Defining resistance away from diplomatic overtures

“Hamas is a part of the Palestinian people, and it behaves as a main element of its people, it doesn’t have an independent vision from its people.” These words, uttered by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in a recent interview that provided insightful commentary about Palestine from within a historical and contemporary perspective, emphasise the significance of the movement in relation to the people. Evidenced through Hamas’ resistance against Israel’s colonial massacre in Gaza last summer, the interview sheds light upon resistance, reconciliation, diplomacy and the Zionist manipulation of Palestine’s national struggle for liberation – a distortion willingly endorsed and disseminated by the international community. However, the attempts to clarify the apparent contradictions between resistance and reconciliation echo the two-state compromise – a concession that diverges from the previous aims of total liberation.

At a time when the Palestinian unity government has dominated mainstream discourse, largely due to its acquiescence to imperialist demands, the need of asserting resistance, in particular on behalf of Hamas, is of utmost importance to combat the resulting marginalisation of the movement, through the dominating political framework espoused by Fatah and its constant adherence to the international community’s impositions. However, the use of certain terminology in the transcript pertaining to Meshaal’s interview is indicative of the mellowing of armed resistance for diplomacy, which changes the aim of total liberation for a settlement based upon the internationally-endorsed two-state compromise.

A stronger narrative of Palestinian history and memory is retained, particularly evident in Meshaal’s discussion about armed resistance which can be interpreted in a manner that separates the unequivocal theoretical adherence by all Palestinian factions from actual endorsement and application. However, a clear distinction between the official commitment to resistance and the rejection of resistance in favour of negotiations by the Palestinian Authority is less evident. Throughout Israel’s massacre on Gaza last summer, the PA emphasised the importance of resuming negotiations while ridiculing armed resistance – thus blatantly expressing a preference for diplomatic overtures with international oppressors complicit in supporting and maintaining Israel’s “Operation Protective Edge” both financially and through the supply of weapons to be used against Palestinians in Gaza.

Meshaal’s words depart from the tangible context – the Palestinian resistance and reaction to Israel’s colonial violence in Al-Aqsa and settlement expansion in Jerusalem within the historical framework and the necessity of holding Israel accountable as the perpetrator of all violence since the establishment of the illegal state. The perspective is a departure from the common dissection of events into isolated occurrences by entities hostile to the Palestinian resistance. However, in certain instances the Zionist colonisation process is misrepresented, according to the published transcript of the interview. Attempts to convey the incredible losses suffered by Palestinians as absolute are contradictory to history, memory and resistance. While rightfully describing Palestinian resistance as a spontaneous reaction to decades of human rights violations, the statement framing the ensuing argument creates a dissonance when compared to the historical reality and the Zionist colonisation process which, in turn, raises questions about the compatibility of the current reconciliation agreement and resistance.

Meshaal states: “The Palestinian people no longer have anything to lose.” Although a common expression emphasising the accelerated fragmentation of Palestine, the implications for Palestinians and resistance are magnified, especially in light of the efforts of Palestinians to safeguard their memory against extreme restrictions and oppression.

Departing from the fact that Zionist colonisation in Palestine is, as yet, an incomplete process, the statement ignores the historical affirmations of aiming to achieve both ideological and territorial expansion, as well as the gradual decline of Palestinian resistance as a result of the usurping process and Palestinian leaders’ attempts to gain legitimacy through the granting of concessions to Israel. Palestinian resistance should not be amalgamated to loss – rather a process that involves fighting against accelerated loss wrought by imperialist-supported colonisation.

A more accurate expression that conveys an intentionally-concealed reality by the international community should be articulated – one that lucidly portrays how Palestinians, despite the lack of international support for Palestinian liberation even from countries that waged their own struggle against colonial, imperial and neoliberal violence, are actively resisting Israel’s atrocious expansion and violations precisely due to the tenacity to safeguard Palestine’s remnants, as well as the longer struggle of reclamation.

Within this context, the issues of reconciliation and resistance need to be re-examined. The initial repercussions of the Palestinian unity government have resulted in the marginalisation of the resistance movement, despite its achievements in resisting “Operation Protective Edge”. Decisions regarding the rebuilding of Gaza have become an issue of international surveillance of the enclave in agreement with Israel and the Palestinian Authority; hence reconciliation that squanders the right of resistance articulated through Palestinian history in favour of a disposition towards compromised solutions goes against Palestinian freedom, as well as unfairly incarcerating Hamas within a role altered from its origins.

The lack of independence in particular with regard to Gaza in the aftermath of Protective Edge became more pronounced, prompting Hamas in earlier months to declare any foreign presence in the enclave as a legitimate military target. Yet the discrepancy between resistance and the two-state compromise as agreed upon by both Fatah and Hamas renders resistance subject to diplomatic restrictions – in itself a contradiction in light of the resistance movement’s new capabilities as demonstrated during Israel’s colonial violence.

In reference to the international community, Meshaal states: “We showed every flexibility required to reach a solution when the Palestinian powers all agreed to a resolution based upon the 1967 borders, what more do they want?” The question is not what the international community desires – that is already enshrined within the unconditional support given to Israel since its inception.

There is no “international impotence” when it comes to a solution for Palestine, but rather a determination that Israel’s colonial process is completed in order to establish imperial domination in the region. Hence, reconciliation should occur on the basis of amalgamating the Palestinian political vision and Palestinian history to produce a coherent struggle for liberation – one that enables Hamas to retain its definition within the realm of Palestinian resistance.

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