The dangers of dissociation

The latest Israeli legislation seeking to ban the Muslim call to prayer in Jerusalem has united Palestinians — Muslims and Christians alike — in overtly collective resistance. Over the past few days, there has been gradual defiance in protest against the discriminatory bill; this has included churches reciting the call to prayer and Palestinians delivering a single chorus from the rooftops. Several excuses for the legislation were given by the authorities, including security concerns — yes, really — and “noise pollution”.

Perhaps the most succinct statement regarding the legislation came from Haneen Zoabi MK, who was quoted by Al-Jazeera: “The issue is not about noise in their ears but about the noise in their minds. What disturbs them so much is the noise of the Palestinians’ presence in their own homeland.”

On the surface, the issue might be framed as a restriction of religious practice. Two years ago during so-called Operation Protective Edge, Israel destroyed a third of the mosques in Gaza. Al-Aqsa Mosque in the Old City of Jerusalem has also long been the site of Israeli state and settler agitation which in turn has led to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu passing further oppressive, provocative legislation against Palestinian resistance. Given that Israel has not yet managed to colonise Jerusalem completely, despite its comprehensive efforts to Judaise the city, the strategy is to further the concept of oppression as a legal obligation. While it is obvious that banning the call to prayer is not an isolated, discriminatory step by Israel, there has been little discussion tying the current bill to previous Israeli incitement in Jerusalem.

During a rally held in Gaza which combined opposition to the ban as well as support for Palestinian resistance, Palestine Legislative Council member Dr Yousef Al-Sharafi from Hamas is reported to have said that continuing the Jerusalem Intifada can eliminate “the occupation” and halt its violations. The Times of Israel partially quoted a statement by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal on the topic: “What the Israeli occupation state is doing at Al-Aqsa Mosque, as well as preventing the call to prayer in Jerusalem, is playing with fire.” Meanwhile, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is reported to be seeking the international limelight once again by bringing up the issue at the UN Security Council.

As far as upholding a coherent narrative is concerned, Hamas has done well in refusing to isolate the bill from Israel’s previous violations and the commencement of the Jerusalem Intifada last year. However, the trend of glorification has outshone the need for organised strategy, which renders the movement’s claims that the intifada can destroy Israel’s military occupation highly debatable. A brief recapitulation of last year’s collective efforts at resisting state and settler terror shows no consistent involvement of Palestinian resistance groups, other than disconnected pledges to help which evaporated as soon as they had been uttered. The lack of organisation itself triggered questions as to whether the resistance which started at Al-Aqsa could be classified as an intifada, providing further evidence of resistance groups distancing themselves from the people’s actions. At the same time, there was an increase in efforts to retain the description of “intifada”, possibly because it triggered recognition within resistance memory.

That said, the resistance movements would do well to analyse their current input, or lack thereof, at a time when Israel is exceeding its depravity in the elimination of anything and everything Palestinian. There is a very remote possibility of structured mobilisation among Palestinians due to the widespread ramifications of colonial oppression and violence, as well as the added burden of not having a reliable leader. Resistance movements, on the other hand, have a slightly higher level of assertion, yet it seems as if dissociation is also starting to thrive, with the result that what remains of Palestine is being turned into a tragic epilogue.

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