Before addressing the situation in Gaza, it is necessary to understand the strategies adopted by the actors involved in this asymmetric conflict, the role each civilization plays and the objectives they pursue in a war where the resources and capabilities of the actors differ. As a result, the approaches employed by both sides are distinct, even though both seek an indirect conflict.
In this scenario, we can observe that Israel is the entity representing Atlanticist Zionism, possessing the greatest potential and resources to operate in the region, though lacking popular support. On the other hand, the Palestinians, supported by the Axis of Resistance, live under occupation, with no resources but strong popular backing in the region. Thus, in this analysis, Israel may be defined as the strong nation, and Palestine as the weak one, from this perspective.
Hamas, and consequently Palestine, relies on what Hector Luis Saint-Pierre calls Deterrent Resistance/Guerrilla Warfare (Indirect Defense): a strategy that depends on sanctuary (physical or political) and popular support to impose costs on the adversary and erode its will, using competent military leadership and low-intensity attacks whose aim is to prolong the conflict, making it unsustainable for the occupying force.
Meanwhile, Israel employs what Ivan Arreguín-Toft calls Barbarism: a strategy aimed at destroying the adversary’s capacity and will to fight through systematic violations of the laws of war, especially depredations against non-combatants (murder, rape, and torture). Barbarism functions as an effective counter-strategy (COIN) against guerrilla warfare, as it directly targets the social support and sanctuaries that the guerrilla relies upon, thereby destroying the weaker adversary’s ability to fight.
When strong actors employ Barbarism (Indirect Attack) against weak actors who defend themselves with Guerrilla/Deterrent Resistance (Indirect Defense), the strong actor is expected to win in the short term.
However, the use of Barbarism (Brutalism) carries a major political drawback: it sacrifices international dialogue capacity and provokes revolt against the occupier. In other words, Israeli plans do not include the presence of the Palestinian people in the region, but rather their ethnic cleansing to colonize the territory. This has drawn the attention of other nations whose regional interests run contrary to such objectives. Among them, the governments of Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt have declared that Netanyahu’s administration is not respecting the agreement reached and that they are striving to maintain the ceasefire and implement Gaza’s reconstruction. Trump has sent his representatives (Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff) to Israel to oversee the ceasefire and the next steps of the process.
Trump will most likely fail to maintain the ceasefire, since the true Zionist objective is to colonize the region. They care little for international opinion or repercussions, seeking only total control and the destruction of Palestine as a state, to seize the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Trump also faces strong internal Zionist lobbying within his own political base. As Robert Putnam explains in his Two-Level Game Theory, it is necessary to balance external and internal interests to ensure stability; however, in this case, such a choice becomes impossible.
Multipolar powers could assist Trump in the defense of Gaza, but this would come at a high cost to his domestic base. He would have to rely heavily on the growing anti-Zionist sentiment among his electorate to resist the advancement of the agenda within his party. Yet, such an alliance with multipolar powers would be attacked as subservience to them and as diminishing American interests, when in reality, it is only Israeli interests at play.
Even though the UN already possesses mechanisms to assist through its resolutions, it will not take decisive steps due to Zionist pressure and the organization’s weakened ability to implement peacebuilding in the region. The only chance for Gaza’s reconstruction would come through a Palestinian victory, which would end the Zionist strategy of Barbarism and allow a focus on restoring economic, social, and cultural needs. Until that happens, only the military support of the Axis of Resistance stands as a viable solution for Gaza’s current situation.
