Dependence on Foreign Powers at the Expense of National Resilience

In moments of major disasters, it is not only military fronts that are shaken, but also the deep structures that produce political and social meaning, such as trust, solidarity, and the collective feeling of resilience, are subjected to profound tremors. At this point, the Palestinian question transcends the boundaries of war and resistance, becoming a question about the reality of society itself: does it remain a historical actor, or does it fragment into mere individuals, each seeking his own salvation?

The Discourse of Blaming the Victim for the Catastrophe

During the genocidal war on the Gaza Strip, a discourse emerged that alone holds the resistance responsible for the catastrophe, with some even demanding its surrender as a way to "save what can be saved." However, this discourse was not merely a political difference; it entailed, intentionally or otherwise, an unannounced redistribution of responsibilities, placing the burden of extermination on the victims, while easing the moral and political pressure on the system of occupation and genocide as the primary responsible party for producing and perpetuating this catastrophe.

The Question of Surrender: A Hypothesis that Crumbles Before Reality

Without absolving the resistance forces from the responsibility for the absence or lack of seriousness in their tangible approach regarding consensus as a mandatory option for salvation, and in how to rescue the people of Gaza from the catastrophe, the question that transcends today's theoretical debate is: what remains of the hypothesis that bowing might constitute an entry point for salvation, in light of everything happening on the ground?

Despite the announced understandings or phases of calm, and the Palestinian side's commitment to its obligations, the machine of killing and siege has not stopped, and Gaza remains trapped among torn tents, as its people are subjected to a system of daily starvation and pressure with no clear horizon, except for the continuation of attempts to push them towards emigration. Simultaneously, a parallel image of slow erosion of the conditions of life through killing and terrorism, checkpoints and closures, economic constriction, and a gradual dismantling of fields of movement and work is expanding in the West Bank.

The Structure of the Conflict: Beyond the Binary of War or Surrender

These realities impose a direct question on the discourse of "surrender as a rational option": what could this option actually change in the structure of a conflict that has not ceased to expand through brute force?

The issue transcends both Gaza and the West Bank. The core problem lies in a racist occupation structure that targets annihilation. It is a structure that reproduces itself through field, economic, and geographic control, and the denial of the existence of the Palestinian people itself, not merely a denial of their rights. Moreover, reducing responsibility to a Palestinian side ignores a central truth: the occupation is not an emergency event or a reaction, but an integrated system of control and domination that reproduces power, changing fundamentally only with shifts in the positions of the parties subjected to it.

Dismantling the Social Fabric: The Invisible Danger

In this context, under the weight of binary polarization and neglect of what befalls society, the scope of the disintegration of the Palestinian social fabric is expanding as one of the most dangerous invisible transformations. When solidarity is replaced by accusation, and suffering is reduced to political disputes, the social networks that historically formed the basis for Palestinian resilience and the lever of popular resistance in the great intifada erode.

Between Developing the International Position and Dependence on Foreign Powers

Here, it is essential to distinguish between the necessity of developing the international position, which requires a realistic discourse and a unified strategy of action, and dependence on foreign powers at the expense of the internal situation. At that point, betting on the outside turns into an illusion, while the inside is silently drained and eroded.

The Illusion of Individual Salvation and the Binary of Subjugation and Bravado

Current transformations cannot be understood in isolation from the erosion of the idea of "individual salvation." The notion that adaptation to power guarantees security clashes with a historical experience confirming that systems of domination do not grant stability; rather, they reproduce control in renewed forms.

At its core, this perception relies on the illusion of separating the individual from the collective; between those who seek salvation and those who are left to their fate. However, societies under colonial or occupation show that the fragmentation of collective structure does not lead to salvation but to the weakening of all.

Conversely, "bravado" is merely the other face of subjugation. Despite the apparent contradiction between them, they often stem from the same intellectual and psychological root: the inability or fear of confronting reality as it is.

In defeatism, the mind lightens the burden of responsibility by succumbing to the idea of inadequacy. In exaggerating victories, it escapes acknowledgment of losses by claiming their opposite. In both cases, there is an escape from the truth and from the necessity of a serious review and new tools to deal with a painful reality without succumbing to it as a perpetual fate.

The Limits of International Settlement and the Re-engineering of the Conflict

On a broader level, the stakes of international settlement, especially American projects for conflict management or re-engineering the region, no longer offer a realistic horizon. These approaches were based on managing conflict rather than resolving it, and on the assumption that rearranging the economy and security could transcend the core of the political issue.

However, the experience proved that what was presented as "stability" was nothing more than a redistribution of power, producing only further delayed explosions, since the essence of the conflict remained around land, sovereignty, and national rights.

Conversely, Israel is gradually shifting from the logic of "conflict management" to a broader logic: reshaping the Palestinian and regional space according to a balance of power that is difficult to rebalance politically. Geography, economy, and movement are no longer merely security tools; they have become elements in a long-term project to re-engineer reality itself.

The Interior as a Condition for Resilience, Not as a Background for the Conflict

In light of this scene, betting on foreign powers becomes a form of escape from a fundamental truth: any liberation project cannot withstand if its social base is dismantled from within. The interior is not just a background for the conflict; it is a condition for its existence and continuity. When solidarity is replaced with a culture of accusation, and society is reduced to conflicting individuals, it loses the ability to produce sustainable political action, regardless of the strength of slogans or the volume of external support.

The Open Question: Would Surrender Have Saved Us?

Today, with the pain expanding from Gaza to the West Bank, and with scenes of daily humiliation at checkpoints and forced labor paths, the question returns to its essence: would the choice of "rational surrender" have been capable of stopping this trajectory? Or would it have produced another, perhaps harsher, form of subjugation, along with the loss of what remains of internal power elements?

A Crisis of Vision or a Crisis of Capability?

Finally, the current Palestinian crisis is not merely a crisis of occupation; it is also a crisis of vision: a vision that relied on the outside more than it mobilized its society and reinforced its cohesion and national capability, and on deferred solutions instead of entrenching the conditions for true resilience.

The fundamental question remains open, perhaps more urgent than ever: can any political project, in any form, survive if the interior is not only being drained but if its leadership also shirks its duties and responsibilities, remaining imprisoned in the binary of subjugation and bravado?