Afrasianet -  The controversy these days about naming the war on Gaza (victory or defeat) reminds me of the controversy that was raging for months inside and outside Lebanon regarding the Israeli aggression on Lebanon in July 2006, when Hezbollah stood firm at that time and forced Ehud Olmert at that time to appeal to Washington to issue Security Council Resolution 1701, which is being talked about today as the reference on which the ceasefire in Lebanon was based on the first of last October. The Arab mind in general is absent relative measures, it is a mind that believes in "absolute", either white or black in which there is no place at all for the color gray, a mind formed by several factors, including social, cultural and even environmental (i.e. the environment or nature and the desert is an important factor in that) It is strange that Netanyahu personally during the war on Gaza, which lasted 15 months, used the expression »absolute victory», which is an Arab-Eastern expression par excellence, and I do not know what factors and reasons affected the man and prompted him to use this term.
 
In an attempt to define absolute victory, war scientists or war strategists argue that absolute victory is determined by three basic factors:

 First: Announcing surrender and raising the white flag.

 Second, this is followed by dictating morally humiliating and strategically cumbersome conditions that prevent the defeated from being able to return to pose a danger in the future, for example what happened in World War II for Germany, Japan and Italy.

 Third: Transforming the defeated into a permanent state of dependency that prevents his ability to independence by his national or national decisions.

 The question here is, does the exchange deal between the Hamas-led resistance and Israel after a year and three months of war, the martyrdom of nearly 56,000 martyrs, hundreds of thousands of wounded, and the demolition and destruction of more than 90% of the Gaza Strip apply to the factors preceding the absolute victory that Netanyahu wanted?

 In the answer, certainly none of the three factors was met, and the resistance insisted on the most important elements of the deal:

 A comprehensive ceasefire after the end of the second phase of the deal, that is, after the expiration of 46 days from the entry into force of the agreement.

 Residents of the northern Gaza Strip were allowed to return to their destroyed homes, canceling the generals' plan devised by strategic general Igura Eiland, who called the deal a resounding failure for Israel and a victory for Hamas.
 
• Immediate entry of 600 trucks per day to the Gaza Strip, including tents, caravans, fuel and food.

 Israeli withdrawal from the Philadelphia axis and Israeli withdrawal from the Rafah crossing.
 In practice, all the above elements are painful concessions to the Israeli side, in addition to breaking the sacred principle that the Israeli cabinet has repeatedly stressed, which is that the deal will not include those it called "life sentences" or those who "have Israeli blood on their hands."

 It is well known that the release of detainees who resisted or killed Israelis is a very sensitive, painful and humiliating issue for decision-makers in Israel and for the Israeli public, which was very demoralized after October 7, 2023.

 Itamar Ben-Gvir and Smoterch say that the exchange deal represents a victory for Hamas, a precious prize for Palestinian terrorism and a dangerous concession that will tempt "terrorists" to carry out terrorist acts in the future, while Gideon Sa'ar, Israel's foreign minister, who is the other face of Netanyahu in terms of extremism, explains why he agreed to the deal for the following reasons:

 First: The failure to achieve the military objectives of the war despite the strong blows suffered by Hamas and the inability to eliminate the movement.

 Second: having to save the lives of Hamas prisoners He added that the deal is one of the results of the seventh of October that we are still paying for, noting that any deal with a "terrorist organization" is a bad and difficult deal, but necessary.

 One might say, "What is the significance of such a deal in the first place, and the seventh of October, if the price is the destruction of Gaza, stone and people?"
 
This question is completely legitimate, but this question becomes valid if the one who launches it is ignorant of the nature of the conflict and the nature of the Zionist mind, which does not believe in the existence of a Palestinian people, and that dealing with this people according to the Zionist mentality must be either by expelling them from their land or killing them and exterminating them in the manner of exterminating the American Indians in America.