As in all national liberation wars of occupied and colonized peoples, the Palestinian people and their resistance continue to make sacrifices. These sacrifices, often described materially as losses, are in reality the fuel of revolution—a necessary cost and a transformative experience that propels the Palestinian liberation project forward. Just as the revolutions in South Yemen, Vietnam, and Algeria triumphed, the Palestinian revolution will ultimately prevail.

The Al-Aqsa Flood began on October 7 as a collective response to the project of extermination and displacement imposed on the Palestinian people. The confrontation soon evolved into an open war, during which the Palestinian resistance—led by Hamas and other factions—embraced the logic of direct, comprehensive confrontation with the Zionist enemy. This shift in the nature of the struggle carried a double wager: first, on Gaza’s ability to endure intense aerial and ground assaults, and second, on forcing the international community to reassess the balance of political power in favor of Palestinian rights.

The early months of the conflict proved that the resistance possesses strategic flexibility: an integrated network of tunnels, a growing capacity for local production of rockets and drones, and a broad culture of popular mobilization that transformed the devastation into a battlefield of endurance. These factors allowed the resistance to prolong the confrontation and impose a steady cost on the Zionist enemy despite its military and technological superiority.

Within this framework, the resistance wagered on “asymmetric attrition” as a means to create new regional and political realities. Yet, this approach came at a heavy human and material cost, sparking intense diplomatic debate over the future political trajectory of the Palestinian struggle.

The Zionist response led to a criminal military campaign of air raids, ground operations, and assassinations of leadership figures. This forced the resistance to shift tactics—moving the battle underground through tunnels and adopting decentralized deployment to evade strikes. The resistance not only defended but redefined combat through ambushes, explosive devices, and the use of drones for reconnaissance and attack, establishing a new equation between cost and effectiveness. This evolution, however, came at a painful price: significant human losses, weakened civilian support, and damage to vital infrastructure.

The second stage of the conflict witnessed precise targeting of senior faction leaders, compelling Hamas and other groups to rebuild their command structures with greater flexibility and decentralization. This transition replaced long-term strategic planning with short-term tactical responsiveness, driven by field initiatives. Small units thus gained endurance and autonomy, although complex, centrally coordinated operations became harder to execute. The emergence of young field commanders compensated for the loss of senior planners, allowing continued attacks under mounting pressure.

Gaza’s tunnel network has become the backbone of the resistance’s survival, providing freedom of movement, supply, and command under intense bombardment. Despite the Zionist enemy's strikes damaging factories and depots, the resistance managed to preserve flexible local production of rockets and drones, albeit with reduced precision and range—maintaining an effective level of firepower.

The resistance’s strength remains tied to its social foundation, which has endured immense destruction of homes and infrastructure. Even as families struggled to provide logistical support, the resistance’s discourse transformed suffering into a source of resilience and dignity. This maintained its symbolic image and moral legitimacy, though the balance between deteriorating living conditions and sustained popular loyalty remains fragile and could become a strategic vulnerability if humanitarian capacities continue to erode.

International and regional initiatives—especially those led by Washington—such as proposals for Gaza administration and the creation of a “special economic zone”—placed the resistance before two options: accept administrative arrangements that would limit its power, or remain in a costly military posture with diplomatic and political consequences. While field and leadership losses have reduced the factions’ ability to make major strategic concessions, they have also provided tactical flexibility to use truces for reorganization. The result: shrinking political maneuvering space alongside a sustained military margin that allows the resistance to impose humanitarian and political costs on its adversary.

By the second anniversary of the Al-Aqsa Flood, Gaza’s resistance had lost much of its material, leadership, and human assets, yet it successfully channeled its remaining capacities into a narrative linking field endurance with moral and political legitimacy. This preserved an effective attritional capability and forced international actors to rebalance their political and media engagement with the Palestinian cause.

Still, the primary challenge lies not only in recovering lost assets but in preventing reconstruction and international mechanisms from becoming tools that permanently restrict the resistance’s military and political autonomy. Preserving this balance will determine whether the resistance evolves into a sustainable tactical force capable of imposing beneficial truces, or one that gradually loses political maneuverability alongside its battlefield losses.

A) Human Losses: Scale, Nature, and the Meaning of Attrition
Over the past two years, the resistance has suffered extensive human losses, including both fighters and civilians, due to relentless aerial and artillery bombardment and a suffocating siege. The distinction between combatants and non-combatants has become nearly impossible to draw—these sacrifices are part of the path toward liberation.
Estimates from the United Nations and the Palestinian Ministry of Health point to tens of thousands of martyrs and wounded, weakening elite units and specialized roles in engineering, drone operations, and logistics may Allah honor them. This compelled the factions to rotate forces and mobilize replacements amid mass displacement and the continual loss of cadres.

B) Leadership Losses: The Impact of Losing the Planning Head and Structural Reorganization
Targeted assassinations have struck senior commanders and planners, diminishing the capacity for centralized planning. In response, the factions shifted toward greater decentralization, granting field autonomy that preserved tactical effectiveness for small groups, though it limited the ability to execute complex operations requiring prolonged coordination.

C) Material and Logistical Losses
The Zionist enemy's strikes destroyed storage facilities, launching platforms, manufacturing workshops, and tunnels, reducing logistical efficiency and damaging vital infrastructure. However, a significant portion of the tunnel network remained functional or restorable, while decentralized manufacturing enabled intermittent rocket and drone launches. The outcome has been deep material damage, yet sustained combat functionality—albeit at reduced quality and pace.

D) Civilian Base and Social Support Losses
Widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure has eroded the supportive environment and increased the cost of shelter, supply, and concealment. Nevertheless, this devastation has been politically leveraged to strengthen a broader mobilization narrative. Thus, despite operational strain, popular legitimacy and regional sympathy have remained moral and political assets—turning civilian loss into both weakness and a source of mobilization.

Despite devastating losses, the Gaza resistance still retains the core of its deterrent power, having rebuilt its military and leadership structures around operational decentralization. Large battalions have given way to smaller, more flexible and enduring cells.

• Rocket Capability: Although the number of rockets has decreased, qualitative deterrence remains. Local workshops sustain minimal but continuous launches that keep the Zionist enemy's interior on alert—affirming that the will of resistance endures despite attrition.

• Drones: Drones have become a cost-effective tool for reconnaissance, strikes, and disrupting defenses, marking the resistance’s entry into a new era of “smart warfare” defined by innovation over material superiority.

• Tunnels: Despite partial destruction, active tunnels still ensure movement, supply, and command, making underground existence a pillar of strategic resilience.

• Local Manufacturing: Decentralized production has enabled continuous—though limited—self-sustained armament, forming a wartime economy that reduces external dependence and reinforces sustainability under siege.

• Command and Control: While major commanders were lost, the resistance developed a flexible delegation system empowering field initiatives, preserving operational effectiveness despite weakened central planning.

• Popular Support: Civilian steadfastness remains the foundation of political and moral legitimacy. Public suffering has become intertwined with the idea of persistence and resistance as a national and existential value.

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza has not been defeated. It has lost two key advantages—broad centralized planning capacity and extended logistical reach—but has gained high operational flexibility through decentralization. This adaptability allows it to continue a politically and morally rewarding war of attrition, though it limits its ability to achieve decisive military victories or secure stable political settlements alone.

In sum, the current situation reflects a fragile equilibrium: the resistance maintains the ability to impose “daily costs” on its enemy, while its political space narrows under reconstruction pressures and international mechanisms.

Core Strengths:

• Broad popular legitimacy in Gaza and across the region, providing political cover and social backing.

• Decentralized operational flexibility that reduces the impact of leadership losses.

• Active segments of the tunnel network and local production enabling partial recovery of rocket and drone capabilities.

• Low-cost, high-impact tools—such as drones and ambushes—that increase Israel’s defensive burden.

The Battle of Gaza has evolved beyond a mere military confrontation—it has become a comprehensive struggle over will, sovereignty, and consciousness. The resistance, despite the loss of lives, leaders, and infrastructure, continues to embody initiative and endurance in the face of overwhelming force. Supported by a popular consciousness that rejects submission and political domestication under the guise of reconstruction or settlement, it persists as a living movement of defiance.

The challenge in the coming phase lies not only in rebuilding material capacity but in managing the moral victory—transforming it into a lasting political achievement that safeguards the resistance as an essential component of the regional equation, and ensures that the Palestinian cause remains at the heart of Arab and international conscience as a symbol of liberation and justice.