Gaza’s Military Operations Disprove Netanyahu Claims

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s claims he is close to achieving victory against Hamas and the resistance in the Gaza Strip. But this is a falsehood according to CNN, in partnership with the Critical Threats Project (CTP) of the American Enterprise Institute and the Institute for the Study of War. They conducted a full analyses of the military situation in Gaza and say Netanyahu’s claim is baseless.

In front of Congress and amidst warm applause on 24 July, Netanyahu said “victory [over Hamas] is on the horizon,” but analyses of the military operations carried out by the resistance since the start of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” on 7 October, 2023 tell a different story and cast heavy doubts on these claims.

The analysis, based on military data from the resistance and the Israeli army, field footage, and interviews with experts and eyewitnesses, found about half of the military battalions affiliated with Hamas, in the northern and central Gaza Strip, have rebuilt their combat capabilities, despite the ongoing Israeli war of extermination Gaza with its declared aim to eleminate Hamas and the Palestinian resistance.

The research shows Hamas succeeded in using contradictory resources on the ground effectively, as several of its units have returned to key areas, where the “army” claimed to have dismantled the resistance and ended its presence after fierce battles and intensive bombardment.

Brian Carter, director of the “Middle East File” at “CTP” and the person who led the joint research, confirmed the inaccuracy of the occupation’s claims, saying: “The Israelis say that they cleansed a place, but they did not do so completely, and they did not defeat these fighters at all.”

From Under The Rubble

The Al-Qassam Brigades, The military wing of Hamas, includes 24 battalions spread throughout the Gaza Strip. The analyses in which CNN participated focused on rebuilding 16 battalions in the northern and central parts of the Strip, where the longest battles fought against the Israeli army.

As to southern Gaza, the analyses excluded the battalions there, due to “incomplete data on the status of the remaining eight battalions,” noting accurate data and scenes broadcast by the resistance confirm its continued fighting and carrying out qualitative operations against Israeli forces.

Of the 16 battalions, seven in the northern part of the devastated Strip have been able to rebuild some of their military capabilities, at least once, during the past six months.

The evidence showed the return of the resistance’s military activity in major flashpoints. In the Jabalia camp in the north, Israel acknowledged that last May, it once again faced fierce resistance from three Hamas battalions, despite the fact that the area was destroyed by Israeli bombardment that lasted for about three months in the early days of the war last fall.

In the Zeitoun neighborhood in Gaza City, Israel carried out four incursions, according to analyses.

Field sources in northern Gaza told CNN Hamas members were overseeing the destroyed markets, and reusing burned buildings as sites for the resistance. One Palestinian confirmed to the network Hamas’s presence in the area was “stronger than you can imagine.”

On January 7, four months after the war broke out, the Israeli army announced it had “dismantled the Hamas command structure in northern Gaza.” Only days later, there were reports of attacks on Israeli patrols in the eastern parts of Gaza City.

In the weeks that followed, videos showed Hamas fighters emerging from the rubble, likely through the Strip’s sprawling tunnel network.

Commenting on this, Brian Carter of CTP said Hamas rebounded less than a week after the Israeli army withdrew from the northern Gaza Strip in January. This spread throughout the Strip and continued, he added.

“This [return to the north] was the decisive operation that Hamas’s brigades took,” Carter added.

“Israel in Gaza is like a marathon runner… but it doesn’t know where it’s going”

A senior Israeli officer, told CNN on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak. He suggested Israel’s pursuit of Hamas everywhere in Gaza would take a very long time. “We will enter every place where Hamas raises its head,” the officer said. “Can this war go on forever? No. Our society is not prepared for this. The international community is not prepared for this either.”

In response, the officer likened Israeli military activity in the Gaza Strip to “a marathon runner who doesn’t know where the stadium is. He runs and doesn’t know if he’s going in the right direction.”

US Army Colonel Peter Mansoor, who helped oversee the deployment of 30,000 additional US troops to Iraq in 2007 in the strategy known as “The Surge” (which aims to “counter-insurgency”), said that “the fact that the Israelis are still in Gaza, trying to root out elements of Hamas’s brigades, shows that Netanyahu is wrong… Hamas’s ability to reconstitute its fighting forces has not diminished.”

“Qassam Brigades Draws Israeli Forces Into Fight”

In addition, a retired senior Israeli officer said that Hamas “began the recruitment process three or four months ago, and thousands have joined.” It is worth noting that the spokesman for the Qassam Brigades, Abu Obeida, revealed last month that the Brigades “managed to recruit thousands of new fighters during the war,” reassuring that their human capabilities were fine.

Meanwhile, the Qassam Brigades continue to drag Israeli forces into repeated cycles of fighting, as analyses have found.

The analyses indicated that the rebuilding process took place in two different ways, as some units of the Qassam Brigades reorganized their ranks, merging cells that had retreated in order to form effective combat battalions, while other units reactivated, recruited new fighters, and manufactured weapons.

This article is reprinted from Jo24 taken from Al Mayadeen Satellite Television

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

By Saleem Ayoub Quna

The Epic Fury Operation launched by the US against Iran in February 2026, will go down in modern history as the first open military conflict, where a superpower like the United States, has willingly and openly played the role of a war-proxy, on behalf of its smaller ally, Israel.

The difference of attitude between the two close allies, US and Israel, in relation to what they perceived as Iran’s threat, imminent or potential, was a key factor behind the gradual crumbling of the American-Israeli coordinated military and intelligence efforts, to bring down the regime in Tehran.


Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu’s extreme right-wing government, kept saying Iran posed an imminent existential threat to Israel, and therefore it must be brought down by force. While the US position was constrained by its previous international commitments on the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions, as stipulated in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed between Iran and the P5+1 powers, during the administration of President Obama.


Since that moment Netanyahu kept vigorously urging, more likely lecturing the US and the West, on the dangers of the JCOPA agreement. When Donald Trump was elected President in 2017, things took an important and completely different turn. In the following year, he took the United States out of that internationally-backed deal as he had promised to do during his election campaign. He also kept his promises of moving the US Embassy to Occupied Jerusalem and recognize the occupied Syrian Golan Heights as part of Israel.


These symbolic and important gestures, whetted Netanyahu’s appetite for more American concessions to Israeli demands.


Netanyahu’s golden opportunity came when Trump was re-elected to his second term in 2023, the same year when Hamas launched its massive assault on the Israeli settlements in the so-called “Gaza enevlope”. Other militias connected and supported by Iran, including the Houthis in north Yemen, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, Syria under the previous regime and Shia factions in Iraq coordinated their efforts to stand by Hamas during that long and unprecedented confrontation with Israel.

For its part, Iran did not shy from making it clear that it helped create this “chain” of resistance factions to encircle Israel from three directions.

The second turning magical point in the US position on the issue of direct military intervention against Iran came about when Israel succeeded in serving Hezbollah, the severest military blow ever, in the pagers’ operation and the subsequent assassination of Hezbollah’s top leaders, including its charismatic Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah on Sept 27, 2024.


Trump was very impressed with all of that Israeli action and Netanyahu gave himself the full credit for this unexpected success.


Accordingly, Netanyahu’s plan to Trump was simple. Based on the Israeli accumulated intelligence and expertise on the Iranian internal scene and emulating its operation against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon, accompanied by massive American air strikes would provide both allies with the best chance to finish the Ayatollahs in Tehran once and for all!


But as events unfolded, all of Netanyahu’s plans, personally and strongly endorsed by Trump and his military aides, suddenly started crumbling, one after the other. His relations with Trump slipped into stages of deterioration by the day and week as the closure of the Hormuz Strait by Iran, started hurting the world economy led by the US.


Here new red lights went on and the phone calls between the two men became more intense and vulgar. Then Trump decided to pass on the torch to his deputy, JD Vance, who seemed comfortable to tell Netanyahu what Trump avoided to do!


Conclusion: It is tricky to switch roles of allies in wars. A smaller entity can always stay safe as long as its leaders know the limits of their power and leverage. When people like Netanyahu think they have more power and clout than they actually have, versus their stronger ally, then irritation starts to brew, especially in the case of Trump who likes to show he is always in the driving seat. It also means that the leadership on the side of stronger partner has some problems of its own!


Whether it is a wrangle, rift, collision, divorce or worse between Trump and Netanyahu, we will not know for certain, until the negotiators in Switzerland close their files and head back home!

Continue reading
Will The US-Iran Deal Last?

By Ali Bakir

On June 15, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif announced via the US social media platform X that a peace deal between the US and Iran had been reached, following over two months of mediation by his country. Sharif expressed gratitude to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Türkiye for their significant contributions, stating that the official signing ceremony would take place on June 19 in Switzerland. Following this announcement, a memorandum of understanding was signed electronically by US President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on the US side, and by Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf on the Iranian side.

The reported agreement is characterized as a framework peace deal aimed at ending the 2026 Israel/US-Iran war and transitioning the current ceasefire into a broader diplomatic process. Although the text of the agreement has not yet been published, key reported elements include immediate cessation of military operations, reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to international shipping, and a 60-day negotiation period to address unresolved issues, particularly Iran’s nuclear program, alongside discussions on sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets during follow-up negotiations.

This agreement follows two significant developments. First, Israel conducted military strikes on Iranian targets in western and central Iran around a week ago, marking the first such actions since April. Explosions were reported in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, and other cities in response to Iranian missile launches that were highly performative. Second, Trump warned that Iran would “pay the price” for what he described as slow progress in negotiations to end the conflict, indicating that the US could resume strikes against Iranian infrastructure.

5 bullet points on the agreement

Although the agreement does not necessarily mean that the root causes that prompted the war have fully disappeared, a few observations are worth mentioning and analyzing.

First, a lot of narrative spinning is occurring publicly at the moment. While the main parties are trying to sell the agreement as a victory, there are factions within the broader regional camps (such as hardliners in both Iran and Israel) that oppose it. Critics in Iran have labeled the agreement a “humiliating capitulation,” arguing that it involves unjustified concessions. Hardline opponents have publicly criticized the negotiating team, with Iranian MP Mahmoud Nabavian stating that the latest draft is “more damaging” than previous versions. Similarly, Israeli officials emphasized that Israel was not directly involved in negotiating the US–Iran deal and does not necessarily consider itself bound by its provisions. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel would not withdraw from territory seized in Lebanon and would continue to act against threats from Hezbollah and Iran if necessary.

Second, the timing of the agreement suggests that Iran was running out of options. As the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) focused on messaging and performative measures, the gap between their narrative and reality widened, with Iran’s ability to endure further pressure significantly diminishing. Trump’s counter-blockade against Iran’s restriction of the Strait of Hormuz imposed significant economic costs on Iran, leading to the decision to sign the agreement. It is estimated that the blockade could have cost Iran over $24 billion in just two months — almost equal to Iran’s reported total reserves of foreign currency — leaving the regime with little choice but to agree to the terms or face economic collapse.

Third, despite the negative reactions from hardliners in both Iran and Israel, the agreement highlights Trump’s genuine interest in reaching a resolution with Iran, especially following last year’s swift 12-day war between Israel and Iran. However, radical elements in both Iran and Israel seem intent on using procrastination, escalation, or military actions to sabotage meaningful attempts to achieve peace. Given that there is reportedly a 60-day negotiation period following the signing of the agreement, it is likely that these factions will continue to work against a comprehensive resolution.

Fourth, while Pakistan played a significant role in the mediation process, Qatar’s involvement was also crucial, as acknowledged by American, Pakistani, Saudi, and Turkish officials. Notably, neither the Qatari Foreign Ministry spokesman nor the ministry itself reported any independent measures taken by Qatar, apart from endorsing Pakistan’s mediation efforts. In fact, a Qatari spokesman denied any independent role in the mediation at this stage. Qatar’s involvement appears to have been executed at the request of the United States and had several dimensions.

Primarily, Qatar facilitated technical issues between the US and Iran, such as enabling the transfer of Iranian funds without direct US involvement, thereby avoiding the perception of it being a US initiative or taxpayer-funded. Additionally, Qatar played a role in establishing a communication channel between the United Arab Emirates and Iran, which emerged later in the mediation process. Finally, Qatar aligned itself with Saudi Arabia’s position, providing support for the Pakistani initiative.

Changing actors

Fifth, two awkward positions regarding the agreement can be highlighted. Firstly, the Europeans have been largely inactive in resolving the crisis yet somehow managed to host the official signing ceremony between the Americans and Iranians. Instead of crediting Pakistan, Switzerland offered to host the ceremony, which can be seen as an act of opportunism. Secondly, Oman, historically a favored mediator between the US and Iran, has been notably absent from this current arrangement. Oman’s position during this war was not popular in the Gulf Cooperation Council and beyond. According to a senior US administration official, Oman was removed from its mediation role in negotiations with Iran after the US concluded that Muscat had acted “very duplicitously” during the talks.

Finally, we must approach the prospects of the agreement with caution. It is essential to recognize that this is not a comprehensive peace agreement but rather a transitional framework. The future of the agreement will largely depend on the outcomes of negotiations in the next 60 days. Given that several factions within Iran and Israel are opposed to the agreement, we should not dismiss the possibility of sabotage, particularly from Israel.

Ali Bakir is an assistant professor of international affairs, security, and defense at Qatar University and senior nonresident fellow at the Middle East Council on Global Affairs. Anadolu

Continue reading

You Missed

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

‘We Must Resist The Israelisation of Our Societies – Francesca Albanese

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Kier Starmer Quits The Labour Party Leadership

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Israel Killed Raghad on The Way to School

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Trump, Netanyahu Rift Hits Rock Bottom: View From Amman

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Youngest Palestinian Doctor Gets Guinness

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026

Palestine: 70 Killed Since The Start of 2026