The Weapon of Resistance: A Defining Line of Dignity

In a recent commentary, international affairs researcher Javad Ershadi described the push for disarmament—often led by the EU, the White House, and Israeli strategists—as part of an imposed order where only the occupier retains the right to bear arms. “Disarmament,” he wrote, “is not a technical process but a deeply unequal ontological battle.”

From Israel’s perspective, disarming groups like Hamas is a strategic goal. The continued presence of weapons in the hands of resistance factions is seen as a persistent threat and a symbol of Israeli failure. Proposed scenarios—from dividing Gaza to establishing a civil government without disarmament—reflect a deep fear of any force capable of disrupting the occupation’s status quo.

However, for the people of Gaza—who have endured generations of displacement and siege—the demand to surrender arms is more than a security request. It is an assault on their right to exist and defend themselves. Ershadi points to the silence of global powers in the face of mass killings, contrasting it with their urgency to negotiate disarmament. “The message is clear,” he writes, “the violence of the occupier is legitimate, but resistance is intolerable.”
Resistance weapons, he argues, are not just tools of war but emblems of collective memory, sacrifice, and the right to self-determination. Quoting Jordanian writer Helmi Al-Asmar, Ershadi notes: “The weapon of Gaza is the tangible embodiment of Palestinian dignity.” It belongs not to a single organization but to the blood of martyrs, the resolve of mothers, and the children who turned bombs into candles.
The article questions the assumption that disarmament guarantees peace. History, Ershadi asserts, shows that the occupier’s aggression is driven not by the presence of weapons but by an insatiable expansionist agenda. Even when weapons are centralized under a Western-approved government—as seen in Syria—Israel continues its attacks.
He recalls the bitter lesson of Yasser Arafat in Beirut, who surrendered arms only to lose his homeland. Today, Gaza has concluded that preserving the homeland may require sacrificing lives, but surrendering weapons means surrendering memory, justice, and the future.
Ershadi concludes: “In a world where major powers rush to disarm the oppressed but remain silent on genocide, the weapon of resistance is not a threat—it is a lifeline. True security will come not through disarmament, but through ending occupation and restoring stolen rights.”