Reconciliation as a prelude to unified resistance and challenge to the UN

As speculation regarding reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas erupts intermittently in the media, Hamas spokesperson Ihab Al-Ghussein identified the political necessities for the Palestinian people, emphasising unity and resistance as essential components. As Hamas persists in the struggle against the illegal blockade imposed by Israel, Al-Ghussein explained the dynamics that rendered resistance an imperative for Palestinians. “The reason behind the siege is our people’s adherence to resistance, their rights and the Palestinian constants.”

The Palestinian Authority (PA) delegation’s visit to Gaza has been welcomed by Hamas. In a report by the Palestinian media agency AlRay regarding the outcome of the weekly meeting held by the Palestinian government in Gaza, it said Hamas urged Abbas to persist in pursuing international recognition while stressing the importance of refusing to surrender to Israeli pressure and urging a decisive termination to the farcical negotiations.

In this regard, reservations have been voiced over the perpetual political subservience which Abbas has exhibited and implemented relentlessly. Despite the recent exhibition of belated autonomy which led Abbas to seek international recognition following Israel’s refusal to release the fourth group of Palestinian political prisoners, the PA and Hamas differ exceedingly on what constitutes reconciliation, departing from ideology, allegiances and divergent loyalties.

Resistance and liberation continue to shape the ideology of Hamas. The legitimacy of resistance is continuously stressed in a manner that takes into consideration the applicability of international law while repudiating its imperialist impositions. Hamas retained the freedom to define its narration from within the Palestinian experience and identity, challenging the normalisation of Israel’s settler-colonial expansion and the veneer of its self-imposed legitimacy derived from decades of international acceptance of atrocities committed against the Palestinian people.

Conversely, the PA has degenerated into a willing accomplice of oppression, aligning itself with Israel and the segment of the international community which absorbs and implements the hegemonic narrative. The inception of Fatah in 1959 and its anti-colonial struggle have been replaced with a leadership whose detachment from the people led to decades of fragmenting Palestinian unity. In return for compliance, the PA has been exalted within the international community as a non-violent negotiating partner.

Herein lies one of the fundamental differences between Hamas and the PA. While Hamas advocates and embraces, through participation, the magnitude of the Palestinian struggle; the PA repudiates its significance in order to accommodate repressive external influences whose priorities are the maintenance and survival of the settler-colonial state. It is through an analysis of the constant adherence to resistance and the refutation of imperialist-brokered negotiations that reconciliation should primarily be discussed, rather than the hypothetical means of achieving an agreement with the PA that borders upon compromise.

If reconciliation is to be compatible with Palestinian resistance, it is essential that the PA abandons its compliance with the ruthless adversaries whose aim is the destruction of Palestine and the people through various tactics that reinforce oblivion and annihilation. In this regard, Al-Ghussein reiterated considerable doubt that the PA would be willing to forfeit its deceptive prestige. “They have no real will to achieve the reconciliation especially in light of negotiations with Israel.”

As Ma’an reported a few days ago, Hamas’ Fawzi Barhoun insisted upon the necessity of terminating security coordination with Israel and giving “full rein” to resistance in the West Bank. The comments were uttered in light of the punitive sanctions imposed by Israel upon the PA in retaliation for seeking international recognition. However, the settler-colonial state made sure not to jeopardise security coordination, which renders Israel and the PA accomplices in oppression and torture.

Mainstream narratives may attempt to shift the dynamics of reconciliation in favour of the PA, in an attempt to safeguard the erroneous projections constructed through decades of intentional misinterpretation of history from possible erosion. As evidenced during the negotiations, Abbas embarked upon a series of fluctuating decisions entailing the forfeiting of Palestinian identity and memory in order to placate the patronising international community. Seeking international recognition after months of aiding Israel’s expansionist policies, as well as refusing to terminate oppressive practices against Palestinians, can be construed as indications of attempts to undermine Hamas and the foundations upon which reconciliation should be established.

The obstacles hindering a more comprehensive understanding of this dynamic is the illusion created by the alleged abruptness of Abbas’ decision, as well as the expectations with regards to Palestinian rights. However, accession to international treaties has been initiated by a leader whose allegiances to Palestinians have been severed in favour of compliance with colonial and imperial domination. In light of continued security coordination with Israel and the adherence to external and hostile interpretations of Palestinian autonomy, it is difficult to envisage representation of a unified Palestinian challenge with regard to the imperialist organisation controlling legitimacy and recognition.

Hamas, on the other hand, has presented a constant challenge to the impunity bestowed upon Israel and the United Nations. In securing the legitimate right for Palestinian resistance away from the interpretations bestowed by Israel’s allies, which is necessary to render the struggle authentic, Hamas has exhibited the natural correlation between resistance and reconciliation. In the absence of reconciliation as a requirement towards unified resistance, the international platform secured through becoming a signatory to treaties will be rendered an additional capitulation to imperialist oppression. Unless the PA rectifies its excessive concessions granted to Israel, including acceptance of the settler-colonial state disguised by rhetoric of a state based upon the 1967 borders as opposed to dismantling the illegality, the exposure allowed by the UN will degenerate into another avenue promoting agreement and reconciliation rendered an ambiguous concept utilised to promote further deterioration of Palestinian land and memory.

Resistance is capable of maintaining itself with or without international recognition. Hamas’ emphasis upon Palestinian unity, resistance and liberation, as opposed to negotiated settlements and submission, demonstrate the severity of the impediments constructed by the international community and embraced by the PA. Any attempt to eliminate Hamas and its commitment to resistance only serves to exhibit the incongruence of reconciliation divested of its essential component – reconciliation founded within a unified Palestinian resistance, through which liberation can be articulated by utilising the international platform.

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