Resistance” That Devoured Its Own
The “Resistance” That Destroyed Those It Claims to Protect
For decades, groups like Hezbollah and Hamas have raised the banner of “resistance,” yet the harvest of that slogan has been ruin, not liberation. These groups have dragged their own populations into asymmetric wars, using civilian infrastructure and populations as shields and battlegrounds, while the real bill is paid by families who were never consulted in the decision.
Lebanon is a stark example: Hezbollah possesses a military arsenal that rivals national armies, and makes decisions of war and peace independently of the state and its institutions, turning Lebanon into an arena for regional influence—paid for with a collapsed economy, destroyed infrastructure, and generations emigrating in search of a future that doesn’t exist in their own country.
Gaza is another example: Hamas, which has governed the strip since 2007, has fought repeated rounds of war with predictable outcomes—massive destruction, heavy human losses, and a suffocating siege—without achieving any real strategic gain for Palestinians. “Resistance” here has not liberated land or built a state; it has turned Gaza into rubble, repeated every few years.
The common thread among these groups is that they are not accountable to the people they govern through free elections or genuine oversight, they derive their legitimacy from weapons rather than the ballot box, and they often serve regional agendas (particularly Iranian ones) more than the direct interests of their own populations. The result: a “resistance” that prolongs conflict rather than resolving it, reaping symbolic “victories” while the real price is immeasurable material and human destruction.
On the other hand, there’s a different view: that these groups emerged as a reaction to occupation, siege, or the absence of any peaceful political horizon, and that responsibility for the destruction should also be placed on other parties (Israel, the regional order, international policies) rather than on one side alone. Supporters of these movements also point out that they hold genuine popular support among segments of the population who see them as the only available option in the absence of an alternative. This debate remains one of the most divisive issues in analyses of the Middle East, and there is no consensus on it.