Despite professed support for Palestinians, Russian rhetoric falls within set parameters

The “Jerusalem Intifada”, as Hamas calls it, has elicited predictable statements by the international community urging caution and calm; most are based upon an unfounded premise that makes no distinction between the coloniser and the colonised. In recent days, Hamas has been escalating its rhetoric, stating that the resistance movement and Palestinians in Gaza are ready to join forces with Palestinians in the West Bank, an example of unity through resistance that still has to manifest itself practically.

While the Palestinian Authority and the international community have been calling for the deployment of international forces to protect Palestinians, Hamas has turned to Russia in its diplomatic efforts. According to a report on the Hamas website, the Chairman of its Political Bureau, Khaled Meshaal, phoned Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, who is also the Special Presidential Envoy for the Middle East and North Africa, to discuss crimes committed by the Israeli state and its illegal settlers.

Meshaal called upon Russia “to exert more effort to pressure the Israeli occupation to stop its violations and crimes against the Palestinian people and the Islamic holy places.” According to reports, Bogdanov promised that “Russia will exert efforts on the issue.”

At an international level, Russia has already stated that it holds Israel responsible for the violence unleashed in the West Bank. During a UN Security Council meeting, the representative of the Russian Federation, Vitaly Churkin, also called for international protection for the Palestinians, citing a letter by Mahmoud Abbas dated July 2014 which included the same request.

However, despite Russia’s declarations that Israel is responsible for the violence, its political jargon at an international level has not differed from that of other imperialist countries. In his address to the Security Council, Churkin insisted that “both parties needed to stop the violence and ensure measures were taken to de-escalate the situation.” Churkin also argued in favour of “normalising the situation around holy sites in East Jerusalem” and stated that the current “tension” is directly related “to the 1967 occupation”. Russia, according to Churkin, is ready “to help de-escalate the situation, including through the Quartet.”

It is a convenient time to speak about normalisation, in any context. Ultimately, the destruction of Palestine has been based upon the normalisation of Israel’s colonial process, to the extent that there is not a single country that has spoken-out consistently about decolonisation. Within the current scenario, normalisation will amount to nothing other than a temporary lull in Israel’s brutal extermination agenda, while the international community continues to make efforts towards maintaining the 1967 parameters and ensuring that Palestine is completely depleted through insistence upon diplomatic processes hampered by blatant ulterior motives.

Russia might portray itself as an alternative to imperialism and in some cases it has succeeded, such as when Russian President Vladimir Putin announced the cancellation of 90 per cent of Cuba’s debt since the Soviet era. With regards to Palestine, though, Russia is still playing various roles which, so far, have not presented Palestinians with a dependable ally; Putin’s rhetoric has also been staunchly loyal to the two-state compromise, for example.

Given the shifting priorities of countries that could be considered as potential allies, Hamas is left with little negotiating power within the international arena. This makes the resistance movement’s commitment to liberation an increasingly difficult task to fulfil and, in turn, reveals the Palestinian anti-colonial struggle as not only dependent upon several factors, but also hindered by the diplomatic overtures and shifting of priorities that are lending themselves to yet further normalisation – and thus acceptance – of Israel’s brutality.

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