Marwa Yousuf K.
“And never think that Allah is unaware of what the wrongdoers do. He only delays them for a Day when eyes will stare in horror.” — Qur’ān 14:42
The ceasefire between the Israeli occupation and Palestinian resistance factions in Gaza is now in full effect. People have begun returning to their homes – or to the rubble where homes once stood. But while the optics of calm dominate headlines, it is critical to understand what this ceasefire actually represents from the perspective of the resistance: not a step toward lasting peace, but a tactical decision made under immense external pressure, with strategic objectives still firmly intact.
The resistance did not agree to this truce out of weakness or disarray. On the contrary, its military capabilities, political coherence, and control over key zones in Gaza remained largely intact despite weeks of intense bombardment. The ceasefire was a calculated move, one made to protect the Palestinian people from further immediate loss while denying Israel the ability to claim any real victory.
Despite unprecedented brutality from the occupier and the active complicity of regional regimes, the resistance endured. Their acceptance of the ceasefire came after evaluating a proposal drafted without their consent, promoted through coordinated media campaigns, and presented to the public in a different version than the one they received. This deliberate confusion aimed to discredit the resistance among its own people. Still, they engaged with the document, introduced amendments, rejected clauses violating core principles, and ultimately succeeded in reshaping the agreement – despite immense diplomatic isolation and limited negotiating leverage.
From the outset, it was clear that the agreement failed to meet the resistance’s complete list of demands. But the resistance did not operate in isolation. Hezbollah’s calibrated posture on the northern front – restrained yet unwavering served as a potent deterrent. It prevented Israel from opening a second front and reminded regional observers that any escalation risked igniting a multi-theatre war. Iran, acting as the ideological and logistical pillar of the axis of resistance, continued to supply material, financial, and diplomatic support – all while amplifying the political pressure on Israel through both formal and informal channels. This broader network ensured that Gaza was not isolated, even as global institutions remained paralysed. Together, these actors reinforced the resistance’s ability to negotiate from a position of pressure, not desperation.
Rather than outright rejection, the resistance prioritised safeguarding the Palestinian population, maintaining internal unity, and preventing collaborators from framing them as an obstacle to peace. By choosing to engage, they neutralised efforts to portray them as unreasonable actors, ensuring the entry of humanitarian aid, securing prisoner releases, and facilitating the withdrawal of enemy forces from specific areas.
The so-called “prisoners’ card” had become increasingly fragile. Israel, from the beginning, treated its own captives as expendable and actively endangered them with ongoing attacks. Internal pressure on the Netanyahu government to negotiate for their return was minimal. Public support, drowned in nationalist fervour, rarely extended toward the prisoners. Recognising this, the resistance made the most of the leverage. At the same time, it still existed, pushing through a high-stakes exchange before Israel could erase the card altogether by eliminating the remaining captives.
A key element of the resistance’s strength remains the resilience of Gaza’s civilian population. The Palestinian people understand strategy. They are not passive bystanders in this equation, but politically astute and emotionally durable. While critical of governance shortcomings, they remain overwhelmingly committed to the broader goals of liberation. Their ability to distinguish between principled resistance and political confusion has been a defining feature of this moment. They have resisted not just bombs, but narratives – refusing to allow outside actors to manufacture consent for surrender or co-opt their suffering. Despite relentless violence, mass displacement, and starvation, the people did not fracture and did not turn against the resistance. External actors (particularly hostile Arab regimes) tried repeatedly to sow unrest and resentment, but failed.
The resistance recognised the magnitude of suffering its people had endured and acted accordingly, choosing to temporarily accept the ceasefire not out of strategic fatigue but to preserve internal cohesion and secure short-term relief.
The current arrangement secured entry of aid under improved conditions, released Palestinian prisoners, and allowed for some degree of return and regrouping. While temporary, these outcomes carry weight. The resistance also ensured that any future breaches would come with documented international guarantees in place – not out of belief in their legitimacy, but to clarify, for the global record, that it is the occupier who prolongs the war.
This ceasefire, therefore, is not a sign of defeat. It is a move shaped by logic, necessity, and long-term strategy. The resistance remains committed to its core objectives and continues to act in defence of the Palestinian people. The war may resume, and likely will. But when it does, the resistance will re-enter it with clarity, discipline, and the full moral weight of having given every opportunity for de-escalation to succeed.
“Indeed, Allah defends those who have believed.”
(Sūrah al-Ḥajj 22:38)
Gaza continues to believe. The people continue to resist. And the resistance’s decisions, while constrained by geopolitical realities, remain grounded in responsibility rather than retreat.
The truce is not the end. It is a reset—and it comes at a moment when the narrative is collapsing, particularly in the West. The myths of Israeli “restraint,” of “moral defence,” of Western impartiality – all of it has crumbled under the weight of visual evidence, civilian massacres, and unfiltered Palestinian testimony. For the first time in decades, mainstream outlets have had to contend with a simple, devastating truth: the resistance is not the aggressor but the consequence. The resistance did not begin this war… It is surviving it.
Meanwhile, the same cannot be said for the Arab regimes that betrayed the ummah. From Riyadh to Cairo, so-called Muslim leaders rushed to welcome proposals drafted by their American patrons and Zionist counterparts before the resistance had even seen them. They applauded plans built to contain, not liberate. They shook hands with those who dropped bombs on children and then turned to the world and called it diplomacy. Their cowardice is not a footnote but an integral cog in the war machine.
And still, the resistance refused to be baited into division. It negotiated under fire, amended unjust terms, and secured gains – not total, but tangible. It proved that survival is not surrender, and that delay is not defeat. The ceasefire, in this context, is not just military—it is discursive. The narrative has shifted. Mainstream outlets may frame it as Israeli restraint, but it is the result of a strategic stalemate they couldn’t break.
Marwa Yousuf K. is a writer exploring how politics and faith shape life in Occupied Kashmir and beyond, with contributions to local publications and community platforms.
