Resistance shows the way to reclaim historical liberation struggle

Support for Palestinian armed resistance against the latest colonial massacre labelled by Israel as “Operation Protective Edge” has been endorsed internationally. This signifies a departure from decades of compromise in the form of the imperialist usurpation entitled the “two-state solution”. Protests against Israel have erupted worldwide, creating a pronounced difference between internationalist solidarity from the masses and the predictable bias shared by Israel’s allies.

Iran and Lebanon’s Hezbollah have been particularly vociferous about support for the Palestinian armed struggle which, in turn, elicits a deeper reflection of the extent to which resistance is endorsed and advocated. Political concessions over the original struggle against Zionist settler-colonisation resulted in varying levels of support, with many world leaders expressing compromised support for Palestine in order to retain the benefits of dealing with the fabricated Israeli state recognised by the UN. The trend remains evident even within the context of the latest massacre, prosecuted deceitfully upon the alleged involvement of Hamas in the deaths of the three teenage settlers, a premise which Israel has now admitted was unfounded.

Reports regarding the latest Human Rights Council Special Session in Geneva illustrate the recurring trend of attempting to achieve balance, with several countries “condemning equally” Hamas rockets in a bid to appease Israel. In perfect synchronisation, such countries also referred to international law as a plausible and impartial solution to “hostilities”, conveniently disregarding the interpretations which have allowed Israel to germinate an aura of impunity; the main culprits are the US, UK and UN. For them, the murder of Palestinian civilians remains nothing more than rhetorical embellishment, bequeathed with an interpretation divested of settler-colonial impact.

Statements by the Iranian Foreign Ministry have been explicit in their support for Palestinian resistance. According to reports on Press TV, the ministry stated, “At a time that the Zionist entity is concentrating its mind on the annihilation of the basic rights of the Palestinian people, the only way to confront the Zionists’ bullying will be resistance.” The “ferocious massacre of defenceless Palestinian women and children” since the start of the holy [fasting] month of Ramadan, added the statement, “puts the seal of approval on the savagery and the barbaric nature of a regime which resorts to every tool to reach its objectives.”

The Tehran Times also reported about protests organised in solidarity with the Palestinian people. The rallies, in which Iranian officials participated, were marked by adamant criticism of reliance on imperialists for justice. “The Palestinian people will not acquire their rights through reliance on international organisations,” declared Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

According to Aljazeera America, the Brigadier General and Commander of the Revolutionary Guard Air Force, Amir Ali Hajizadel, called for the Palestinians to be armed, regardless of their location. “We believe that the West Bank, too, should be armed just like Gaza,” he argued, “and those who are interested in the fate of the Palestinians must work in this respect so that the pains and miseries of the Palestinian people will be lessened.” Iran’s Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani also emphasised Iran’s role in Palestinian resistance by stating that the country aided Hamas through the provision of technology to manufacture better weapons.

Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah called Hamas’s resistance an “emerging triumphant force”. In a speech in Beirut, Nasrallah declared: “Hamas, relying on armed resistance, has emerged the victor in Gaza. Israel and the rest of the world have failed to achieve their targets.” Nasrallah reserved harsh criticism for Arab leaders’ complicity with Israel and vowed continuous support for all Palestinian resistance factions. According to Lebanon’s Daily Star, he insisted that Hezbollah stands beside the Palestinian people and the Palestinian resistance without exception. Commenting on the shift in resistance strategy, Nasrallah added, “With this formula, the resistance succeeded in imposing new methods on the enemy, and that’s not easy for someone like Netanyahu to admit.”

In order to be authentic, support for Palestinian armed struggle must reflect unity between the land and the people, identified historically by the main Palestinian factions as absolute, as well as a proper recognition of what constitutes “the enemy”. This approach was studied meticulously by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), whose manifesto “Strategy for the Liberation of Palestine” emphasises the importance of political thought as the means of defining Palestine’s enemies. The PFLP manifesto defines four entities: Israel, the World Zionist Movement, world imperialism and Arab reaction represented by feudalism and capitalism.

Prior to the corrosion of resistance through negotiations and concessions, Palestinian factions engaged in ideological strategy combined with armed resistance. Hence, the provision of a proper focus upon the necessity of eliminating settler-colonialism in Palestine, as evidenced in the original charters pertaining to resistance groups.

The Palestinian National Charter, endorsed in 1964, affirmed armed struggle as the only means to achieve liberation. Besides refusing recognition of the UN’s 1947 partition resolution explicitly, the charter recognised the liberation of Palestine from an internationalist perspective, as “a defensive act necessitated by the requirements of self-defence”. Article 22 of the charter affirmed Zionism as an extension of world imperialism, a concept since eliminated through decades of negotiations resulting in the consolidation of Israel’s settler-colonial project. “Israel is the tool of the Zionist movement and is a human and geographic base for world imperialism,” insisted the text.

The Hamas Covenant of 1988 recognises the historical links of the Palestinian resistance by positioning the movement as a continuation of the struggle against Zionist colonial invasion since 1948. It also rejected the spuriousness of international conferences as a means of “solving the Palestinian question”, declaring such initiatives as detrimental to Palestinian liberation. Isolation is mentioned explicitly: “World Zionism, together with imperialistic powers, tries through a studied plan and an intelligent strategy to remove one Arab state after another from the circle of struggle against Zionism, in order to have it finally face the Palestinian people only.” (Article 32)

What the Palestinian resistance will achieve following the renewed embrace of legitimate armed resistance depends upon interpretation and subsequent political agenda. The main Palestinian factions, Hamas and the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority, have both relinquished the objective of the total liberation of Palestine in previous years. This tragedy was cemented by the formation of the Palestinian unity government which requires absolute acquiescence towards implementing the hypothetical and hypocritical two-state solution. The unity government seems to have faded from centre stage following the massacres perpetrated by Israel in Gaza over the month of Ramadan, which have succeeded in uniting the Palestinian people irrespective of location, experience or political affiliation. If focus shifts from political compromise to unified resistance, Israel would face an authentic challenge, one that does not simply call for an end to military occupation without reinforcing the fight against the historical process of settler-colonialism. If, as many are arguing vociferously, liberation is the aim of the current resistance, with an end to settler-colonialism and the restoration of the land to the rightful indigenous population in its entirety, Israel should be coming to terms with its own demise in terms of structure, demography and the fragmentation of its own myths.

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