The choice between resistance and acquiescence in Palestinian narratives

News briefs regarding Palestinian journalist and hunger striker Muhammad Al-Qeeq have been replete with dire warnings of his imminent death. The recent harrowing video clip of Al-Qeeq writhing in pain has unfortunately contributed to another spectacle which not only increases awareness through visual information but also provides Israel with further satisfaction regarding its systematic oppression.

Given the relentless refusal of the colonial power to negotiate Al-Qeeq’s release, the widely-disseminated video clip can be seen as a documented form of resistance mired in humiliation. The latter may be unintentional, but it has played directly into the hands of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s political violence, which has carefully constructed Al-Qeeq’s deterioration through legislation, policies and the usual fake narratives.

An update by Ma’an news agency has once again stressed Al-Qeeq’s precarious condition. “Even if Al-Qeeq lives,” said lawyer Hiba Masalha from the Palestinian Committee for Prisoners’ Affairs, “it is unlikely that he will ever recover fully from the colossal damage his body has suffered over the course of his gruelling protest.”

A statement that is being regurgitated routinely with regard to the journalist’s hunger strike and Israel’s refusal to terminate his administrative detention order is that the Israeli security establishment believes it has “nothing to lose” by allowing Al-Qeeq to die. Since it was uttered earlier this month by Qadura Fares, head of the Palestinian Prisoners’ Society, this observation has wormed its way into the consciousness in a depraved manner, one that is morally degrading for Al-Qeeq and other Palestinian prisoners embarking upon different forms of resistance.

More than anything, attaching importance to Israel’s immorality shifts attention away from Palestinian resistance to colonial violence in a twisted manner which demonstrates little concern for the logical separation between the two. As mentioned previously, Israel has already prepared itself for any possibility, be it reversing the administrative detention order or letting Al-Qeeq perish.

The colonial entity has endorsed the practice of administrative detention within the strict parameters allowed under international law. Hence, even if the international community decides to dedicate its efforts towards Al-Qeeq, it would be contradicting its own legislation. Netanyahu has ensured that force-feeding is now part of Israeli law under the pretext of security concerns, despite international consensus against the practice as outlined in the WMA Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers (1991).

It is indeed pertinent to keep in mind Israel’s construction of its ability to act with impunity, aided by the international community. However, coming from Palestinians and activists alike, it is prudent to refrain from allowing awareness to sabotage Palestinian resistance. The various levels of resistance currently personified by Al-Qeeq’s hunger strike should remain at the helm of preserving this strand of Palestinian narrative.

Given international support for Israel’s colonisation of Palestine, it has been clear for decades that Israel has “nothing to lose” in every act of violence it authors. Palestinians, however, are still struggling. Despite an overwhelming political conspiracy and the failure of Palestinian leaders to embody and lead the anti-colonial effort, the people have persisted in reclaiming their struggle and still have a choice between resistance to Israel’s occupation and acquiescence. The least that can be done is to avoid any disservice to Palestinian memory, while making a conscious decision to refuse to view the Palestinian experience through the colonial lens.

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