Resistance between negatives and positives.. in response to Mounir Shafiq

The M99's accession to the Qassam Brigades' sniper arsenal reveals the resistance's awareness of the nature of the irregular war it is waging against the Israeli enemy (Qassam Brigades military media)

This article is a discussion with Professor Munir Shafiq about his article: “Resistance between negatives and positives,” published on Al Jazeera Net on January 28, 2024. Which came in response to an article I published on the same site entitled: “Gaps that must be filled in the wall of Palestinian steadfastness.” In Gaza, on January 17, 2024.

Professor Munir Shafiq begins his discussion by objecting to describing the current situation in the Gaza Strip as a state of steadfastness, but rather as “a state of strategic attack, which may constitute a prelude to a general attack.” I still believe that the state of steadfastness is the closest and most accurate description of what is happening in Palestine in general, and in the Gaza Strip in particular.

Although the battle began with the historic and exceptional October 7 attack in the context of the Palestinian resistance - which I discussed in an article published on Al Jazeera on October 9, entitled: “The Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood... The Palestinian Resistance puts things in perspective” - the scene - After the entity announced its eradication war on the Palestinian people, and announced its three known goals: “eliminating and eradicating the resistance, ensuring that this attack is not repeated again, and recovering the prisoners held by the resistance,” and even going beyond them to the point of working to displace the Palestinian people from the Gaza Strip - Transformation To a clear state of annihilation war, which our people and their resistance face with exceptional steadfastness.

The clear goal of the resistance, which does not require searching between the lines and behind them, is to call on the components of the Palestinian people wherever they are to develop their performance, and to work by all means to join the battle, and to urge the Palestinian leaders and factions to make every effort to advance this participation.

The criterion for victory is steadfastness, thwarting the enemy’s goals, and preventing him from achieving them. Rather, Professor Mounir's description of the battle as a "strategic attack" puts the resistance, and with it the Palestinian people, facing great challenges and entitlements that the Palestinian people cannot accept in light of the regional and international circumstances.

Then, the resistance and its leadership announced more than once that its goal was to stop the aggression, and that the battle, and the October 7 attack, came to confront the fascist policies of the current Zionist government, curb its projects towards Al-Aqsa and the Palestinians in the West Bank, and block the way for displacement projects.

This means supporting the steadfastness of the Palestinian people, and preventing attacks on them and their rights, leading to their displacement, as in the plan to resolve the conflict published by the extremist Minister Smotrich.

The goal of the article intended for discussion - which its author believes is the duty of the moment - is to put everyone before their historical responsibilities, and not to look for justification for the weakness of any party’s position, because the scale of the battle and the nature of its goals set by the occupation are historical and detailed, and constitute a threat not only to the resistance and the Palestinian people in Gaza, but also For the overall Palestinian issue.

Searching for the gaps in the Palestinian wall of steadfastness in an effort to fill them, as stated in the title of the article, after all this time has passed since the battle, after more than (32,000) martyrs, (65,000) wounded, and the destruction of the majority of the Strip’s homes and all of its infrastructure and civil infrastructure, is the duty of every person. He is keen on the cause, the resistance and its project. This does not contradict at all with praising the steadfastness, resistance and valor of our people.

As for the negatives of the enemy front, its weaknesses and the size of the strategic strike it received, the writer has addressed them in previous articles that can be consulted on the Al Jazeera website, and they are not the focus of the article’s research or its topic, and no writer who follows the events of the war on a daily basis is required to expose all its aspects in Every article he writes.

In his article, Professor Mounir believes that talk about the ability and will to invest in the battle, in a way that serves the region and prevents it from a new era of American hegemony, may be directed to the leadership of the resistance, and not to the Arab and Islamic rulers and leaders.

Here a question arises: How can this signal be read as directed at the leadership of the resistance?! It talks about exploiting the moment to change the Arab and Islamic reality and get rid of hegemony. How could the resistance leadership be concerned with talking about hegemony and changing the Arab and Islamic reality?!

Then Professor Mounir adds: “Then notice what is required of this “sufficient will” to change “the political reality of many Arab and Islamic countries…” and to launch “the beginning of the end of an era of domination, colonialism, and orgy in the entire region.” Which means that providing this “will” is impossible. What inability?

Here I also wonder: What is the absurdity of asking countries and peoples in the region to invest in the battle to get rid of hegemony?! Then, if this is not possible from his point of view at the level of the nation with all its components, how can this battle, in light of this Arab and Islamic impotence, be a strategic attack?!

In his discussion of “the failure of all Palestinian components to engage in the battle: the West Bank, the 1948 territories and the Palestinian diaspora” at a level that could bring about a fundamental change in the course of the battle, he considers this a ruling that carries injustice to the West Bank and the 1948 Palestinians.

But why was this text of the article dropped or ignored, which urges the development of the position and does not ignore it? It says: “Since the contribution of these components in the battle is still limited and does not rise to the required level that would enable them to contribute directly and effectively to achieving a qualitative Palestinian national achievement, Although the length of the battle should constitute an incentive and objective justification for these components to engage in the battle, regardless of the mechanisms, means and tools, in a manner that takes into account and is compatible with the nature of each geographical region and each Palestinian component.”

This means urging the Palestinians not to rely on the existing reality, and that there is still an opportunity to develop their performance and contribute more effectively to this battle, which is what the resistance and its military and political leadership have called for many times during this war.

The clear goal, which does not require searching between the lines and behind them, is to call on the components of the Palestinian people wherever they are to develop their performance, to work by all means to join the battle, and to urge the Palestinian leaders and factions to make every effort to improve this participation.

Any analysis or slogan cannot be more harsh on the resistance and the Palestinian people in Gaza than the existing reality itself, and at this moment it is not useful to beautify or embellish positions, and it is not possible to develop elaborate formulations to mitigate the impact of the positions’ weakness and the limited impact of them.

Professor Munir also believes that discussing what the article considered a historical crisis linked to the failure of all Palestinian components to engage in the battle in the manner hoped for is “an impossibility upon an impossibility.”

Does the existence of a chronic crisis mean surrendering to it and declaring inability to deal with it, even though it fundamentally affects Palestinian performance?! Does drawing attention to this crisis in the context of urging it to be overcome and highlighting its danger to the current situation constitute an inability?! Or did it put the Palestinian parties in other geographies in front of their responsibilities, and warned them of the danger of relying on previous formulas that caused great damage to the paths of the Palestinian cause and the national movement?

How did the professor go beyond this text contained in the article: “The occupation’s talk about the third phase of the war, which could last for months or more, opens the way for Palestinians everywhere to engage in a long wave of resistance with the occupation similar to the second intifada, the “Al-Aqsa Intifada.” It could It leads to the defeat of the occupation and the achievement of some Palestinian political rights, and pushes the world to acknowledge the necessity of resolving the Palestinian issue, and that no one can ignore the Palestinians and their cause.”

Professor Munir criticizes the talk about the inability in the performance of the official Palestinian leadership, “the leadership of the PLO and the Palestinian Authority,” and urging the need to change this behavior in a way that suits the battle and its requirements, and the extent of the damage resulting from the Palestinian division at this pivotal moment in the history of the Palestinian people.

Rather, it goes too far, and contradicts the position of all the Palestinian factions and their leaders, including the resistance factions, as well as the Palestinian civil society forces and its various institutions, which worked tirelessly to get out of the division; Realizing its danger to the Palestinian cause, and the extent of the harm it causes to the Palestinian cause, when it speaks positively about the division, it does not believe in its harm to the resistance and the national struggle, and sees the focus on the dangers of the division as “exaggeration.”

However, even if the Palestinians have been unable to solve this dilemma over the past years, shouldn’t they invest in an exceptional moment to accomplish what they were unable to do previously?! Is it possible, and does wisdom and logic require, acceptance of this inability in official political performance?! Does his criticism constitute a frustration of the national situation? Is highlighting the seriousness of this performance and urging it to change unacceptable?

The Palestinian division was and still is a national point of weakness and a crisis that must be addressed. The need for this becomes more urgent as the risks to which the Palestinian people and their national cause are exposed increase. The awareness of the political and intellectual leaders and activists of the Palestinian people of the extent of the risks resulting from this division is what prompted them to make every effort. Effort to get out of it.

The many reconciliation meetings and agreements, and the insistence of the leaders of all factions, especially the leadership of the resistance factions, to overcome the division are only due to their awareness of its dangers.

Its continuation causes severe harm to the Palestinian cause, and cannot be positive or result in interests. Even if the resistance factions succeeded in exploiting some of the side opportunities resulting from it. We see today, in light of the battle, the extent to which the occupation and its successor, the United States, are investing in it, and are working in every way to continue it.

Moreover, there is nothing to support the conclusion that came out of Professor Munir’s article, which considers that “exaggerating the issue of division leads, in practice, to putting both sides in one basket,” especially since it has become known to all who follow the Palestinian issue that it was the leadership of the Authority that thwarted the attempt. The last and most serious way to get out of the division is to try to hold elections in 2021. Responsibility for its continuation is no longer a matter of discussion among the majority of Palestinian elites and factions.

Then how can the professor go beyond this call that specifies who is negligent and who should take action, as the discussion article states: “And where are the Palestinian forces, factions, unions and federations in this matter? Why have we not witnessed any pressing action to achieve unity and contribute to protecting the Palestinian people?” And his resistance and potential achievements from this battle?

Professor Mounir also objects to talk about the inability of the nation, with its various components, to put an end to aggression. I do not know how he placed the disappointment resulting from inability and weakness in the same category as “betrayal.” He concluded that talking about the nation’s poor performance is a discouraging factor and should not be highlighted.

It is as if the article revealed a dangerous secret that no one knows, that the young and old do not realize, that the media does not hype about, and that every voice that emerges from the women, elders and children of Gaza does not utter. Didn't the whole world hear the cries of the victims in Gaza, screaming, "Where are the Arabs, and where are the Muslims?!"

Yes, this nation is unable to provide support, at least in the humanitarian aspect, while the state of South Africa defied the entire international system and Western hegemony, and stood firmly by the Palestinian people and their just cause, exposing its interests to many risks.

Among what was mentioned in the article, warning of the repercussions of the impotence of the Arab and Islamic world: “Some were optimistic about the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, but soon they were disappointed. If this impotence that the Arab and Islamic world shows continues as it is, the Arab and Islamic world will be facing a new era of American hegemony.” The Zionist orgy may continue for decades to come.”

Then finally, what is the relationship between the nation’s charity that the Holy Qur’an spoke about, and which the professor mentioned in his discussion, with its weak performance in war?! Does the nation’s goodness negate its weakness at historical points and towards specific issues, and how can we understand and explain the stages of decline and weakness in our Islamic history?!

Then, in order not to offend the feelings of the nation and its regimes, is what is required for the killing of the Palestinian to continue silently? Does fear for the feelings of some require not screaming and expressing pain and bitterness? Is the Palestinian required not to broadcast his pain so as not to hurt the feelings of his brothers?!

Professor Munir concludes that talking about betrayal may lead to the same previous Palestinian slogan, “Oh, we are alone,” which he believes led us to Oslo.

But everyone knows that the Oslo process, and the theorization of recognizing “Israel” by a number of PLO factions, preceded Oslo by a long way, and preceded the collapse and absence of the central Arab states, and that it came as a result of many factors, which we are not willing to discuss, and in the first years of the launch of what is known as the revolution. Contemporary Palestinian Authority, and that the ten-point program that paved the way for Oslo was at the beginning of the seventies of the last century.

Those who follow Palestinian affairs know that the vast majority of Palestinian factions and elites have disengaged from Oslo and partial solutions, and that thirty years of settlement have only brought more mirage and weakness.

In conclusion, I thank Professor Munir for clarifying that it is not possible to prepare the resistant and exceptional Palestinian person that the article talked about, except with the presence of a serious, honest leadership that believes in its project and its resistance, although I do not think that anyone can interpret the praise of the soldiers as negating the praise for their exceptional leadership as well.

Did the article suggest that these heroes came from another planet and infiltrated Gaza?! Here, I refer the reader to previous articles on the Al Jazeera Net website to view the opinion of the resistance, its leadership, and its planning for October 7, which was written only two days after the battle.

It stated: “We are facing a different Palestinian model of resistance, and the resistance led by the Qassam Brigades constitutes an unprecedented Palestinian situation on Palestinian land. It is serious, sincere, fully believes in what it is doing, and is determined to liberate. It does not show any hesitation or complacency on this path. It is Which made Palestinians everywhere rally around her and chant her name and the name of her leader.