Between Excuse and Decision... Who Accounts for the Blood of Palestinians?

The question is no longer a political luxury nor a partisan debate.

When figures pile up to the point of losing their meaning, and when death becomes a daily number in news reports, silence becomes complicity, and the question turns into a moral obligation.

If the enemy is known for seeking and fabricating excuses, why was he given the opportunity?

And if the balance of power is so drastically skewed, why is the conflict managed as if the cost is manageable?

After two years of war, we face a scene that cannot be beautified: tens of thousands of dead, hundreds of thousands of wounded, missing without a trace, and a million people living in tents, between the cold of winter and the heat of summer. Cities reduced to rubble, economies collapsed, communities exhausted, and an entire generation pulled from classrooms to relief lines.

No one absolves the occupation of its responsibility. It possesses the war machine, and it chose the scorched earth policy and collective punishment. This is a fact established politically and morally.

However, placing the entire scene on the occupation does not negate the question of internal decision-making.

The leadership that decides on confrontation bears the political responsibility of estimating costs and managing risks.

Resistance is not a symbolic act, but a strategic decision paid for in the blood of the people, their homes, and their future.

The moral legitimacy of any decision is not measured only by the sincerity of intent, but by the ability to protect society from collapse.

Were the calculations realistic?

Was there a clear plan for what comes after the first strike?

Was there a vision for managing a long war under crushing siege and blatant international imbalance?

Or did we enter the battle with a mobilizing rhetoric greater than the ability to absorb?

The most dangerous aspect of the current moment is not just the scale of destruction, but the absence of review.

Living societies hold their leaders accountable, not to relieve a grievance, but to prevent the repetition of disaster.

And review is not treachery, but a condition for survival.

The Palestinian people can no longer play the role of the "perpetual fuel" for every round.

And pain cannot be turned into a tool for continuous mobilization without genuine political accountability.

For a just cause does not need more blood to prove its justice; it needs political wisdom to manage the conflict.

Continuing the same approach without courageous review means opening the door to harsher rounds, perhaps even more dangerous to the societal structure itself.

The Palestinian people can no longer endure a war of attrition without a clear political horizon.

The moment imposes a straightforward question:

Is the goal to protect the cause or to manage the conflict endlessly?

And is the priority for rhetoric or for people's lives?

What Palestinians need today is not new slogans, but a strategy to exit the impasse and a political vision that restores dignity to the person before the title, and to life before the statement.

The blood of Palestinians is not a margin in an equation, but its essence.

And any decision that does not place people's lives at the center of consideration will remain an incomplete decision... no matter the intentions.