Israel’s strategic failure highlighted after Hamas leader’s death; resistance movements like Hamas don’t surrender easily.
Summary: Following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar, Israel’s shortsightedness and strategic impotence are highlighted despite its military strength. Israel’s Defense Minister urged Hamas surrender, but history shows resistance movements do not surrender easily. Comparisons to the U. S. in Vietnam demonstrate the futility of expecting surrender from national liberation fighters. Contrary to Israeli claims, Sinwar was actively involved in military operations, not hiding in tunnels. The leaked footage of Sinwar fighting has damaged Israel’s credibility and may strengthen Hamas’ resolve. This incident has created a new legend and symbol for the Palestinian cause and Islamic world.
The statements and visuals emerging from Israel following the death of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar starkly illustrate Israel’s strategic short-sightedness, stalemate, and impotence, despite its considerable military and economic advantages.
In the immediate aftermath of Sinwar’s death, Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant urged all Hamas members to surrender.
Those familiar with Hamas and the Palestinian resistance understand that assassinating its leaders, along with military operations and occupations, has not weakened the Palestinians’ resolve to resist; rather, it has strengthened it.
Despite this understanding, the Israeli Defense Minister’s expectations reveal a profound disconnect driven by an illusion of power.
Historically, the vast majority of national liberation movements have never considered surrender, regardless of the apparent imbalance of power.
Consider the United States’ attempt to invade Vietnam. The U.S. intervened under the pretext of stopping the spread of communism, only to become trapped in a conflict that drained its resources for years.
Years later, in a meeting with General Vo Nguyen Giap, the architect of the Vietnamese resistance, Robert McNamara, then U.S. Secretary of Defense, highlighted the stark differences between the invaders and the national liberation fighters.
McNamara asked General Giap, “Why did you continue to resist us for so long, even when you knew you had no military chance against us and that the power dynamics were so uneven?” General Giap’s response was clear: “You were a new colonial power seeking to replace the French. Regardless of the suffering you caused, no matter how extensively you bombed us, we were determined to resist you to the last man. You never understood our resolve.”
Those who analyze the statements made by Galant and Netanyahu today will quickly notice the parallels.
Contrary to Israeli claims, Yahya Sinwar was not hiding in underground tunnels, using prisoners as human shields. Instead, he was actively involved on the front lines, directing military operations against Israeli forces.
The images of Yahya Sinwar fighting bravely in his military uniform on the front lines, rather than hiding in a tunnel as Israel claimed, have dealt a significant blow to Israel’s credibility, comparable to the events of October 7.
This footage, leaked by soldiers bypassing the official chain of command, has effectively undermined any potential advantage Israel might have gained from the situation.
Instead of demoralizing Hamas, the recent footage of Sinwar is likely to reinforce its resolve.
These images, released by soldiers despite heavy censorship, also reveal cracks in discipline and information control within the Israeli military. It appears that a faction within the Israeli army, fatigued by the ongoing conflict, has handed Netanyahu a flawed operation.
From a tactical standpoint, Israel may have secured a minor victory; however, strategically, it has created a new legend and symbol for the Palestinian cause and the Islamic world, much like Izz ad-Din al-Qassam, Sheikh Shamil, and Omar Mukhtar.
