LONDON - The direct results of the Gaza war include the massive destruction and human losses at all levels. This is in addition to the inability of the Israeli occupation entity and the United States behind it, to eliminate the Axis of Resistance. 

The possibility of forming a new Middle East has fallen because they could not create it. The indirect results, however, include the degree of readiness for recovery. It appears the resistance may have suffered great losses in terms of defensive or deterrent capabilities. On the surface it appears that this party has been defeated.

Whilst it may also appear that the enemy has achieved results, owing to the great destruction caused, with superiority in firepower and intelligence, its victory is hollow. It has lost essential elements of its existence. In the case of the Israeli entity, if we find that external support has begun to decline or is in tatters, result is a defeat. In other words, the entity has lost a core element of its existence, which is external support.

As for the resistance, even if its capabilities have been weakened, and its weapons stockpiles have decreased or its organizational structures have been undermined or its manpower has been reduced, they can be compensated for in stronger and more resilient ways. 
If the regional and international external environment turns in favor the resistance, then it has gained. If the internal supportive environment becomes an adopting environment for the resistance’s causes, then when the conditions are right it can rebuild what was damaged with strength and effectiveness.

Direct results may appear as victory while they constitute elements of defeat. Whilst indirect results may appear as defeat, they contain elements of resurgence and a stronger return. In reality, tools can be compensated for, whilst circumstances internationally and in the surrounding environment also change. For example, if the entity fails to achieve the expansion it sets as a goal for itself, the matter leads to its own contraction.

In that case, if the remaining three years of the Trump administration pass without achieving results, the next administration may change its direction and recalculate to secure its interests. The Israeli occupation entity may not be an important element in the interests of that new administration; in fact, it may even be harmful to those interests. Likewise, the influence of European public opinion on their leadership may be affected and change in any upcoming elections, leading to the ostracization of the entity. That’s where pressure toward a settlement arises.

Previous U.S. administrations adopted the two-state concept. Trump’s two administrations adopted the concept of “prosperity”, meaning dealing with the region based on people, rather than states and homelands for the benefit of the expansion and security of the entity. This is the result of perceiving that factors overwhelmingly do not allow the entity to continue on the current map, given the widespread popular rejection in the region. Therefore, we see the trend and talk about the necessity of finding a broader settlement than the current Gaza issue, to find a more comprehensive settlement to the cause.

The Abraham Accords represent bringing the region closer to the Israeli occupation entity at the administrative level. However, this has become unattainable as this war failed to eliminate the resistance. The basis of building the American project through the Abraham Accords was to eliminate the resistance movement in the region. If the war stops at this point without removing the resistance leadership and without disarming the resistance, both which seem unlikely, even if the entity does not fully withdraw from the Gaza Strip, this means the seed and roots of the resistance in Palestine will remain alive and vibrant. This indicates the total failure of the project at its narrowest and simplest, yet deepest and most essential point, which is Palestine.

If the war stops now, the settlement project on which the entity’s survival depends on cannot continue without the external support, that is likely to shrink completely. Ironically, the slogan “Palestine from the river to the sea,” which has not been heard much in the Arab region, has begun to be chanted again by demonstrations and protesters all over the world.