The large-scale exchange of prisoners between the Palestinian Resistance and the Zionist regime under the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement marks a turning point in the recent two-year war; it’s an event that not only brought an end to two years of attritional warfare in Gaza but also carried profound political and strategic messages about the new balance of power emerging in the region.
On the surface, the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement was designed, with mediation by the US and several Arab governments, to end the ongoing hostilities. In reality, however, it became a ladder for Netanyahu to climb out of the deadlock that two years of fruitless war had created for him: A war that neither destroyed Hamas, nor brought back the Israeli captives through military means, nor enabled Tel Aviv to regain full control over the Gaza Strip.
Donald Trump, through his “peace plan,” sought to secure diplomatically what Israel had failed to achieve on the battlefield. Yet the final outcome reflected, above all, the failure of Israel’s military logic and the victory of Palestinian resistance.
Throughout two years of siege and bombardment, the Resistance, with exemplary steadfastness, forced the occupying regime to accept a ceasefire. The al-Qassam Brigades declared in a statement that despite its military and intelligence superiority, the enemy had failed to retrieve its captives by force, and that, as the Resistance had promised, prisoners would only return through negotiations. This statement captured the essence of the battlefield reality: The total collapse of the “use of force” doctrine that had been the cornerstone of Israel’s security strategy since its establishment.
The exchange of Palestinian prisoners carried a profound human and social message. Scenes of Gaza’s people welcoming back their sons and daughters showed that despite years of war, blockade, and destruction, the Palestinian society remains cohesive and unbroken from within. This return was not merely the liberation of individuals, but the revival of a collective spirit and the historical memory of resistance, as if every freed prisoner embodied the enduring will of the Palestinian nation.
At the strategic level, this exchange signifies the consolidation of mutual deterrence between the Resistance and the occupying regime. For the first time, the Zionist regime acknowledged that without the consent of the Resistance, it cannot achieve any military or civil objective. This reality severely damaged the image of the Israeli army in both domestic and global public opinion, while simultaneously elevating the Resistance’s standing as a decisive actor in shaping the future of Palestine.
Though registered outwardly as a peace and ceasefire agreement, the Sharm el-Sheikh accord was in fact an explicit admission of the Resistance’s victory, the triumph of will over weaponry, steadfastness over technology, and faith over occupation. The real question now is not whether Israel will resume the war, but whether it can ever rebuild the legitimacy it has lost after such a defeat. Ultimately, the prisoner exchange was far more than a humanitarian transaction; it was the moment that cemented the Resistance’s victory over an army that once saw itself as invincible. This historic event proved that no military power can withstand the will of a people who stand firm for their freedom.
Comment