A Gaza War Reader

CrossFireArabia
Analyses
January 21, 2025

By Dr. Tariq Sami Khoury

Despite the Gaza truce announcement, the question everyone is asking: Did this war end in victory or defeat?

Did the Zionist entity achieve its strategic goals, or did the Palestinian resistance factions impose a new equation on the ground? The mass destruction and great human losses open the way for a deeper analysis of the situation from multiple angles.

Zionist entity…Goals successes or victory illusions?

Israel launched its aggression on Gaza with unprecedented brutality, resulting in the near-total destruction of the Strip’s infrastructure, and the deaths of more than 250,000 people between those killed and wounded with the displacement of hundreds of thousands of residents.

Also the Israeli aggression extended to southern Lebanon and Syria, whilst targeting Yemen and Iran in clear attempts to expand the scope of the confrontation.

But did the Zionist entity achieve its goals?

1) Eliminating the resistance: Despite all attempts at genocide and continuous bombing, the Israeli army was unable to end the resistance or dismantle its infrastructure. The resistance proved its ability to continue to confront, and to carry out qualitative military operations till the last minute.

2) Recovering Its prisoners: Israel did not succeed to recover all its prisoners. In the end it was forced to enter into negotiations with the resistance under their own terms, which showed Israel was unable to impose its will by military force alone.

3) No deterrence: Instead of imposing a new equation to deter the resistance, Israel faced continuous missile strikes that reached deep into its territories and imposed a new and unprecedented reality on the Israeli internal front and unbearable political and security pressure on the Zionist leadership.

Legendary Palestinian resistance…

Despite the Israel ferocity and the intense destruction, the Palestinian resistance emerged strong and cohesive. The battle it fought was not only for defense, but to establish a new equation in the conflict, as it was able to:

1) Survive despite the bombardment: Israel was unable to break the resistance will or push its fighters to surrender and remained able to respond and maneuver till the last moment, which shows the failure of the Zionist plan to crush it.

2) Imposing negotiating equations: The resistance was able to impose itself as a key party in any future solution, and succeeded in confirming that the prisoners are not just a pressure card, but a negotiating element that changes the equation.

3) Maintaining morale: Despite Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe, the Palestinian people came out to celebrate the truce, in scenes that reflect their steadfastness and ability to overcome hardships. That is a psychological defeat for the Zionist entity.

Regional and international dimension… Exhaustion or victory?

Israel expanded the scope of its aggression to Lebanon, Syria, Yemen and even Iran to attempt to weaken any future threats. But this did not lead to decisive results. Rather it opened up several fronts without achieving any strategic gains.

1) Northern front (Lebanon and Syria): Despite its continuous bombing, Israel was not able to stop the force of the axis of resistance, but faced more threats leading to the exhaustion of its forces.

2) Yemeni front: The air strikes on the country failed to stop Yemen from participating in the conflict equation by targeting the ships in the Red Sea going to the Israeli Port of Eilat, and which added a new strategic dimension.

3) Iranian Front: The Zionist strikes did not deter Iran or stop its support for the axis of resistance, but strengthened its position whilst prompting it to escalate its support for the Palestinian resistance.

Truce.. Rest bite and an opportunity?

With the ceasefire announcement, it can be said the resistance emerged victorious through its ability to withstand and maintain its position to influence the future. In contrast, while the Zionist entity may have achieved some of its field goals, it failed to draw a decisive victory and end of the resistance.

Conclusion.. Victory and defeat

The battle was not equal in terms of military strength, but victory is not only measured by the ability to destroy; it is by steadfastness and ability to continue. Israel did not achieve a decisive victory, but fought a long war of attrition, while the Palestinian resistance emerged more solid and able to impose a new reality in the regional equation.

In the final analysis, the fact remains that liberating the land and restoring rights can only be achieved through continuous resistance, and that every Zionist attempt to eliminate the Palestinian people will be met with a will that does not know surrender. Thus, Palestine remains the compass of the free.

The author is a Jordanian writer and contributed this piece in Arabic for the JO24 website.

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.

Analyses

Saudi Arabia Plays Host to Superpower Politics

CrossFireArabia
February 18, 2025

By Maksym Skrypchenko

Diplomatic efforts to end the Russia-Ukraine War are once again in the spotlight, as US and Russian officials meet in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday. In a sharp contrast to the previous administration’s strictly defined red-line policy, representatives from the newly formed US President Donald Trump-aligned diplomatic team—Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff—are set to engage with their Russian counterparts in discussions that many fear may sideline Ukraine’s own interests.

The stakes in this conflict extend far beyond territorial disputes. For Ukraine, the war is an existential struggle against an enemy with centuries of imperial ambition. Every defensive maneuver is a stand for sovereignty and self-determination. Yet recent diplomatic moves suggest that Ukraine’s central role in negotiations may be diminished. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s absence from the Saudi meeting underscores the deep-seated concern in Kyiv that their security concerns might be marginalized in a process dominated by transactional interests.

https://twitter.com/canon75gaz81/status/1891836717696450562

Under the previous administration, Washington’s policy was driven by a clear set of red lines designed to deter any actions that could provoke a nuclear-armed adversary. That approach was predicated on a belief that excessive support for Ukraine might lead to a dangerous escalation. However, the new strategy, as signaled by Trump’s team, appears less encumbered by these constraints. Instead, the focus seems to have shifted toward a pragmatic resolution—a process that prioritizes ending the war at the expense of Ukraine’s moral imperatives underpinning their fight for survival. This shift represents not only a departure in tone but also in substance. While the previous policy imposed strict limitations to avoid provoking Moscow, the current approach appears more willing to concede Ukraine’s positions if it serves the broader goal of ending the fighting.

Trump’s affiliation with Saudis 

The decision to hold talks in Saudi Arabia is far from arbitrary. The Saudi Kingdom provides a neutral venue and a longstanding trusted mediator especially for figures like Steve Witkoff and Donald Trump, whose longstanding business and diplomatic ties in the region are well known. This credibility is further reinforced by Saudi Arabia’s recent announcement of a $600 billion package with the US, comprising investments and procurement agreements from both public and private sectors.

Moreover, Saudi Arabia’s position outside NATO shields it from the obligations that compel Western allies to enforce international legal mandates, including the ICC arrest warrants issued against top Russian officials, notably Putin. In such an environment, Saudi Arabia offers a secure venue for direct negotiations with Moscow, free from the pressures of external legal mandates.

Meanwhile, high-ranking European officials express growing concern over their exclusion from the process. UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has even suggested the possibility of deploying British troops to enforce any resulting peace deal, a move that underscores the importance European leaders give to Ukraine’s future. The concerns are not merely about the cessation of hostilities, but about the long-term security guarantees that Ukraine desperately needs. European officials argue that a peace process that excludes Kyiv from the initial stages could lead to an agreement lacking the robust assurances necessary to prevent future Russian aggression.

Russian approach

Russia, for its part, is approaching the negotiations with its signature long-game strategy. Recent reports suggest that Kremlin officials are assembling a team of seasoned negotiators well-versed in securing maximum advantage. Their method is well known—ask for a shopping mall when all they need is a cup of coffee. Just one day before the talks, Russian diplomats are already staging a narrative of victory, asserting that the EU and the UK are entirely non-negotiable parties to any future agreements on Ukraine. According to the Russian representative at the UN, Ukraine has irretrievably lost key territories, and any new arrangement should force Kyiv into accepting a demilitarized, neutral state determined by future elections. This approach is designed to create the illusion of strength while ultimately settling for concessions that heavily favor Russian interests.

Meanwhile, for Ukraine, the principle that “nothing about Ukraine without Ukraine” is more than just a slogan—it is a critical security principle. Ukrainian leaders are rightfully wary of any agreement negotiated without their active participation. With the current US strategy favoring swift and transactional outcomes rather than comprehensive negotiations, there is a real danger that Kyiv’s position could be compromised. The absence of Ukraine from these early discussions may result in a peace agreement that fails to address the existential risks the nation faces. Without strong security guarantees built into any deal, Ukraine remains vulnerable to renewed incursions and a potential destabilization of the entire region.

In this evolving diplomatic landscape, the contrast between the old and new approaches is stark. The previous risk-averse strategy sought to maintain clear boundaries to prevent escalation, whereas the current approach appears more willing to blur those lines in the hope of bringing an end to the bloodshed. Yet by doing so, there is an inherent risk: the very nation fighting for its survival might be reduced to a bargaining chip in a broader geopolitical deal.

It is imperative that Ukraine’s interests remain at the forefront of any negotiations. The war in Ukraine is not just a regional conflict—it is a struggle that speaks to the fundamental principles of sovereignty and self-determination. Any peace settlement that fails to incorporate Ukraine’s security concerns is likely to be unstable at best, and catastrophic at worst.

Maksym Skrypchenko is the president of the Transatlantic Dialogue Center

Analyses

Hebrew Media: Israel Fails to Achieve Goals of Gaza Onslaught

CrossFireArabia
February 17, 2025

Israeli media outlets discussed Tel Aviv’s failure to achieve the goals of the war now ongoing for more than a year on the Gaza Strip. Hebrew newspapers stressed that the army is unable to eliminate Hamas, while disagreements are increasing regarding the future of military operations and the ceasefire agreement.

Yitzhak Brik, former commander of the Southern Corps said Israel has not been able to eliminate Hamas despite the war, now in its 15th month. He asked, “If we have failed throughout this period, how can we achieve it now?”

Brik pointed out that Hamas possesses a huge arsenal of weapons, and has developed its combat methods with its fighters exiting the underground tunnels and returning to them easily, making it difficult for the Israeli army to eliminate them.

He added Hamas has regained its strength, and that the Israeli army has destroyed no more than 10% of the tunnels of the Islamist organization, according to Israeli military sources. He also acknowledged that the military operations have not achieved their goals, and that the war has drained the army more so than at the beginning.

The army is a tool of an extremist government

For her part, Yifat Gadot, from the “Families of Soldiers Cry Enough” organization said the Israeli army has become a tool in the hands of an extremist government that is working to prolong the war to achieve its political and ideological interests.

Gadot added that there is a growing conviction among the families of soldiers that the war has become a means of maintaining the government coalition, not achieving security.

As for attorney Yair Nahorai, an expert in religious Zionist movements, he confirmed that the ongoing conflict is not just a war against Hamas, but part of an extremist religious vision that seeks to occupy Gaza, noting that some parties in the Israeli government consider the “sanctity of the land” more important than human life, which complicates the Israeli position even more.

In the same context, political analyst Ben Caspit considered that the real reason behind the slowdown in implementing the second phase of military operations is the political considerations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

He explained that the pressure exerted by right-wing ministers, such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir, is obstructing the making of decisive decisions regarding the war, as Netanyahu seeks to maintain the stability of his government coalition instead of focusing on recovering the prisoners.

A Joke in the Middle East

For his part, Ben Gvir attacked the government, describing it as lacking courage, and missing a historic opportunity to impose its conditions on Hamas, adding that Israel has become a “joke in the Middle East” due to what he described as weak and hesitant decisions in managing the war and negotiations.

In contrast, Gil Dickman (a relative of one of the Israeli female prisoners killed in Gaza) responded to Ben Gvir’s statements, accusing him of politicizing the issue of prisoners, and called on him to support Netanyahu in his efforts to return the kidnapped, criticizing his withdrawal from the government due to recent agreements.

In another context, political analyst Dana Weiss stated that the Israeli political crisis escalated after statements by US President Donald Trump, who pressured the government to expedite the release of prisoners, threatening decisive responses if Israel did not respond to his demands.

Weiss confirmed that the Israeli government found itself between internal pressures from the extreme right and American and international pressures pushing towards diplomatic solutions, which further complicates the internal Israeli scene in light of the ongoing military operations in Gaza.