By Rima Najjar
Proximity as power: “From zero distance” “من مسافة صفر” has become both a tactical descriptor and a rhetorical device used to assert that resistance is not abstract or remote, but visceral, embodied, and unflinching.
An unyielding fedayeen ethos — where resistance is not merely tactical, but sacrificial, rooted in the unwavering willingness to give one’s life for a just cause — has not only kept the movement alive, but made its endurance a testament.
Hamas’s innovative and courageous approach to guerrilla warfare has — against immense odds — held firm under the combined military might of Israel and the United States. Through tactical evolution, close-range ambushes, locally manufactured weaponry, and an unyielding fedayeen ethos, the resistance has not only survived but maintained control over key terrain, shaped ceasefire negotiations, and frustrated Israel’s strategic goals.
This battlefield endurance marked a strategic inflection point in October 2023, when Hamas recalibrated its tactics toward a more decentralized, guerrilla-based resistance. Its ability to regenerate forces, adapt rapidly to battlefield conditions, and impose costs on elite IDF units demonstrates a level of operational resilience that few anticipated. What was expected to be a swift eradication has instead become a prolonged confrontation — one where Hamas’s battlefield endurance now reverberates as political leverage.
Early in its military evolution, Hamas relied on symbolic resistance — rocket attacks and statements that signaled defiance more than battlefield effectiveness, especially during conflicts like “Operation Cast Lead” and “Protective Edge.” These gestures were about enduring, asserting presence, and maintaining political legitimacy under siege.
But since the October 2023 offensive, that paradigm has shifted. Hamas has embraced tactical attrition, deploying advanced IEDs, close-range anti-tank strikes, and adaptive guerrilla maneuvers to inflict measurable damage and contest territory. Their strategy now aims not just to survive, but to frustrate Israeli operations and achieve concrete military objectives — even at extraordinary cost.
Hamas’s arsenal — locally produced rockets like the Qassam and Sejjil, Yassin-105 anti-tank missiles, mortars, small arms, and IEDs — reflects tactical ingenuity forged under siege. Hidden workshops across Gaza continue to churn out weapons despite relentless Israeli airstrikes on manufacturing sites. Designs adapt quickly to battlefield needs, a resilience that has become central to the resistance’s strategy.
Short-range, high-mobility munitions now dominate Hamas’s tactical playbook. In Gaza’s dense urban terrain, these allow for ambushes and quick strikes against armored vehicles and infantry. IEDs have evolved with shaped charges to pierce Israeli armor, while battlefield reports suggest techniques borrowed from Hezbollah, like time-delayed secondary blasts targeting rescue teams.
The shift from symbolic defiance to tactical attrition has profoundly reshaped the ceasefire landscape. Hamas is no longer negotiating from a position of desperation or mere survival — it’s leveraging battlefield resilience as political capital.
Despite catastrophic losses, Hamas has demonstrated sustained operational capacity: ambushing Israeli forces, reoccupying “cleared” zones, and maintaining weapons production under siege. This has forced Israel to revise its war aims. While Prime Minister Netanyahu initially vowed to “eliminate Hamas,” recent statements prioritize hostage recovery and hint at diplomatic flexibility.
The contrast in combat range between Israel and Hamas/allied factions is stark. Hamas’s weapons are effective only up close — fighters must crawl through ruins, approach tanks, and manually affix explosives, often under direct fire. These acts are not just tactical gambits; they are embodiments of courage, of a resistance willing to risk everything for each meter of home ground.
In contrast, Israeli forces remain largely aerial. Jets, drones, and artillery shell from a distance, insulated from the terrain. Where Hamas confronts power face-to-face, Israel enacts domination from above. The fedayeen fight not only through physical presence, but through the convictions etched into their bodies — their endurance, memory, and refusal to yield become weapons in themselves in a war of asymmetric annihilation.
In May 2025 Israel shifted toward static, artillery-heavy operations under a campaign it calls Gideon’s Chariots, ultimately bogging its forces down in Gaza’s rubble. But Hamas’s proximity-based tactics continue to exact losses, leveraging embodied resistance (their bodies are their chariots) to turn courage and terrain into strategic assets. So, the fight evolved into a test of political endurance — where Hamas’s mere survival became its strongest bargaining chip.
Hamas’s astonishing battlefield endurance has enabled ceasefire negotiations — but also complicated them. By surviving, and in some respects outmaneuvering a vastly militarily superior adversary, Hamas enters talks not as a defeated actor but as one with leverage. This inversion fuels a paradox: the group’s resilience, once a rationale for its containment, now demands political concessions. Hence, current ceasefire proposals encompass phased Israeli withdrawals, hostage exchanges, and even frameworks for post-war governance.
Hamas’s shift toward tactical attrition has transformed its role in ceasefire negotiations and broader political calculations. Having survived months of intense warfare and demonstrated operational resilience, it now negotiates from a position of strength — demanding full Israeli withdrawal, rejecting disarmament, and asserting itself as a legitimate stakeholder.
This leverage directly challenges the Palestinian Authority’s claim to sole governance, with Hamas’s battlefield credibility outpacing the PA’s diplomatic relevance in Gaza. International mediators are increasingly forced to reckon with Hamas’s influence, and proposals for hybrid governance models or technocratic oversight suggest it may seek indirect political control while retaining its military posture.
Regionally, this endurance has unsettled Israeli and U.S. plans for a post-Hamas Gaza, while strengthening Hamas’s standing among segments of the Palestinian population and sympathetic Arab publics.
Mediators are increasingly forced to reckon with Hamas’s influence because the group remains a central actor in both battlefield dynamics and negotiation outcomes. Here’s specific evidence:
• Direct Engagement by Mediators: Hamas has submitted a “positive response” to ceasefire proposals from Qatar and Egypt, signaling its readiness to negotiate terms including IDF withdrawal and humanitarian guarantees. Mediators have acknowledged Hamas’s role by continuing proximity talks in Doha, with Israel sending a delegation despite publicly rejecting Hamas’s proposed amendments.
• U.S. Recognition of Hamas’s Role: President Trump stated that “Hamas wants to have that ceasefire” and emphasized that the deal would not improve if Hamas rejected it. The U.S. has also reportedly offered guarantees to Hamas via Qatari mediators that the war would not resume after a 60-day truce — a tacit acknowledgment of Hamas’s negotiating power.
• Hostage Leverage: Hamas’s continued control over hostages has forced Israel and international actors to engage with it directly. The group has used staggered hostage release proposals to shape ceasefire terms, including demands for prisoner swaps and territorial withdrawal.
• Territorial Control: Despite prolonged Israeli operations, Hamas retains control over central Gaza, including strategic areas like Nuseirat and Deir el-Balah. This control allows it to reassert tactical dominance and influence aid distribution, further entrenching its role in negotiations.
Hamas’s evolution from symbolic resistance to tactical attrition has upended traditional power dynamics. By forcing Israel into a protracted conflict with no clear exit, the group has secured a role in shaping Gaza’s future — whether its adversaries acknowledge it or not. The question now is not if Hamas will be part of post-war negotiations, but on what terms.
Ultimately, Hamas’s evolution confronts not just military paradigms, but political certainties. Its place in Gaza’s future is no longer hypothetical; it’s embedded in the rubble, the resistance, and the negotiations that follow.
14 July 2025
Source: countercurrents.org