Defeat is Not Destiny, and Surrender Will Not Stop the Catastrophe

SadaNews - Despite the clear indication that Netanyahu and his fascist government's stance is the fundamental reason behind the failure of all mediators' attempts to achieve a reasonable deal, even if it were a transitional one that ultimately leads to stopping the genocide faced by Gazans, and the anticipated further dissection of the West Bank, some voices still demand that resistance factions in the Gaza Strip take the risk of making more concessions, and some even dare to directly or indirectly urge them to surrender to the Israeli conditions.

Netanyahu, who does not seem to have definitively closed the door on negotiating the Egyptian proposal accepted by Hamas unconditionally while maintaining channels of communication 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 so far failed to accomplish. This comes despite the heavy price that his army warns of, not only in terms of the humanitarian catastrophe, but also concerning the potential for severe losses if it unaccountably plunges into the mud of the city of Gaza, with the possibility of an escalating guerrilla war that may become the most prominent form of confrontation.

The real reasons behind Netanyahu's maneuvers stem from the nature and content of his right-wing government's strategy, which, due to American engagement in adopting it, is not limited to the Gaza Strip but also extends to the annexation and judaization occurring in the West Bank. These are not merely tactical reasons to improve the terms of the deal, but aim to make it as close as possible to the notion of "absolute victory" which, from the perspective of his right-wing coalition, opens the doors for liquidating the Palestinian issue rather than stopping the war in Gaza.

The fundamental question that needs calm discussion, breaking down all its elements, is: does the resistance's acknowledgment of "defeat" stop the tragedy or open the door to a larger massacre? The short answer is: defeat is not destiny, and "acknowledging it" is not a path to salvation, but a recipe for additional barbarism. What stops the slaughter is a change in the balance of cost and political-legal pressure on the war machine, accompanied by drafting a temporary humanitarian-security settlement, not an "acknowledgment of dominance" that amounts to an open check for displacement.

So what do we mean by "defeat"? Is it military/tactical, meaning a significant field setback? Is it political, indicating the collapse of 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 these meanings collectively, and is read as a green light to further its project to the fullest extent.

Why does declaring "defeat" not stop the tragedy?

First: Because the logic of the ruling religious-nationalist fascism ties "security" to complete subjugation and forced migration. The message of surrender will not satisfy its demands but will convince it that more oppression brings greater gains.

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

Third: Because any acknowledgment of this kind poses an existential threat to the entire Palestinian people, facilitates the destruction of institutions, dismantles the domestic front, and weakens any capacity to prevent widespread displacement.

What, then, can stop the tragedy?

The transitional solution may take the form of a temporary humanitarian-security deal that includes "immediate ceasefire, exchange of prisoners and detainees, return of displaced persons within Gaza, opening of crossings, and aid through UN agencies with specific duration international guarantees. But greater reliance must be on maximizing the cost of continuing the war: legally through international criminal and justice pathways, economically through targeted boycotts, and politically by enhancing Arab and international pressures on the Israeli government, leveraging the apparent unique relations between Trump and some Arab states.

Engaging in what is called the "next day" planning, which includes civil administration and service plans, may provide a practical transitional alternative to the chaos of war; however, it carries real risks of solidifying 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 establishing their independent state across all the occupied territories of 1967.

The priority to prevent displacement requires solid systems backed by documented Arab and international commitments, declared coordinates for humanitarian protection zones, archiving property rights and demographic records, funding "remaining in place", and ensuring a realistic reconstruction plan that gives hope to people to remain steadfast and overcome the ramifications of genocide and the resulting humanitarian catastrophe. This necessarily requires a government recognized internationally, enjoying popular consensus through national agreement on its components, priorities, and work foundations, based on transparency, integrity, and credibility, away from narrow factional interests and polarization.

Avoiding falling into the trap of "acknowledging defeat" does not mean denying reality. Acknowledging the catastrophe does not imply the loss of legitimacy of rights or surrender. Pragmatism does not mean conceding the essence, which requires courage in mobilizing elements of strength, chief among them unity and popular legitimacy. Acceptance of transitional security arrangements should not slip into surrendering to the Israeli logic of imposing a reconstruction of the national entity, which is the strategic trap the occupying government seeks.

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

The core battle now is over the narrative and the legitimacy of rights, which demand firmness in adhering to these rights, flexibility in tools, and mobilization of unity to face displacement. This is what stops the tragedy and prevents it from turning into a new complete Nakba.