamental reason behind the failure of all mediators' attempts to achieve a reasonable deal, even if it is a transitional one that ultimately leads to stopping the genocide faced by Gazans, and what awaits the West Bank in terms of further fragmentation, some voices still demand that the resistance factions in Gaza risk making more concessions, and some even dare to directly or indirectly call for surrendering to Israeli conditions.

Netanyahu, who seems not to have completely closed the door on negotiating the Egyptian proposal accepted by Hamas without conditions, while maintaining communication channels with mediators, still leans towards the option of military escalation and threatens to destroy the city of Gaza as he did in Rafah, hoping to achieve what he has failed to accomplish so far. This comes despite the heavy price warned by his army, not only in terms of the humanitarian catastrophe but also regarding the significant losses that may befall it if it slips recklessly into the quagmire of Gaza City, and the potential escalation of guerrilla warfare that could become the most prominent form of confrontation.

The real reasons behind Netanyahu's maneuvers are the nature and content of his right-wing government's strategy, which, due to American engagement in adopting it, is not limited to Gaza alone but also extends to what is happening in terms of annexation and Judaization in the West Bank. These are not merely tactical reasons to improve the terms of the deal but aim to bring it closer to the notion of "absolute victory" which, from the perspective of his right-wing coalition, opens the doors to liquidating the Palestinian cause, not stopping the war in Gaza.

The fundamental question that needs calm discussion by dissecting all its elements is: Does the resistance's acknowledgment of "defeat" stop the tragedy or open the door to a larger massacre? The brief answer: Defeat is not destiny, and "acknowledging it" is not a path to salvation, but a recipe for further savagery. What stops the slaughter is changing the balance of cost and political-legal pressure on the war machine, along with formulating a temporary humanitarian-security settlement, not an "acknowledgment of dominance" which is nothing more than a blank check for displacement.

So what do we mean by "defeat"? Is it military/tactical, meaning a significant field setback? Or political, in terms of collapsing the ability to impose a minimum of rights? Or is it a complete acceptance of the enemy's narrative that an entire people has no national rights?

Any declaration of "defeat" from the perspective of the ruling fascist right in Israel encompasses all these meanings and is read as a green light to push its project to the extreme.

Why does declaring "defeat" not stop the tragedy?

First: Because the logic of the ruling religious-national fascist right links "security" to complete subjugation and forced migration. The message of surrender will not satisfy its demands but will convince it that more oppression yields greater gains.

Second: Because the legal and international tools, along with popular and economic levers, will lose their momentum if the Palestinian discourse turns into an acknowledgment of the fall of rights.

Third: Because any such acknowledgment poses an existential threat to the entire Palestinian people, facilitates the destruction of institutions, dismantles the internal front, and weakens any ability to prevent large-scale displacement.

What can stop the tragedy then?

The transitional solution may lie in a temporary humanitarian-security deal: "immediate ceasefire, exchange of prisoners and detainees, return of displaced persons within Gaza, opening of crossings, and relief through UN agencies with specific time-limited international monitoring guarantees. However, the greater reliance should be on maximizing the cost of continuing the war: legally through international criminal and justice pathways, economically through targeted boycotts, and politically through enhancing Arab and international pressures on the Israeli government, leveraging what seems to be special relations between Trump and some Arab countries.

As for engaging in what is called the "day after" engineering, including civil administration and service plans, it may offer a practical transitional alternative to the chaos of war, but it carries real risks of entrenching the separation of the Gaza Strip from the national entity, which is the backbone of the ruling coalition's strategy in Israel to prevent the Palestinian people from determining their fate and realizing their independent state over all the occupied territories of 1967.

The priority of preventing displacement through solid systems requires documented Arab and international commitments, declared humanitarian protection zones with coordinates, archiving properties and population records, funding "staying in place," and emphasizing a realistic reconstruction plan that gives hope to people to stay, endure, and overcome the consequences of genocide and the humanitarian catastrophe it has left behind. However, this necessarily requires a government recognized internationally, enjoying popular consensus through national agreement on its components, priorities, and foundations of work, characterized by transparency, integrity, and credibility, away from polarizations and narrow factional interests.

Avoiding falling into the trap of "acknowledging defeat" does not mean denying reality. Acknowledging the catastrophe does not mean the legitimacy of rights is nullified or surrendering. Pragmatism does not mean conceding the essence, which calls for courage in mobilizing elements of strength, foremost among them unity and popular legitimacy. Accepting transitional security arrangements should not slip into surrendering to the Israeli logic of imposing the dismantling of the national entity again, which is the strategic trap sought by the occupation government.

Defeat is not destiny, and surrender will not stop the tragedy but will multiply the savagery.

The essence of the battle now is over the narrative and the legitimacy of rights, which require steadfastness in adhering to these rights, flexibility in tools, and mobilizing unity in the face of displacement. This is what stops the tragedy and prevents it from turning into a new complete catastrophe.