Why Achieving Balance Marks the Beginning of the Resistance’s Victory

November 05, 2024

Nasser Kandil

Today, with the outcomes of the ground war resulting in the return of the Israeli assaulting brigades, especially Brigades 36 and 98, to their original deployment lines along the borders, it has become evident that a prevailing balance has emerged in favour of the resistance in ground combat. The occupier’s army launched the assault and failed, while the impact of the resistance’s missiles – in terms of density, range, and effects – matches the anxiety caused by Israeli airstrikes. Though there may not yet be a parity in destructive power and scale of fire, the level of concern within the public and leadership remains the crucial factor in tipping the balance. This suggests that discrepancies in human, material, and leadership losses do not truly reflect the balance of power, which is now tilted toward the resistance, even if relatively so. Notably, the occupying entity has exerted its maximum effort, while the resistance has yet to deploy its full capabilities.

The resistance’s only goal in its fight is to halt the war, whether in Gaza or Lebanon. Therefore, merely maintaining the current balance and preventing attempts to break it pushes the conflict toward a deadlock. It dispels any hope that what could not be achieved through force will be achieved with more force. It is not essential whether the occupying entity succeeds in inflicting more human and material losses upon the resistance or its environment and infrastructure, as long as these losses do not weaken the will to resist. If resilience remains unshaken, the damage may accumulate, but the direction of the war remains unchanged. Since this is the current trajectory, it implies that further death and destruction lack political value, despite their tragic humanitarian toll, much as seen in Gaza.

Balance itself, without a tilt explicitly favouring the resistance, signifies the occupier’s inability to alter dynamics or impose conditions through war. It points to a war that has reached an impasse, fostering a growing despair about its continuation. Losses suffered by the occupier, even if less severe than those borne by the resistance and its society, carry greater political significance for a simple reason: the resistance speaks to its society with a call to end the war, which cannot be met with anything less. In contrast, the occupying entity urges its public to support the war in the hopes of achieving objectives that increasingly appear out of reach. As the war grinds on and losses mount without evident justification, calls for ending the war grow louder, especially as the hope for changing the balance through escalation diminishes, potentially turning into widespread despair.

The resistance is not straining to shift the current balance in its favour; it is not expected to do so. It did not initiate the war nor set its agenda. Its sole aim is to withstand the occupying entity’s assault and prevent it from achieving military or political objectives through the war. Simply maintaining this balance for a sufficient period may erode the occupier’s confidence in the war’s utility, triggering a political shift that discredits the ambitions that arose at the onset of the war.

The occupying entity lacks any unique strength it could leverage to secure victories in the war, whereas the resistance still has additional resources, both in quantity and quality, to hasten the realisation of the war’s futility. The objective here is not for the resistance to achieve conventional gains; rather, accelerating the end of the war, which would entail the occupying entity’s acceptance of returning to the pre-Al-Aqsa conditions, halting its aggression in Gaza, and ceasing attacks on supporting fronts, would amount to a prolonged coexistence that the entity cannot easily overturn. Should the resistance succeed in compelling the entity to adhere to Resolution 1701, this would mean relinquishing gains imposed outside of the resolution, such as airspace and maritime violations and the occupation of Lebanese lands.

This is the core of the strategic advantage that the resistance holds over the occupier in this war.