By: Prof. Dr. Mohsen Mohammad Saleh.
An objective assessment of the performance of the Palestinian resistance is both an obligation and a necessity, rather than a luxury. It serves as a vital mechanism for extracting lessons, improving performance, and addressing existing shortcomings.
Nonetheless, there exist forces intent on undermining the resistance by magnifying its shortcomings, concealing its achievements, questioning its intentions, and ignoring the objective circumstances that informed its decisions and the challenging environments in which it has operated. In addition, there are well-meaning individuals who, due to a lack of evaluative standards or incomplete access to information, often allow their judgments and impressions to be shaped by rumors and by the tools of Zionist and Western incitement and disinformation.
In this context, the present article seeks to identify a set of indicators that can facilitate a more objective and nuanced assessment of the resistance:
First: Palestinian resistance is inherently cyclical, marked by waves of escalation and decline, yet it never ceases.
Palestinian resistance has persisted since the onset of the British occupation of Palestine, with the emergence of the first organized Palestinian military resistance group, the “Fedayeen,” in 1919, approximately 107 years ago. To regard Operation al-Aqsa Flood as the definitive end of the war or the conclusion of the Palestinian resistance is neither historically nor methodologically sound. Palestinian history is marked by recurring waves of uprisings and revolts, each erupting to achieve significant, though often temporary, gains. These waves inevitably subside under the combined pressures of a relentless enemy, the profound asymmetry of power, and the abandonment, weakness, or complicity of the surrounding official environment. The resistance’s momentum then recedes, awaiting the conditions that will give rise to the next wave. Notably, each successive wave of resistance has historically proven stronger than its predecessor. For example, al-Aqsa Intifadah (2000–2005) followed the First Intifadah (1987–1993), culminating in Operation al-Aqsa Flood, which represented the most formidable wave since the establishment of Israel. Accordingly, the present moment should be understood as an interlude between waves rather than a cessation of resistance. As long as the Zionist project remains undefeated, Palestinian resistance will persist.
Second: The debate may persist regarding the winner or loser of Operation al-Aqsa Flood, or who gained the most advantage; however, any strategic assessment that relies solely on the immediate circumstances is inherently constrained, if not fundamentally flawed. Such an approach fails to capture the broader context, overlooks long-term trends and trajectories, and conflates individual events and subsidiary trends with general patterns and the overarching Mega Trend. Accordingly, while attention to the severity of conditions and the suffering of our people in the GS is undeniably crucial, it alone cannot constitute a reliable foundation for comprehensive analysis and evaluation.
Alongside the current situation and the political, security and economic consequences of implementing the Trump plan, a proper evaluation must also consider its impact on Israel: the profound shock to its foundational notion of existence; the disruption of its functional role; the collapse of its narrative; the erosion of its moral legitimacy (invoking the Holocaust, the oasis of democracy, self-defense, and anti-Semitism…); substantial military and economic losses; reverse migration (estimated at some 550 thousand Jews within the first six months of Operation al-Aqsa Flood); and the elevation of the Palestinian issue to the forefront of the global agenda, accompanied by unprecedented international sympathy. Moreover, the number of states recognizing Palestine has reached 159; Israel and Zionism have been exposed in their most egregious human and moral forms; normalization efforts have stalled; and global respect for the Palestinian people, their sacrifices and heroism, has grown, transforming them into a source of worldwide inspiration rather than subjects of criticism for allegedly failing to defend their land and holy sites. Thus, despite Israel’s current aggressive expansion, the broader trajectories place it in a precarious position, standing on increasingly unstable ground in the medium and long term.
Third: it is crucial to analyze the conditions that precipitated Operation al-Aqsa Flood before hastily attributing blame to the resistance for acting impulsively, underestimating the consequences, or causing a “catastrophe.” The Israeli government, formed on the final day of 2022 through a coalition between Likud and Religious Zionism, was established with the explicit objective of implementing the “Decisive Plan” by accelerating measures of Judaization and annexation targeting the al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem and the West Bank (WB). In the months preceding the operation, concrete steps were already underway, alongside the circulation of information regarding an Israeli strategy to strike the resistance in Gaza Strip (GS) and assert control over the territory. These measures culminated when Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 22/9/2023, approximately two weeks prior to Operation al-Aqsa Flood, presenting a map of Israel that encompassed both the WB and GS, thereby signaling his determination to circumvent the Palestine issue by isolating it from its Arab environment, in line with the ongoing normalization process.
In other words, Israel had been pursuing a “quiet and cost-free” erasure of the Palestine issue, relying on the assumption that the “timid, ostensibly peaceful objections” could be easily managed.
Indeed, the decision to launch Operation al-Aqsa Flood was bold, decisive and costly. Nevertheless, it rendered any attempt by Israel to eliminate the Palestine issue exceedingly costly, while simultaneously opening substantial opportunities to resist, undermine, and obstruct such efforts. Moreover, it demonstrated to the international community the impossibility of bypassing the Palestinian people and their collective will. Consequently, Operation al-Aqsa Flood enjoyed overwhelming popular support among Palestinians, complemented by substantial backing from Arab, Muslim and global actors. Throughout the two years of the conflict, public opinion polls by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR), in WB and GS, consistently favored resistance, despite the immense losses and suffering, and despite the pervasive adversarial media across both Arab and international spheres.
Fourth: Those who claim wisdom in retrospect must engage in serious self-reflection. For many months, numerous writers, intellectuals and media figures actively supported and endorsed Operation al-Aqsa Flood. However, once the magnitude of the sacrifices became evident and Trump’s plan was revealed, they redirected their attention almost exclusively to the negative aspects, while largely overlooking other critical dimensions.
Fifth: Suppose Operation al-Aqsa Flood had not been launched, and the resistance had instead “adhered” to the “prudence” and calm urged by its critics! Suppose Israel had exploited such “ideal” conditions to continue the Judaization and annexation of al-Aqsa, Jerusalem and the rest of the WB, striking the resistance in GS… and effectively closing the Palestinian file… either without cost or at minimal cost. Would not these same critics, a year or two later, have accused the resistance of weakness, cowardice, prioritizing power and self-interest,… and shirking responsibility? The central question would remain: where were you, and what did you do?!
At the time, the resistance carefully evaluated the immense risks based on the best available intelligence and prepared for confrontation to the fullest extent of its capacities, despite the realities of siege, neglect, conspiracy and normalization. It fulfilled its duty with courage and resolve. It could not foresee the future, nor could anyone determine outcomes with absolute precision. Yet it sacrificed its political, military and organizational leaders, their children, and thousands of its cadres and supporters. Recognizing that it had no luxury of choice, the resistance acted decisively at a critical juncture in the history of the Palestinian people and the broader Ummah (Muslim nation), culminating in a heroic and unparalleled epic since the inception of the Zionist project.
Do those “living in comfort” truly have the right to reproach the resistance under every circumstance, for every decision it makes, whether it launched Operation al-Aqsa Flood or refrained!! whether it fulfilled its duty or did not!!
Sixth: The resistance was not defeated; nevertheless, it sought to bring the war to an end, as the war had escalated into what amounted to a genocide campaign against the Palestinian people amid widespread Arab and international weakness, indecision and paralysis. The resistance remains intact, and Israel acknowledged its failure to achieve its objectives of crushing it. Not a single captive held by Israel was released without the resistance’s consent. According to both Israeli and Western assessments, the resistance successfully replenished its ranks, numbering over 30 thousand fighters at the outset of the ceasefire. It immediately assumed direct control over all areas not under occupation. Israel admitted its failure in the incursions intended to subjugate GS during the final months of the war, particularly Operation Gideon Chariots I, while Operation Gideon II was approaching failure. In the closing days of the war, Chief of the General Staff Eyal Zamir advised the political leadership that a political solution was necessary, given the absence of any immediate prospect for a decisive military resolution.
Seventh: While there is undeniably a real threat facing both the resistance and the Palestine issue, it would be mistaken to assess the situation as if the chapter has been closed, the enemy has prevailed and its will has been realized. Such claims have been heard repeatedly, regarding the 1948 and 1967 wars, following the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, and throughout the period of the First Intifadah in 1987–1993. Similar assertions were made about the supposed closure of the resistance file after the Sharm el-Sheikh Conference in 1996, following al-Aqsa Intifadah in 2000–2005, and, as some are now inclined, they continue to be echoed.
Yet, in the face of every “existential” challenge, the resistance has invariably emerged and regained its strength. This struggle is fundamentally a matter of justice, rights and freedom. Ultimately, the Palestinian people and their Ummah will prevail, for the course of history moves in their favor. It is imperative, therefore, that the mentality of “defeat” does not govern their thinking.
Eighth: In an objective assessment of a resistance movement and a people performing at a heroic, almost epic level, demonstrating humanity’s highest capacities for sacrifice, patience, steadfastness and creativity, offering a global model and a major humanistic paradigm, achieving moral and legal victories, and placing their enemy in successive crises… the evaluation should not center on losses and sacrifices, nor on attempts to entrench the “catastrophe” complex and the notion of “searing the consciousness.” Indeed, this perspective serves precisely the interests of the Israeli occupation and anti-resistance forces, as it fosters a culture of despair, failure and surrender, a narrative actively propagated by Israeli and Western media, and even by much of the Arab press. In such a framing, the discourse shifts from condemning the perpetrator to blaming the hero, from holding the occupier accountable to punishing the victim.
Consequently, evaluation within liberation movements, and among peoples aspiring to freedom, should originate from the primacy of heroism and sacrifice, and their elevation toward achieving higher objectives, rather than from a focus on “losses” associated with adapting life under occupation and maintaining conditions that sustain it.
Ninth: Resistance should not be understood merely as a local Palestinian phenomenon, nor should its assessment be confined to a narrow national framework. Rather, it embodies the will of the Arab nation, the Muslim Ummah and the free peoples of the world. It represents both the first line of defense and a fundamental safeguard for the Ummah against the Zionist project, which aims to dominate the region and target its peoples. In defending al-Aqsa Mosque, Jerusalem, and the holy and blessed land of Palestine along with its identity, resistance acts on behalf of the broader Ummah, thereby affirming its legitimacy and moral authority. Consequently, any evaluation of resistance must correspond to the nature of its role and the profound mission it undertakes.
Tenth: Trump’s plan is neither the ultimate solution nor an inevitable outcome, and it inherently contains the seeds of its own failure. The constellation of circumstances and evolving dynamics does not uniformly favor either the Zionist project or the US agenda, as both face their respective crises. Furthermore, the regional and global environment is marked by a profound convergence of conflicting interests. It is therefore insufficient to remain passive, lament fate, or assign blame solely to the resistance; rather, it is imperative to consolidate the sources of strength within the Palestinian people, the Arab and Muslim Ummah, and the free peoples of the world, in order to resume the path of resistance in all its forms, ultimately striving for liberation.
Finally, a careful and objective reassessment is essential. The Palestinian resistance experience must be thoroughly studied and critically evaluated, with criticism employed not as a tool for destruction but as an instrument for construction and progress.
Al-Zaytouna Centre for Studies and Consultations, 14/2/2026
Leave A Comment