Resistance movements should incorporate historical Palestinian memory

After much speculation and debate about whether Palestinian resistance in the occupied West Bank constitutes a third intifada, Palestinian leaders have incorporated the term into their discourse. However, labelling the current surge in Palestinian resistance as an “uprising” is irrelevant. It is far more important to delve into the premise supporting such an argument, something which Hamas has started to do.

During last week’s Friday prayers, the movement’s deputy leader Ismail Haniyeh declared Gaza’s willingness to participate in the resistance. “The Palestinian intifada has revived to liberate Al-Aqsa, and we as Gazans intend to join,” he said, while insisting that, “This current uprising must be continued until the day of liberation.”

Notably, Hamas has departed from a concept of Palestinian unity through resistance. The current resistance against Israeli state and settler terror in the West Bank was discussed within the context of Gaza’s resistance against Israel’s systematic, colonial offensives against and in the enclave. Haniyeh’s expression is the culmination of what was omitted from the negotiations leading up to the formation of the Palestinian unity government, when unity through resistance was marginalised to pave the way for compromised diplomacy and the ostracising of Hamas.

Senior Hamas official Moussa Abu Marzouk also stressed the importance of inter-Palestinian discussion in order to enhance resistance capabilities and called for the media to disseminate the reality of “Jerusalem’s Intifada”, which is how Hamas is defining the current uprising on its website. “We have to foster a spirit of brotherhood, love, unity and cooperation among us,” he said, “and to face the occupation and its policies by shooting it from one bow.”

However, Hamas’s political rhetoric still requires a stronger connection between the current realities and Palestinian history. While a sense of unity can clearly be gleaned from Haniyeh’s discourse, which amalgamates resistance in Gaza and the West Bank, it is a disservice to Palestinians to omit other important factors, namely that the current Israeli atrocities are an extension of the Nakba, as well as the foundations of Palestinian resistance in anti-colonial struggle. A brief glance at the Jewish terrorists’ extermination and ethnic cleansing methods as detailed in their 1948 “Plan Dalet”, reveals the foundations of a colonial state that has sought consistently to perfect its means of oppression; all, of course, with the complicity of the international community.

Hence, it is erroneous to simplify the current resistance in the West Bank and any possible collaboration between Palestinian resistance factions as “fighting the occupation”; such a description lacks the insight which would provide further legitimacy through Palestinian history and memory. This narrow vision accommodates international impositions upon Palestinians and, as a result, restricts the definition of liberation as expressed by Hamas, due to the inherent, indirect reference and acquiescence to the two-state compromise, which is still cited as a paradigm, despite the negotiations proving to be another form of colonial violence.

The Palestinians are not facing an occupation. They are facing colonial violence, expansionism and international complicity, which render the struggle far more complex than what Hamas is articulating. Defining resistance as an act against a manifestation, or consequence, of colonial violence, would constitute a major realignment of decades of Palestinian struggle within historical memory.

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