Why won’t the Palestinian resistance agree to stop the war in Gaza?

There is no question with an answer that seems more obvious than, “Why won’t the Palestinian resistance agree to stop the war in Gaza?” Nevertheless, it is asked hundreds of times every day in the Arab mainstream and social media.

If this question was just part of the propaganda campaigns by Arab media that practically speak in the name of the occupation army, it would not require an attempt to unpack it. However, it is often asked by writers and activists who are on the side of Palestinian rights, including the right of the Palestinian people to resist the brutal Israeli occupation, and for this reason it needs some discussion.

The immediate response to this question is to deny its legitimacy, because it is the occupation state which is refusing to stop the war. The political debate within the Zionist entity confirms that the one person who has the power to stop the war but does not want to do so is Benjamin Netanyahu. Hamas and the other resistance factions have called for an end to the aggression against Gaza from day one, but they have always been met with Israeli rejection and inflexibility. Hence, the question about the resistance groups’ refusal to stop the war is irrelevant.

To demonstrate this further and show why the question should not be asked in the first place, we must look at the main reason for the breakdown of ceasefire discussions: the Palestinian resistance groups’ insistence that the ceasefire must be permanent and accompanied by the total withdrawal of the occupation army from the Gaza Strip. Netanyahu, though, insists that any deal must guarantee the occupation state’s “right” to launch attacks in Gaza. In other words, he wants the war to continue at the time and in the manner that suits Israel, regardless of what ceasefire deal is agreed.

READ: The Elders call for bold action by world leaders to end Israel’s unlawful occupation

This “condition” set by the Palestinian resistance for signing a ceasefire agreement actually confirms that the occupation state is responsible for the continuation of its military offensive. How can the party that calls for a “permanent cessation of war” in order to sign a ceasefire agreement be accused of being responsible for the continuation of the aggression?

There are some who say that such a condition is unrealistic, because Israel, as an occupying state, is capable of waging war at any time, even if it signs a permanent ceasefire agreement.

Military occupation is, after all, an aggressive position by default.

It is also true that the occupation can launch an offensive at any time due to the asymmetric nature of the conflict and the simple existence of the Israeli air force, but waging such an offensive after a permanent ceasefire has been agreed will be more difficult to justify, although not impossible, for several reasons.

For a start, it will further increase the exposure of Israel’s crimes to the world and the international legal system. It will also deepen the political and military divisions within the occupation state. And then there is the fact that a permanent ceasefire agreement must include the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the Gaza Strip, and thus make the occupation’s options for starting another war limited to air strikes.

There is, of course, no guarantee that the occupation state will stick to its agreements. Israel has never stuck to any agreements in its short history, nor has it had any respect for international laws and conventions in a way that limits its options. However, breaking a ceasefire agreement after all these months of war crimes and crimes against humanity will diminish further its already damaged status, even in the eyes of its allies.

Another reason given for not stopping the war is the alleged “unwillingness of Hamas to relinquish its role in governing Gaza”. The truth is that the main resistance factions in Gaza – Hamas and Islamic Jihad — have said that they will agree to any arrangement for governing the Gaza Strip after the end of the war, on condition that the arrangement is Palestinian and not imposed by Israel. The Ramallah-based Palestinian Authority has also agreed to play a role in governing Gaza on condition that this includes restoring political unity with the West Bank. The Israeli government is the only party that has rejected all proposals for “the day after” and has not even specified any clear plan for that day, as it rejects the very existence of Hamas and any role for the Palestinian Authority, and refuses to include any political solution that guarantees even a fraction of the Palestinians’ national rights.

The military offensive against the Gaza Strip is ongoing for a number of reasons, but none of them is the obstinacy of the Palestinian resistance groups. It is clear that the occupation state wants to continue its crimes in the Gaza Strip and impose its control over the lives of all Palestinians, whether in Gaza or the West Bank. Moreover, Netanyahu sees the continuation of the war as his only way to escape prosecution — he has been indicted on charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust — after he loses power, and he knows that there is no effective Arab or international opposition to Israel’s arrogance and criminality.

In short, blaming the Palestinians for their continued killing at the hands of the Israeli occupation forces is victim blaming, even if it is wrapped in the rhetoric of “political realism”.

This article first appeared in Arabic in Arabi21 on 22 July 2024

READ: Palestinian leader says Netanyahu’s claim about civilisation is ‘degradation seen in killing 48,000 Palestinians in Gaza

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.