Resistance: The Only Solution to Solve Gaza Crisis

Reports of the Zionist regime’s atrocities in the Gaza Strip are aired nearly every day on news broadcasts. As a result, the Gaza crisis has become a frequent topic in news conferences, political analyses, and expert discussions.

One of the most pressing questions in this context is how to find a solution to the current crisis in Gaza and put an end to the widespread killing and destruction in the region.

When examining the current situation in the occupied Palestinian territories using an appropriate approach and logical method, it appears that there are at least two scenarios and several potential hypotheses for addressing the ongoing crisis in the Gaza situation.

In essence, to halt the bombing of Gaza and the widespread killing in the region, we can consider two main scenarios: in one, an internal drive born from the conflict must deter the Zionist regime from prolonging its assaults, while in the other, an external force beyond the occupied territories must coerce the occupying regime into making such a choice.

In the first scenario, two conceivable hypotheses exist: one assumes that the authorities of the Zionist regime conclude it is necessary to cease military attacks on Gaza and, if there is a way to get out of the current conditions, they should pursue it through other means such as political solutions. The second hypothesis is that the resistance of the people of Gaza and the efforts of the Hamas group compel the Zionist regime to halt the brutal attacks.

The statements of the authorities of the Zionist regime and the official declaration to continue attacks on Gaza indicate that there is no serious intention to stop the bombing and the mass killing of Palestinian men, women, and children in Gaza. Consequently, the first hypothesis cannot be considered a viable option, and its likelihood is weak. The resistance of the people of Gaza and the efforts of Hamas (in the second hypothesis) have thus far been significant factors in the failure of the Zionist regime to achieve its stated goals, even leading to tensions among Zionist regime authorities and criticisms within Netanyahu’s cabinet, indicating the Zionist government’s inability to subdue the people of Gaza and Hamas, facing internal challenges. This situation has progressed to the extent that The Wall Street Journal titled the current state within the Zionist regime as “Netanyahu’s War Cabinet Is at War With Itself.” Therefore, the possibility that the calculations of the Zionist regime could change with the continuation of resistance and efforts in Gaza, leading to a halt in the heavy artillery, is not very unlikely.

The second scenario involves exerting external pressure on the Zionist regime to enforce a ceasefire. There are several hypotheses for this approach. One suggests applying pressure through respected international institutions like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice. By collectively recognizing the Zionist regime as a criminal entity, these institutions could compel it to halt its violent attacks on Gaza’s infrastructure, buildings, and innocent civilians. However, the repeated vetoing of numerous United Nations’ resolutions by the United States and the weak stance of the International Court of Justice not only reject this hypothesis but also raise the likelihood that the US, with increased financial and military aid, has defined its interests in perpetuating and escalating tensions and crises.

In another hypothesis, efforts are made to halt the attacks by individual countries and international actors. This entails countries supportive of the Zionist regime, notably England, Germany, and France, applying pressure through official statements, threats of severing ties, and halting various forms of aid to the regime. Additionally, influential Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey could sever any beneficial ties with the regime. However, this approach is flawed for several reasons. As long as the US openly supports the Zionist regime, European nations, which largely follow America’s lead in West Asian affairs and vocally support the regime, are unlikely to take effective action to stop the ongoing atrocities in Gaza. In the context of Islamic countries, some, like Egypt due to geographical factors, could independently sway the balance in favor of Gaza. Conversely, others like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, for reasons such as their leadership roles among Islamic nations, identification as custodians of Islam, and rich civilizational heritage and credibility, could shape the interactions and cooperation of Islamic nations with the Zionist regime, applying pressure accordingly. The notion that Islamic countries should overtly support the oppressed, as explicitly stated in the Holy Quran, and leverage their resources to challenge the Zionist regime, is a logical and reasonable expectation consistently highlighted by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution in his speeches. He has even criticized leaders of Islamic nations for not adhering to Quranic principles regarding the Gaza issue. However, despite the vocal opposition and rhetoric against the Zionist regime from some Islamic countries, there’s been a notable absence of significant escalation in action or severance of ties, especially in political and economic realms. Consequently, the Islamic world continues to witness the suffering and devastation inflicted upon the innocent people of Gaza and their land, leading to limited optimism about the potential of this hypothesis.

In the second scenario, the third hypothesis suggests that the Zionist regime might reassess its aggressive actions due to the significant damage inflicted by the practical and effective support of Resistance groups in the region. Resistance Front is now operating in several fronts against the Zionist regime, with Islamic Republic of Iran as its pivot and a main supporter. Right after the Islamic Revolution in Iran, this country turned into the main supporter of every anti-Zionist movement in the region. First among these movements was the Hezbollah in Lebanon, then the Islamic Resistance in Palestine came into being, and Resistance groups in Iraq, Syria and Yemen followed the same track. The results of the actions taken by Hezbollah in Lebanon, Resistance forces in Iraq, and Ansar Allah in Yemen in response to the Zionist regime’s brutal attacks on Gaza can be seen to be the most impactful measures, altering the crisis equation substantially. The frequent firing of missiles, rockets, and shells toward northern Israel from Lebanon, the resilience of Islamic Resistance in Iraq against Zionist regime bases, and notably, the Yemeni Resistance’s infliction of serious damage on transportation and trade linked to the Zionist regime in the Red

 Sea, all indicate that this hypothesis holds the potential to influence the decisions of the Zionist regime.

A third scenario could involve a combination of internal resolve and external pressure, which might force the regime to halt the massacre of the people in Gaza. Essentially, blending the second hypothesis from the first scenario with the third hypothesis from the second scenario presents an option that has shown promising indications thus far. The internal pressure stemming from Gaza’s Resistance and resilience, coupled with external pressure from supporters of the Resistance and the people of Gaza — essentially, the Resistance Front — has proven to be the most effective military strategy against the Zionist regime. This highlights the significance of the philosophy championed by the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, emphasizing the “legitimacy of forming a Resistance Front” to combat the ongoing and enduring oppression by the Zionist criminals. It offers a compelling, robust, and unique pathway out of the current crisis in favor of the Islamic world.

The article was written by Ruhollah Abdolmaleki, researcher in regional studies and first published in Khamenei.ir.