The Palestinian uprising should provoke a rethinking of resistance factions

Palestinian collective resistance in the occupied West Bank has been characterised by various levels of defiance. Apart from taking a stance against settler-colonial terror, Israeli state brutality and the Palestinian Authority’s cherished security-coordination with the occupier, the current uprising is also shaping Palestinian unity, away from the impositions dictated by the diplomatic context of how resistance and unity should be defined and implemented.

Hamas, which spoke recently about the necessity of unity and resistance (departing from the resilience shown by Palestinians during Israel’s colonial offensive against Gaza last year), articulated the current resistance during a televised address to a demonstration in Lebanon by Ismail Haniyeh.

According to Ma’an news agency, Haniyeh declared, “Some people thought that our people have tired of intifadas, revolutions and resistance, and even based their strategies on the thought that our people would not rise again. However, the Al-Quds Intifada came to thwart all their plans.”

More importantly, Haniyeh stressed that national unity was “embodied today by Palestinian people in the field” and that “no power in the world will succeed in putting out the Al-Quds Intifada.”

Haniyeh’s statements are revealing and can be construed within different perceptions of diplomacy and resistance in relation to resistance factions. During Operation Protective Edge, Palestinian resistance factions contributed to the defence of Gaza in a manner that projected a temporary exhibition of unity against colonial aggression.

Following the ceasefire, the inability to retain that coordination became clear, as Gaza was once again coerced into different forms of political violence following the Egypt-brokered ceasefire and the intentionally incompetent UN mechanism for rebuilding Gaza, which is the international community’s effort aiding both Israel and Egypt in their objective; the forced internal displacement of Palestinians in the enclave and the gradual rendering of Gaza as uninhabitable territory. In the process, Hamas was marginalised and sought increasingly to balance its aims as a resistance movement with the need to seek diplomatic support.

The current resistance is far removed from any rhetoric, to the point that Palestinian resistance movements run the risk of being reduced to spectators. Hamas has reiterated its support for the uprising on several occasions, refuting international intervention in Jerusalem, a stance that has also characterised its previous declarations regarding foreign interference in Gaza.

However, the statements are far from influential at the moment, given the people’s determination to construct their own resistance. The current uprising portrays an unprecedented independence of the masses and strives to break away from the political restrictions that hamper a defined and organised anti-colonial struggle encompassing all resistance factions. Hamas is still attempting to achieve an impossible balance between diplomacy and resistance strategies. Given the collective determination to sustain the uprising and the reluctance of Palestinian resistance factions to support the current expression of resilience actively, it is possible that diplomacy may also need to be reinvented. At all costs, the trend of resorting to international organisations should be rejected adamantly, in order to minimise further colonial ramifications and compromise.

Rather than the usual scenario of people supporting the actions of organised resistance factions, Palestinians have, on this occasion, embarked upon a magnificent role reversal that should lead resistance factions to question and rethink not only their aims, but also their very existence and significance. The rapidly changing political dynamics do not necessitate a capitulation to euphemisms such as “negotiations” but need a definite revisiting of the anti-colonial ideology that characterised the emergence of Palestinian resistance movements in the first place.

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