Al-Aqsa Flood Battle

Legitimacy, Achievements, and Strategic Position in the Course of the Conflict

By Abed Al-Zurei'i

PFLP Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine

The Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood represents a link in the chain of national battles waged by the Palestinian people against the Zionist-imperialist invasion. This chain began clearly with the Nabi Musa uprising in 1920, and its links have since accumulated, sometimes occurring in close succession and at other times spaced farther apart across the timeline of events. Al-Aqsa Flood is the most recent (current) link, distinguished by its extended duration— exceeding all previous confrontations with the Zionist entity—by the intensity of its military and political engagement, the heavy cost it imposed on all levels, its tangible achievements, and the questions and varied responses it provoked—whether supportive or critical. All of this makes analyzing and positioning this battle within the broader struggle both necessary and essential. Such an analysis requires, first, affirming the legitimacy of the battle; second, determining the criteria by which we measure its achievements (or failures); and third, identifying its strategic location in the ongoing conflict with the Zionist entity.

I. Legitimacy

The question of legitimacy is based on a conscious link between the Palestinian people's right and duty to continue their armed resistance —as the highest form of struggle against the Zionist entity—and the need for scrutiny and analysis of every step taken in this direction, in terms of timing, feasibility, and cost. Armed struggle is not an improvised or arbitrary act; every step must be measured carefully, given the particularities, rules of engagement, and national, regional, and international implications of the conflict. This linkage allows us to determine the legitimacy of any resistance act within its specific timing and context. The legitimacy of the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle stems from three foundational principles:

1. The Principle of Right: The right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, a consistent and active principle as long as this right is denied. This principle is embodied in all national resistance efforts to reverse the effects of occupation and protect fundamental human rights. International law enshrines this right, such as Article 7 of the Definition of Aggression, which affirms the legitimacy of peoples under colonial rule or racial regimes to resist by all possible means, including armed force. UN General Assembly resolutions— most notably Resolution 1514 of December 14, 1960, and Resolution 3103 of December 13, 1973—affirm this right as a natural and legal struggle for independence and self-determination. Notably, international law does not mandate a specific organizational or ideological form for such struggles but rather encourages newly independent nations to support such resistance efforts.

2. The Principle of Defense: This principle encompasses the tools employed by the resistance to deter aggression against Palestinian fundamental rights. It has become a recognized international reality, supported by numerous UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions. The Al-Aqsa Flood Battle was launched in a specific moment of historical repression, intensified Israeli policies of ethnic cleansing, and attacks on sacred Palestinian values— particularly at Al-Aqsa Mosque. These acts were not isolated but part of a systematic campaign of killing, arrests, blockades, land theft, and attacks on Palestinian dignity, including the humiliation of Palestinian women. This occurred amid the Palestinian Authority’s failure—or complicity—in protecting its people, highlighted by its active security coordination with the occupation.

3. The Principle of Risk Aversion: This principle addresses the security and political risks that threaten the Palestinian right to self-determination and defense, and ultimately the very future of the Palestinian people. These risks include U.S.-led regional changes, Arab and Islamic normalization efforts, and attempts to integrate Israel into the regional system, giving it a leadership role. Saudi-Israeli normalization was a critical moment, potentially undermining psychological and political resistance in the Arab world. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu symbolically erased Palestine from his "New Middle East" map at the UN in September 2023. Security threats were also present, as noted by late Hamas leader Saleh Al-Arouri, who said the Al-Aqsa Flood was a preemptive response to an imminent Israeli attack. Former Israeli Chief of Staff Aviv Kochavi similarly hinted at Israeli efforts to assassinate Hamas leaders in 2021, viewing such actions as part of the post-“Sword of Jerusalem” phase, aiming to “mow the grass” and eliminate Palestinian resistance.

These three principles underpin the legitimacy of the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle. If the first grants it long-term strategic legitimacy, the second and third provide legitimacy for its specific and timely execution, making it a decisive and justified response at this historical juncture.

II. How to Evaluate the Battle

There is a distinction between the legitimacy of any battle and its results. Legitimacy provides the motivation to engage in the battle at a specific time, with defined tools and clear objectives that are rooted in the principles from which its legitimacy arises. In contrast, results are related to how the battle is conducted, the achievements made, and how well those achievements align with the stated goals. Human history is full of battles that had full legitimacy but ultimately produced results contrary to the intentions of those who launched them. Since this is a battle in the context of national liberation, assessing the results is neither random nor arbitrary. Instead, it is subject to specific mechanisms developed by liberation movements that have become historical and regulatory criteria. This is especially true as these movements usually engage in struggle under unfavorable power balances, where colonial forces are stronger. Their efforts are directed at shifting this balance to their advantage by convincing the colonial power that the losses incurred from continuing the colonial enterprise far outweigh any potential gains. Therefore, evaluating the results of battles fought by national liberation movements must not be based solely on a quantitative metric— namely, the material losses in lives, infrastructure, and buildings. This is the standard the enemy often amplifies by waging genocidal war, particularly against civilians, in an attempt to burden the resistance with unbearable humanitarian costs, hoping to deter it or turn its popular support base against it. The main criterion for assessing any battle lies in the changes it produces in the existing equations and the subsequent impacts. To determine what has changed in those equations, one needs a baseline against which changes— positive or negative—can be identified.

The first core standard in this baseline is the asymmetry of power, which results in an asymmetry of objectives. For the colonial power, the goals are mainly military and deterrent. For the liberation movement, the objectives are primarily political. This framework is used to assess the outcomes once the dust of battle settles. In asymmetric warfare, the mere fact that the weaker party is not defeated often signifies its victory, meaning that the minimum threshold for victory has been achieved.

The second core standard involves the ability of the liberation movement to accomplish three goals:

1. Strengthening the legitimacy of the resistance, both internally and externally.

2. Creating internal contradictions within the enemy's ranks.

3. Generating conflicts between the enemy and its allies.

The on-the-ground developments and realities of the past nine months answer the first baseline question affirmatively. This answer is no longer confined to the resistance and its supporters but has become a global acknowledgment, accompanied by investigations into the reasons behind this enduring steadfastness.

As for the second set of questions:

• Has this battle reinforced the legitimacy of the resistance?
• Has it intensified contradictions within the enemy’s ranks?
• Has it deepened the rifts between the enemy and its allies?

Without delving into a detailed enumeration of the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle’s accomplishments, one can say that all these achievements fall under the three categories mentioned above. This is an ongoing process on the national, regional, and international levels.

III. The Strategic Position

The Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood differs from all other battles fought by the Palestinian people and from all previous confrontations with the Zionist enemy, whether before or after 1948. It is the longest in duration, the most intense, and the most costly. While we can position it as a link in the chain of the Palestinian national liberation movement's battles, it is the most prominent link—one that compels a fundamental question not only about how to evaluate it but about its place within that chain. To answer that, we must first ask: How should we read the chain itself? Should it be read quantitatively or qualitatively? Undoubtedly, both approaches have their merits. However, if the matter concerns a liberation path aimed at achieving the goal of freeing the land and expelling the colonizer, then the qualitative reading becomes the decisive one. Based on this, we can determine the position and weight of any battle within the balance of struggle. The course of national liberation movements usually proceeds through three decisive stages:

1. Strategic Defensive Stage: The resistance forces are in their early stages, struggling merely to defend and preserve themselves.

2. Strategic Equilibrium Stage: The resistance develops to the point where it achieves a level of balance in confrontation with the enemy.

3. Strategic Offensive Stage: The resistance reaches a level of maturity and strength that enables it to launch a full-scale strategic offensive against the enemy and defeat it.

In this light, where does the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood stand? In which of these stages does it fall? Answering this requires examining the most recent historical context—particularly its relation to the immediately preceding battle: the Battle of Sword of Jerusalem (Saif al-Quds). Understanding the strategic significance of the Al-Aqsa Flood may be flawed if viewed in isolation from the Sword of Jerusalem. What stands out is the confusion of the enemy during the Sword of Jerusalem battle and its efforts to understand and nullify its outcomes early on. This is evidenced by the number of symposiums held by Israeli security and academic institutions and the volume of recommendations made to deal with the aftermath of the battle—even before it ended (all these symposiums are published in Al-Hadaf magazine). A deep reading of those symposiums and the resulting recommendations reveals that the enemy perceived the Battle of Sword of Jerusalem as the end of one phase and the beginning of a new phase for the Palestinian resistance. Thus, it focused on preventing the resistance from transitioning into this new phase by trying to neutralize the effects of the Sword of Jerusalem battle. That previous battle marked the conclusion of the strategic defensive stage, which lasted seventy-five years—with all its ups and downs, progress and setbacks, victories and defeats. But at its core, it was defined by the steadfastness of the Palestinian people.

Now, with the accomplishments of the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood, a new stage has begun: the stage of strategic equilibrium. The Strategic Position and focusing on the qualitative dimensions of the new stage inaugurated by the Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood: It is essential to assess this initiation of a new stage using a different measure—not a quantitative one. The issue is not the number of weapons or tools available to either side, although this factor may play a role at certain moments. Rather, the assessment must be qualitative and moral, across three key levels:

1. The Military Level: The Al-Aqsa Flood Battle stripped the enemy of one of its most important military advantages: strategic surprise. This element had been the foundation of its deterrence power over past decades. By initiating the attack themselves— despite the many security and intelligence challenges such a decision entailed—the resistance reversed the equation and fought the battle behind enemy lines, unlike all previous confrontations. Additionally, the battle involved the broader Axis of Resistance, serving as a compensatory force for the absence of Egypt from the battlefield (due to the Camp David Accords) and Syria’s limitations following its war against terrorism. The inclusion of these regional actors introduced a new strategic layer to the conflict.

2. The Political Level: Politically, the battle contributed to what was previously mentioned: deepening contradictions within the enemy’s ranks and between it and its allies, while also generating popular support at multiple levels, even from within circles previously allied with the enemy.

3. The Ethical and Moral Level: At this level, the Al-Aqsa Flood Battle succeeded in collapsing the enemy’s so-called “moral narrative.” It repositioned the Palestinian cause as a moral and ethical issue for a new generation of youth in the American and European arenas—especially in a time when this generation has lost faith in the moral values underpinning the capitalist world order. This new stage may last for a long or short period. It may achieve its full potential, or it may be stifled. Its course will depend on various national and regional factors, but the most important fact is this: a first step has been taken. The threshold has been crossed. There is no alternative but to advance forward, confidently, based on a deep and accurate understanding of the conflict environment. The enemy is also aware of this, and will exert all its power to prevent further advancement. Therefore, the trajectory and fate of this phase will be shaped by the conflict between the will to accumulate and escalate by the resistance and the will to suppress and abort by the enemy.

Conclusion

The Battle of Al-Aqsa Flood derived its legitimacy from the inalienable historical right of the Palestinian people to liberate their homeland and land, from their right to defend themselves against the aggression and expansion of the Zionist entity, and from their right to safeguard their national cause from schemes aiming to undermine or eliminate it. The battle succeeded in reinforcing the legitimacy of the Palestinian resistance across all levels — regional and international. It marked a qualitative leap that placed the Palestinian people's struggle at the threshold of a new strategic phase, realized through a set of historic achievements that continue to produce tangible impacts in the present and into the future.

Published in the 2nd Edition of the ICOR Palestine Magazine, May 2025