In the past year, voices have been raised in favor of peace with "Israel". Some of them even tried hard to justify this peace and enumerate its benefits by sorting the list according to what is important and what is necessary. But all these voices were silenced last year by the sounds of the resistance missiles in the Battle of Seif Al-Quds, during which the Palestinian popular resistance in Gaza broke the myth of the Iron Dome after the blatant attack from the Zionist side on Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood in Al-Quds.

Then some “free” voices have been raised talking about "Israel's" right to live in peace.

Is it possible for "Israel" to live in peace while it is usurping every day the right of the Palestinians to life?

No matter if the conflict could drag on for years. The reality says that as long as the conflict persists, the Arab resistance will be able to develop and increase its military experience increased until reaching the ability to inflict losses on the enemy forces and defeating them in several locations, whether in southern Lebanon before or during the operation “Seif Al-Quds”.

In this article, I do want to respond to those voices that talk about the possibility of living in peace with the Zionist entity or argue about the feasibility and role of the resistance.

 Precisely "far" from love or ball, the truth will remain whether we support it or deny its existence.

First: Whoever thinks that the Arab-Israeli conflict is over, is in fact promoting the idea of ​​denying the reality of the occupation of Arab land by the Zionist entity that has no justification, whether in the balance of justice or according to “Western international laws” which were not fair to us in any way! Since its creation till now.

The idea of ​​denying the reality of this conflict is a neglect of all Arab lands, whether in occupied Palestine or Syria. Even in our present or in our near future, there are other lands that will be looted, especially in Lebanon, as evidenced by the features of the conflict in Lebanon nowadays.

On the other hand, there is a crucial point that has to be considered.

Can we measure the conflict with "Israel" on the same scale as the previous conflicts with other countries?

Related News

Germany: Sacrificing academic freedom for the sake of 'Israel'

Israeli manpower shortages offer a firm reckoning of Gaza genocide

To answer this question, we must first “clarify the nature of the difference between "Israel" - as “a country” - and the other countries that we have fought against before.

For example, the Arab-English conflict “was a confrontation in which we had no will, it was an Anglo-French conflict. At first, it was about a region occupied by the Ottoman Empire in the past. It ended with France and England controlling it. It was a struggle between an empire that wanted to protect its interests in Southeastern Asia, and another empire that seeks to strike those interests and cut the line of communication between the East and Europe. With the end of the British Empire, this conflict ended. A new stage of cooperation began, but in fact, it had a different colonial aspect, like the Baghdad Pact for years until the British Empire was dwarfed. And it was replaced by the United States of America, and that alliance turned into another alliance called NATO.

Therefore, the Arab, British or French people were in a situation that required inevitable cooperation between peoples.

But with "Israel"?! The matter is completely different because of its hostile nature based on the principle of the so-called functional status.

But what is the Israeli functional status?

The functional status is defined as the state that establishes or prepares the formulation of its orientation or the direction of the ruling elite to perform a particular function. (The Encyclopedia - Dr. Abdel-Wahhab El-Mesiri). A functional Zionist state enters into utilitarian contractual relations with the West to serve Western interests in exchange for protection provided by the West. 

El-Messiri also pointed out that "it is an isolated ghetto / a fortress state that sees itself separate from time and place, and has a deep sense of superiority and believes in its sacred message, and even adopts a double standard morality in its relationship with its people and with others".

This definition gives us a "clear" explanation of the link between the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Treaty that divided the Arab world into states with borders. The functional team has a specific political and social role. First, “To cut the flat Arab geographical extension from the Gulf to the ocean, to ensure its separation”, and also, on the other hand, "Israel" would be the first so-called boundless homeland in the world until today.

Therefore, the Arab lands that are “designated” to be the homeland of "Israel" between the Euphrates and the Nile are not a figment of imagination. They were also facts throughout history, such as the Balfour Declaration and other conspiracies perpetrated by world powers headed by families such as the Rothschilds.

Therefore, the Arab-Zionist conflict is in fact an unstoppable conflict as long as "Israel" undertakes this task with the West or with the Zionist Organization. In fact, it is a struggle, a resistance against colonialism. Civilizational normalization is everywhere, but "Israel" knows that the resistance, even if it seems to weaken, will continue to develop itself and will be able to embarrass these functional groups despite all kind of support, just as it happened in south Lebanon when the Iron Dome was destroyed using tunnel-launched missiles, and at a high density, the Israeli air defense lost control.

The resistance was able to show the extent of imbalance and weakness witnessed by the United States of America and the Western community, an ally of "Israel", in dealing with the resistance last year. The resistance has forced the whole world to respect its conditions and recognize its ability to be the only card left, as Arab peoples know nothing but that Al-Quds is their capital.