Between Surrender and Changing Means: Which Path Saves Palestinian Existence?

We are likely facing a new round of war. This is not a pessimistic prophecy, but a cold reading of what is taking shape before our eyes. What has been called a truce was nothing more than a temporary reduction in the intensity of fire, not its extinguishing. The war has not stopped; its pace has only changed, while its objectives remain firm and clear.

Israel has not budged an inch from its initial goals. Its war was not merely a military response but a complete project of restructuring reality in Gaza, politically, demographically, and security-wise. Its deeper goal is not only to neutralize a military power but to diminish the Palestinian presence itself, transforming existence into a manageable or offloadable burden. This goal has not been taken off the table, nor has it failed, as some promote.

In contrast, a part of the Palestinian actors still behaves as if the rules of the game have not changed. Maneuvering in collapsed spaces, betting on regional interventions that have proven ineffective, and continuing a mobilization discourse that does not change the balance of power are all costly illusions that the entire community pays for.

At this point, any talk about reviewing the path is thrown out as “surrender.” But the uncomfortable truth is that continuing along a path leading to total destruction is not heroism. Heroism is not in blind insistence, nor in turning society into fuel for a battle without a future.

If tactical retreat prevents uprooting people from their land, does it become betrayal? Or is the true betrayal the insistence on options that have proven to bring us closer to a complete cancellation scenario? Palestinian existence is not a detail that can be gambled with. The land is not a platform for slogans, but the very condition for life.

I do not call for surrender, and I will not. But I call for breaking the mental stalemate that equates steadfastness with political suicide. I call for changing the tools of struggle, for transitioning from unequal attrition battles to spaces of action that can be gradually expanded: political, legal, popular, and international. As long as the Palestinian person remains on their land, the battle remains open in multiple forms. But if uprooted, all battles end at once.

The war in its current form does not produce victory; instead, it produces graves, destruction, and a new diaspora. Continuing to pump the same discourse, with the same outcomes, is not courage but denial of reality.

The equation is harsh but clear:

Either we redefine our tools, or we let others redefine our existence.
The issue is not the dignity of discourse, but the survival of a people.