Palestinians support coordinated armed resistance to achieve national rights

The Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research has published the findings of a poll conducted between 17 and 19 March. The survey sought to discover current political trends among Palestinians from the West Bank and the Gaza Strip with regard to the reconciliation efforts between the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority and Hamas, Palestinian elections, the Oslo Accords, security coordination, the two-state paradigm and the level of support for the Jerusalem Intifada.

According to the published findings, while there is more support for the two-state hypothesis when compared to surveys conducted in the second half of last year, the statistics have also revealed that the post-Oslo generation are the least supportive of the internationally-imposed compromise, particularly those living in Gaza. The centre has concluded that while support for the intifada has fallen in the first three months of 2016, it is believed that an escalation towards armed resistance would “help achieve national rights in ways that negotiations could not.”

The trend in favour of armed resistance should be considered in relation to the fact that according to the survey, 91 per cent of respondents “believe that Israel does not abide by the Oslo agreement.” Furthermore, “65 per cent of the public believe that despite his statement to the contrary, President Abbas is not serious about abandoning Palestinian Oslo obligations.” Hamas is considered to be the most supportive of the Jerusalem Intifada, by 70 per cent of respondents, followed by the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) at 62 per cent.

In its introduction to the survey, the centre states that, “A majority backs a two-state solution and support for knife attacks has dropped.” The results reveal the stark difference in opinion between the generations, as well as diverse views regarding complacency, expectations and intent.

Primarily, the alleged majority backing a two-state hypothesis is representative rather than definite. Increased colonial expansion on Israel’s behalf will ensure that the purported majority in favour of the two-state compromise will disintegrate, thus paving the way for the younger generation of Palestinians to establish their own definition of resistance. Already, the post-Oslo generation have altered the course of resistance by plunging into a revolt which is not backed by Palestinian resistance factions, apart from their consistent political rhetoric that has not been translated into coordinated action.

Indeed, the lack of such a shift is reflective of both a need for strategic action as well as a distancing from the complacency that has characterised the exploitation of Palestinian territory and lives. Younger Palestinians have exhibited an awareness of both, despite the fact that the uncoordinated resistance tactics have lessened the impact that organised armed resistance would have achieved.

However, it is evident that dependency upon the internationally-recognised Palestinian representation has been severed. As regards Palestinian resistance movements, it is equally clear that while their involvement in resistance coordination would possibly provide an added strength, there is no expectation that such support will be provided. Palestinian youth have carved their historical niche and time is required to analyse its evolution.

Of course, this unprecedented action should provoke serious questioning within established Palestinian movements. Their current marginalisation is a consequence of the devaluation of resistance through compromise and diplomacy. This is not to say that their role is obsolete. As seen recently, Israeli colonial violence is still obsessed with Palestinians involved historically in resistance; the targeted assassination of PFLP member Omar Nayef Zayed is a testimony to such a mindset. Clearly, the role of Palestinian resistance movements, if divested of the prevailing dilution of their purpose, can help to define the younger generation’s embodiment of armed struggle against all forms of Israel’s political violence.

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