Thwarting Israel’s selective narrative

Almost simultaneously, Israeli and Palestinian media have issued news reports regarding the current status of the Jerusalem Intifada. While the motivations behind such information are diverging, both have reiterated common issues – Israeli belligerence and security coordination.

Israel’s Ynet News has quoted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as attributing a decline in Palestinian resistance to a “determined, responsible and systematic policy led by the government”. Speaking during a weekly cabinet meeting last Sunday, Netanyahu stated that a combination of offensive and defensive action by the IDF, Shin Bet and the Israeli police “has led to the terrorists succeeding less”.

Israeli statistics cited during the meeting showed that in March, a total of 20 allegedly “significant attacks” were carried out, which portrayed a decline since October 2015. The statistics, collected by Shin Bet, were also attributed to Israel’s military and surveillance system. Shin Bet added that “terror organisations, primarily Hamas, have been trying in recent months to execute terror attacks in the West Bank and in Israel to further escalate the situation”.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Ma’an News Agency quoted Hamas Spokesman Husam Badran stating that the PA is contributing towards strangling the process of the Jerusalem Intifada by “adopting a revolving door policy, where pro-intifada activists illegally detained by the PA would be released and then arrested by the Israeli occupation shortly after”. The collaboration between the PA and Israel was described by Badran as “betraying the Jerusalem Intifada”. Badran also called upon Palestinian factions to oppose PA security coordination in order to protect Palestinians involved in the current resistance.

The reality articulated by Badran was elaborated upon last February by rights groups B’Tselem and HaMoked, whose detailed report included testimonies of Palestinian prisoners being transferred to the Israeli authorities after being tortured by the PA security services. The report also claimed that security coordination involved the sharing of information between Palestinian and Israeli interrogators, eliciting denials by the PA despite daily evidence of how extensive and essential security coordination is to the survival of the entity.

Despite the dissemination of rhetorical support, there is, perhaps, a misplacement of priorities and contexts. As is particularly evident during prominent hunger strikes, aspects of PA collaboration with Israel are given priority within a visible context, rather than as a perpetual reality affecting Palestine’s social and economic structure. While assertions during escalations will serve to highlight the immediate trend of human rights violations, eliminating the sequential aspect is providing Israel with a formidable defence particularly within the international community, which has exhibited its indoctrination to selective colonial narrative.

If Palestinian factions require an escalation of state and settler violence to assert opposition to PA collaboration with Israel, it is a sign that the concept of resistance, which historically defined Palestinian movements, has reached a treacherous level of acquiescence. This is a result of diplomatic efforts as well as the ramifications of Operation Protective Edge, which have led Hamas, in particular, to seek a redefinition of their political identity which keeps hovering incessantly between calls for liberation and rhetoric compliant to the two-state paradigm.

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