Tehran, IRNA – Hossein Jaberi Ansari, a career diplomat and CEO of the Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA), describes the al-Aqsa Storm operation, launched by Palestinian resistance movements on October 7, 2023, as a political, military, and security “earthquake” for Israel that exposed the structural weaknesses of the occupying regime.
In an interview with Asr-e-Andisheh, Jaberi Ansari offers an in-depth analysis of why the strategy of protracted resistance remains the best solution for the Palestinian struggle. He delves into the motivations behind the al-Aqsa Storm operation and its profound implications for both Israel and the Palestinians' aspirations for liberation.
He emphasizes that the primary task of liberating occupied Palestine rests with the Palestinian people and regional nations sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. That mission, he argues, is up against Israel’s expansionist ambitions, characterized by a deep-seated desire for dominance over the entire region and beyond.
The events of October 7, Jaberi Ansari says, have sparked polarized interpretations, much like other contentious issues at the international level: On one side, some view the operation as a monumental “turning point” that heralds the end of Israeli occupation and the dawn of Palestinian freedom. Conversely, a contrasting narrative questions the authenticity and objectives of the operation, suggesting it might have been a strategic maneuver orchestrated by Israeli intelligence and extremist right-wing elements.
Jaberi Ansari criticizes these binary viewpoints and believes they stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of Israel and Palestinian resistance. He points out that Israel has faced multiple defeats against resistance movements over the past decades, with al-Aqsa Storm being a glaring example. He challenges the notion that Palestinians are incapable of executing such a game-changing operation, citing historical precedents where Lebanese resistance forced Israel to retreat.
Jaberi Ansari provides some historical information on how Israel as an occupying entity came to exist to help his audience better understand the various strategies that have been adopted to confront it.
He says Israel is not merely a "local phenomenon" but an international one supported by global powers, particularly the United States and Britain, since its inception. Just as this support had been instrumental in Israel’s creation, it has also been crucial for its survival ever since, he emphasizes.
He says, historically, the Arab world has attempted to counter this new threat in the region through one of two disparate approaches: Classic warfare or capitulation.
Since the establishment of Israel in 1948 until the 1973 war, Jaberi Ansari says, the results of the strategy of direct military confrontation proved disheartening for the Arab world: The 1967 war, in particular, demonstrated that this approach not only failed to liberate Palestine but also led to its complete occupation, with the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights, and Sinai Peninsula falling under Israeli control. This was a significant defeat for the two main Arab armies, Egypt and Syria, which not only failed in this endeavor but also lost vast portions of their own territories.
From this point on, Jaberi Ansari says, it became clear that the Arab armies were unable to liberate Palestine, effectively closing the chapter on this strategy for confronting Israel. He points out that Egypt then completely shifted its strategy, moving from a liberation war to seeking peace and reconciliation with Israel. The Camp David Accords, signed between Egypt and Israel, were the result of this seismic change in approach.
The career diplomat explains that Egypt’s new strategy involved recognizing Israel and seeking a solution to the Palestinian issue through direct and indirect negotiations with the support of the United States. In this process, the idea of “land for peace” replaced the goal of complete liberation of Palestine from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea.
In contrast, the resistance strategy, particularly following the Islamic Revolution in Iran, offers a third path—neither classic warfare nor capitulation, Jaberi Ansari argues. This long-term, attritional approach, he says, seeks to gradually chip away at the “Zionist project.” Instead of immediate military confrontation, this approach calls for sustained resistance, he says.
Jaberi Ansari maintains that this process is neither sudden nor overnight: Instead, resistance must continue until the Israeli regime steadily becomes exhausted. When regional and international conditions allow it, “we will witness its internal collapse,” he says.
4353
Your Comment