Palestinians urged to embrace resistance

The illusions of establishing a Palestinian state based upon the US-brokered negotiations have shifted discourse partly to incorporate the necessity of resistance. Tawfik Tirawi, a senior Fatah official, has admitted the futility of the negotiations publicly and called upon his movement to embrace resistance. In a televised message on Lebanese channel Al-Mayadeen, Tirawi stated: “I’m talking about all kinds of resistance, but within a unified Palestinian framework that is agreed to by all sides in Fatah and factions outside of it. As part of our plan, we will choose the correct form of resistance and act accordingly.” Calls for resistance were also endorsed earlier this month by the Palestinian ambassador to Cuba, Akram Sameh.

While Tirawi’s calls for resistance offer a rhetorical alternative to the compliance exhibited prior to the commencement of the negotiations, an ideology and implementation of resistance has not been conveyed coherently. As a pre-condition to the negotiations, Mahmoud Abbas forfeited the right to resort to international organisations in return for the release of Palestinian political prisoners. This stance was contradicted by the Palestinian representative to the UN, Riyad Mansour, who claimed that the failure to implement the two-state solution would lead Palestinians to assert their claims for land and legitimacy through other means, including resistance and recourse to international organisations. Such organisations, including the UN, have consistently proved their allegiance to imperialist demands. Yet, an agreement relinquishing the right to such recourse strengthens imperialist impunity, which expects the indigenous population to remain subservient to the settler-colonial state and the ensuing fragmentation of Palestinian identity.

Palestinian resistance can be traced back to the 1880s, coinciding with the earliest plans for the colonisation of Palestine. British support for the Zionist colonisation project intensified the subjugation of Palestinians, resulting in violent repression of their civil resistance. The Balfour Declaration and its consequences for Palestinians accelerated the evolution from non-violent resistance to armed resistance, particularly in the aftermath of the Nakba (1948 Catastrophe) and its fragmentation of Palestinian identity. Colonial appropriation of land necessitates a continuous and state-sanctioned violence against the indigenous population that serves various objectives, including the deconstruction of legitimate Palestinian resistance in order to consolidate the dominant and illegal narrative. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority and its security collaboration with Israel compromised resistance and its integral relationship to Palestinian identity, capitulating to Western misrepresentation of resistance. So far, Palestinian resistance remains ensconced within narratives which glorify, advocate or slander a legitimate right from which the PA has alienated itself consciously. However, it is necessary to combat the contemporary compromise which has been asserted countless times by the PA in its embrace of negotiations and denial of collective Palestinian aspirations.

Reverting to resistance would provide the opportunity for unification of Palestinians as a nation dispossessed by settler-colonialism. If resistance is to be incorporated by the PA, its leaders need to put an end to security and other collaboration with Israel. At present, Tirawi’s statement is ambiguous and risks becoming irrelevant, if the articulation of resistance remains conditioned by the outcome of the negotiations. Furthermore, the PA must divest itself of its collaboration with the imperialist-sanctioned settler-colonial state, reconcile itself with Palestinian history and terminate its role in deconstructing and depriving Palestinians of their right to assert and defend collective memory. Sustaining any form of agreement with Israel renders discourse pertaining to resistance a mere interlude to divert attention away from the perpetual loss of land and nationhood.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.