Defiant Spirits: Palestinian resistance to negotiated surrender

Written by – Elijah J. Magnier:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly discussed Israel’s objectives with US President Joe Biden, stressing “Israel’s commitment to achieving its war aims and eradicating Hamas”. Despite the apparent divergence in their public statements, suggesting a significant rift, the core of their agreement on Israel’s objectives remains intact. This appearance of disagreement is related to the US request of Israel to make efforts to secure shelter for the displaced in Rafah before the start of military action and through the operational management of the conflict. This management has inadvertently affected Biden’s re-election campaign, not in terms of objectives – which are in line with Netanyahu’s ambitions to dismantle resistance and carry out killing and destruction, albeit on a smaller scale – but rather in terms of the detrimental effects on the civilian casualties and the starvation caused by the Israeli military in Gaza.

Biden’s strategy is for negotiations to culminate in a temporary ceasefire to regain some of the electoral support threatened by the Israeli war. This is particularly pertinent given that among those held by Hamas are six Americans with dual citizenship. Conversely, Netanyahu is determined either to undermine the negotiations or to impose unworkable conditions on Hamas, whose leadership claims resilience and organisational restructuring during the ongoing war. The question looms large: What direction will these negotiations take, and can their results be considered reliable?

The US President, in agreement with his National Security Advisor Jack Sullivan, has taken a firm position that Hamas must be defeated and its leadership must not be given sanctuary in Rafah or anywhere else. However, they caution against initiating operations in Rafah without a careful plan for civilian evacuation, recognising that such actions, while not explicitly prohibited or considered a red line, could result in increased civilian casualties and further isolate Israel – and, by extension, the United States – on the international stage. 

The consensus is that Israel’s objectives in Rafah could be pursued through alternative strategies. The reference to “other means” suggests the exploration of options reminiscent of the expulsion of PLO members from Lebanon after the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon. However, relocating Hamas from Gaza required the consent of the resistance (which was withheld) and the identification of a receptive host country, with Algeria being a potential candidate. These alternatives remain speculative and unconfirmed as viable solutions.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has decided to send a delegation to Washington, including National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi and Minister of Israeli Affairs Ron Dermer, for talks with American officials. The agenda will include deliberations on the strategic rationale for entering Rafah, articulating Netanyahu’s perspective on minimising civilian casualties, and negotiating the parameters of a ceasefire, in particular outlining Tel Aviv’s non-negotiable terms with Hamas. Netanyahu’s decision to exclude the security establishment from Washington’s discussions is indicative of his awareness of their perspective: that Hamas is deeply entrenched in Palestinian society, unlikely to capitulate or significantly alter its tactics, and that targeting its leadership through assassination will not dismantle the organisation.

Netanyahu has agreed to send a negotiating delegation to Doha to deal with the ceasefire situation. However, this delegation has been given minimal powers – far less than those advocated by the heads of Israel’s security institutions. This limitation dramatically reduces the chances of success of these indirect talks with Hamas. Netanyahu has set clear conditions, including no withdrawal from urban areas, the return of all civilians to the north and the release of all trucks queuing at the Rafah crossing to alleviate hunger. These conditions appear designed to prolong the conflict and facilitate the construction of the naval pier while avoiding concessions that might undermine his standing with his political allies.

Netanyahu faces limited, equally unpalatable choices: Face the opposition of National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, the hardline elements within his government. Both men oppose negotiations and advocate a continuation of hostilities with no concessions for the release of Israeli prisoners or the release of Palestinian prisoners who have harmed Israelis, citing their “bloody hands”. As a result, Netanyahu is inclined to take a harder line in the negotiations, blaming Hamas for any failure to justify a military strategy that includes entering Rafah – a move likely to appease his allies.

Conversely, Netanyahu’s decisions have strained relations with other members of his emergency government, notably ministers Benny Gantz and Gabi Eisenkot. Both men are members of the war cabinet and stand more in line with the security leadership’s advocacy of negotiations and a temporary ceasefire alongside efforts to initiate the release of prisoners. Netanyahu’s subtle rebuke of Benny Gantz, though not by name – “To anyone who visits Washington, I tell him that he must learn to say no to our (American) allies as I do”. The Prime Minister aimed to cement his image as a formidable leader among Israeli hard-liners, decision-makers, and Israeli society, positioning himself against Gantz, who is perceived to have broader support in the Knesset than Netanyahu.

Prime Minister Netanyahu faces a critical decision that will determine his political longevity: to continue the conflict, obstruct negotiations and refuse to make any or limited concessions while deliberately limiting the authority of the negotiating team. This strategy is designed to facilitate a military incursion into Rafah, contingent on the possibility of displacing some 1.5 million people north of Rafah, thereby allowing military operations to continue. This approach is in line with the US objective of “eliminating Hamas” and ensuring “no haven for the organisation’s leadership”. It aims to dismantle what Netanyahu claims are “four Hamas battalions in Rafah after defeating 18 battalions” in the rest of Gaza.

The composition of the Israeli negotiating team, notably the absence of Shin Bet (Israel’s internal security service) chief Ronen Bar and the delegation led by Mossad director David Barnea, along with a technical team, underlines a strategic decision. Bar’s non-participation and the limitation to reviewing the list of prisoners Hamas demand to be released, especially those serving life sentences, reflect a focused negotiating stance. This was underlined by the arrest of several female reservists and soldiers on 7 October as part of the ongoing talks.

Furthermore, Netanyahu’s refusal to allow all displaced Palestinians to return to northern Gaza mirrors the selective criteria applied to entry permits to Al-Aqsa Mosque. This approach aims to fragment families or limit their return to the north to children, women and older people over the age of fifty or sixty – a condition that Hamas unequivocally rejects.

Sources within Hamas in Gaza have stated unequivocally: “We will not consider any negotiations without a comprehensive ceasefire and the guarantee of the return of all northern residents to their homes, including those that have been demolished.” In the wake of significant losses, Hamas has reportedly “restructured its military forces, filling gaps in its fighting organisation and replacing all vacant positions following the deaths of numerous fighters.”

These sources further revealed: “Our leadership, both primary and secondary, remains largely unaffected, with minimal losses. With sufficient workforce and weapons, we are prepared to continue the fight indefinitely. Whenever Israeli forces leave a street or an area, our forces immediately reorganise, rearm and form new battalions. The ground incursions by Israeli forces have inadvertently facilitated the development of our military tactics, including the re-mining of areas and the establishment of new defensive strongholds.”

Hamas acknowledged a reduced impact on the Israeli civilian front, which it attributed to the almost complete cessation of its offensive operations outside the Gaza perimeter and the shelling of Israeli settlements. However, the conflict within Gaza’s borders against Israeli forces continues unabated, even in areas that Israel claims to have secured and cleared of resistance.

The sources revealed: “Despite the uncertain promises, Hamas has been in contact with Qatari and Egyptian mediators and is considering an initial 42-day ceasefire with the prospect of an extension. Aware of the Israeli position as articulated by Netanyahu and of conditional American support for an Israeli engagement in Rafah, Hamas remains steadfast in its rejection of partial solutions or non-guaranteed promises and insists on a definitive cessation of hostilities.”

“Since Israel has targeted the structures it wanted to eradicate, our fear of further losses, despite the atrocities committed, has diminished. Our acceptance depends on proposals that guarantee the restoration of normalcy,” continue the sources.

Confirming the resistance narrative, General Yisrael Ziv, former head of the Israeli army’s Operations Directorate, has articulated a critical view of the ongoing conflict in Gaza: “Hamas continues to control civilian areas and attack Israeli forces, causing Israel both military setbacks and a profound international dilemma. The conduct of the war, with no clear objectives or direction, has gone off the rails.”

This observation underlines a significant shift from strategic military engagement to actions driven by retaliation rather than clear tactical objectives. Early in the conflict, the commander of the Israeli army’s 36th Armoured Division, Brigadier General David Bar Kalifa, issued a hand-written battle order that explicitly encouraged revengeful retaliation against Palestinians. This mandate was criticised by the Israeli media, which likened the army’s operations in Gaza to the actions of ‘lawless gangs’. Such directives and the subsequent actions they inspired have raised severe accusations of war crimes, and the Israeli forces’ adherence to these orders in Gaza has come under the world’s scrutiny.

The failure to achieve objectives, coupled with the high civilian casualties and extensive destruction caused, marks a departure from any traditional notion of military success. Instead, it underscores a situation in which sustained resistance from the other side and sustained losses by the attacking forces mean a strategic stalemate and perhaps more of a defeat rather than victory. 

The dynamics of the conflict in Gaza underscore a protracted struggle in which neither side can claim absolute victory. The resilience of the resistance, characterised by its ability to regroup, adapt and absorb losses, contrasts sharply with the Israeli strategy of destruction and civilian casualties while failing to achieve its stated goals of releasing prisoners and dismantling Hamas. This ongoing cycle suggests that this conflict, like many before, will culminate at the negotiating table. Here, each party’s perseverance and strategic patience will ultimately shape the terms of any resolution. History shows that wars, regardless of intensity and duration, often end in dialogue and compromise, where the ability to persevere and adapt can significantly impact the final outcome.