Why Isn’t the Gaza Resistance Fighting Back Like Before? Understanding the Silence

Since the resumption of Israel’s war on the Gaza Strip, the battlefield has been noticeably marked by what analysts describe as “operational silence” on the part of the Palestinian resistance. Unlike the previous 15 months of intense resistance operations, which preceded the sixty-day truce, the current phase lacks the same visible momentum — prompting speculation, anxiety, and debate. Some observers are worried, others doubtful, some complain, while others mock the perceived inaction.

The questions are many: Why has resistance activity decreased after nearly 20 days of renewed warfare, especially as Israel expands its ground operations in Rafah, deploying three full military divisions across Gaza — the 36th Division in the south, the 252nd in the centre, and the 162nd in the north? What is the purpose of Israel’s new strategic route between Rafah and Khan Younis, dubbed “Morag”? Why hasn’t the resistance launched counter-operations against these incursions? Is this a sign of exhaustion — or the execution of a calculated strategy?

To answer these questions, two important military concepts must be understood: elastic defence and economy of force — both key to resistance strategy and irregular warfare.

A Shift in Tactics, Not in Strength

A retrospective analysis of resistance operations since the Israeli ground invasion began on October 27, 2023, reveals a historic shift in resistance doctrine. For the first time, Palestinian fighters engaged Israeli forces from the very first metre of the defensive zone — launching attacks in every street, alley, and depth of the incursion zones. Israel failed to breach even a single defensive layer without suffering casualties.

Across the frontline, from Beit Hanoun in the north to Tel al-Sultan in the south, not a single al-Qassam Brigade was dismantled. In fact, the resistance inflicted one of the highest casualty rates on Israeli forces since the war began. During the northern Gaza battle alone — a 115-day confrontation — Israel admitted to losing 55 soldiers, including the commander of its 401st Armored Brigade.

Adapting to a Long War

Months into the Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, the resistance continues to adapt, relying on non-linear, asymmetric warfare. Their techniques include mobile defences, shifting from fixed positions to flexible, decentralised units that wait for the opportune moment to strike. As one Israeli general put it:

“Hamas fights like a chameleon” — constantly changing tactics and appearances.

This dynamic shift in structure and combat style enhances the resistance’s agility, preserves the element of surprise, and sustains pressure on the invading forces. Such non-traditional tactics are central to guerrilla warfare, and have proven more effective than static defences in prolonged battles.

Elastic Defence and the Economy of Force

What worked during the early months of the war is no longer viable today. The Gaza and Northern Brigades have had to evolve from their past methods. Even within the same brigade or battalion, tactics change based on the evolving enemy strategy.

A comparison of the three battles in Jabalia (November, May, and October) highlights this shift. The resistance no longer seeks to defend every inch of territory — instead, they manoeuvre forces tactically, conserving resources and focusing attacks where they will cause maximum damage.

In contrast to conventional armies that depend on rigid defensive lines, Palestinian resistance forces rely on elastic defence — moving fighters based on battlefield needs, conserving manpower and weaponry for decisive strikes.

Likewise, the principle of force economy guides resistance strategy. This involves achieving defence objectives using minimal resources, in order to prolong combat effectiveness. With no resupply lines, the resistance must preserve fighters, tunnels, and weapons. This method was deployed successfully in both Khan Younis and Rafah, where Israeli sources reported that Hamas withdrew three-quarters of its fighters, preserving only a core group for direct combat.

Strategic Patience vs Tactical Exhaustion

The current silence, then, is not evidence of weakness, but a deliberate tactical posture. As both sides enter the longest and most complex phase of the war, attrition becomes the battleground. The resistance has spent months refining its strategy to avoid exhaustion, while Israel faces an overstretched military, engaged on multiple fronts — Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank.

Israel’s reliance on reservists and reactivation of three full divisions for Gaza alone shows clear signs of strain. Many believed the ceasefire would evolve into a long-term truce or political settlement — instead, combat has resumed. Israel now bears the full cost of attrition, while the resistance preserves its assets and capabilities for a more decisive engagement.

Challenging Israeli Narratives

Throughout the war, Israeli propaganda has aggressively pushed the narrative that it has “crippled the resistance.” But events on the ground say otherwise.

Take Beit Hanoun, for example — heavily targeted since day one. Just hours before the last ceasefire, resistance fighters killed ten Israeli soldiers in just 72 hours, proving once again that their operational capabilities remain intact.

The resistance’s apparent inactivity is thus part of a strategic defence doctrine — aimed at wearing down the enemy, preserving resources, and undermining morale. Abandoning territory temporarily in order to regroup is a military calculation, not a retreat.

From the Battlefield to the Negotiating Table

This evolved model of warfare not only extends the resistance’s combat lifespan but also strengthens their position in future political negotiations. A defensive force that absorbs pressure and launches precision strikes maintains strategic initiative, giving political leaders more leverage at the table.

This is not just military endurance — it is a form of political messaging that reshapes the balance of power and forces the enemy to reconsider its assumptions.

Moreover, this patient strategy has ripple effects on both Israeli domestic opinion and American foreign policy. In Israel, growing doubts over the war’s utility have eroded the public’s support, especially as casualties mount and the war begins to appear more aligned with Netanyahu’s political survival than national security.

In the U.S., both former Secretary of State Antony Blinken and former Defence Secretary Lloyd Austin warned that Israel’s tactical gains would be worthless unless translated into political outcomes. Without a clear path forward, even battlefield victories could become strategic failures.

Conclusion: Silence is a Strategy

In conclusion, the current operational silence of the resistance is part of a deliberate defensive tactic, not a result of organisational collapse or military defeat. The goal is to prolong endurance, maximise enemy losses, and break the will to fight — all while conserving strength for future confrontations or negotiations.

What worked in the past won’t work now. The battlefield has evolved, and so has the resistance. This transformation is a mark of military sophistication, not weakness — and may prove to be the most important phase in reshaping the entire trajectory of the war in Gaza.

We don’t run ads. We run on dua, dedication, and your support. Help us stay online

Click here to Donate