Confronting the occupation’s violence strategically

A Palestinian took the invaders’ weapon, turning it against them to defend his homeland. Immediately hordes of settlers attacked Palestinian towns throughout the occupied West Bank. This is a common pattern in Palestine and Lebanon, especially after the launch of the Al-Aqsa Flood. And it is a calculated one. The occupation imposes as much domination as it can without provoking a massive uprising: apartheid within the occupied territories, a blockade in Gaza, displacement and Judaization in the West Bank, and near-daily killings in Lebanon and Syria. And this is what they want us to consider “routine violence.”

As long as the people of the land do not resist, the occupation keeps up this basic violence, gradually escalating it, until we mentally come to terms with its presence. Then, whenever the people of the land resist, the occupation inflicts “additional violence” which it presents as a reaction to the act of resistance.

The message is clear: “Do not resist, or else.” This additional violence is designed to make the people of the land wary of resistance and to make them cry out against their oppression: “Enough violence!”—meaning: “The routine violence is enough; why bring additional violence upon ourselves?”

Thus, the occupation seeks to make acts of resistance costly, just as the resistance seeks to make the occupation costly. It shifts the question from how to confront the occupation to whether it is even worth confronting it. It instills a spirit of defeatism and creates a rift within the colonized society. Perhaps these two tools—defeatism and societal fragmentation—are the most dangerous weapons in the enemy’s arsenal. We have seen the success of this endeavor in the rhetoric that blames the resistance for the colony’s violence—sometimes out of ill will, and at other times out of despair and oppression. Therefore, the resistance must be as diligent in confronting this breach in our societies as it is in confronting the enemy’s breaches on the battlefield. So how do we do so?

First, we must provide a clear, non-sectarian justification for our resistance. One may decide to confront the enemy because one finds meaning in refusing injustice, or based on Islamic, nationalist, or leftist ideologies. But these motivations are not shared by everyone in our communities. Justifying the resistance on this basis suggests that our motives are the cause of “additional violence,” and therefore that abandoning them would bring about peace. In contrast, highlighting the reality of the Zionist project as one of subjugation and explaining how it employs violence draws attention to the cost of non-resistance and shows that the solution lies not in accepting violence but in eliminating its source.

READ: 2 years after ICJ ruling, UN rights office says settler violence, annexation in West Bank ‘getting worse’

Second, acts of resistance must be viewed with a critical eye. Not all acts of legitimate resistance are effective. We recall here the PFLP’s review of the feasibility of operations outside Palestine, the resistance factions’ review of the option of martyrdom operations, and the evolution of Hamas’s rhetoric leading up to the “Our Narrative” document regarding the targeting of non-combatant settlers. Therefore, rather than hiding behind the reality that “there is no escape from the occupation’s additional violence” to justify any acts of resistance, resistance options must undergo a feasibility study before being implemented and a critical review afterward. In this way, we do not merely seek retaliation but refine it, as the martyr Basil al-Araj put it.

Third, we must carefully manage our approach toward those who do not want confrontation. The human psyche tends toward stability and security, not risk. Never in history has an entire society chosen confrontation. Not everyone who calls for compromise is a traitor; rather, they may be misguided, exhausted, desperate, or something else. Therefore, we must not lump them all together—which would push the desperate toward the traitors—but rather highlight the distinction between them in our vision, our discourse, and our approach. Conversely, we must not welcome compromising rhetoric but rather reject it as an infringement on the right to self-defense. There is also a need for precision in distinguishing between criticism of the principle of resistance and criticism of a specific act of resistance. Therefore, we must carefully define which issues are open to discussion and which are not. Perhaps George Habash’s statement holds the key to this approach: “Those who lack resolve must step aside.” Although they have no right to stand in the way of those who have chosen to defend themselves, they are not compelled to confront them; indeed, we can even facilitate their “stepping aside.”

READ: Israeli airstrike destroys mosque, displaced persons’ tents in Gaza City, leaves hundreds homeless

Fourth, we must involve the community in the struggle. When people are excluded from decision-making circles regarding the form, scale, and timing of the resistance, they feel that the decision to resist has been imposed on them by their leaders. This creates a rift between the leadership and the rest of society, rather than fostering public unity around the resistance. We saw several manifestations of this danger during the Al-Aqsa Flood, one of which was the call by leaders and resistance fighters to stay away from places where “the others” were present. This issue can be addressed on at least two levels: First, by involving the community in resistance decisions through democratic organizations that welcome dialogue and participation in decision-making, based on enmity to the colony. Second, involving the community in resistance action by not limiting it to armed struggle. This brings us to our final point.

Finally, we must mobilize the energies of our community to build strength. The Zionist project exercises violence to the extent that the balance of power allows, and there are many arenas where we must confront it to shift that balance. How can we produce some food in Gaza, and is it possible to create digital job opportunities there? How can the West Bank’s dependence on Israeli power grids and banks be broken? How can Palestinians inside the green line devise mechanisms for representation separate from Knesset elections to oppose the occupying state rather than appeal to it? How can a productive economy be built to free Jordan from its dependence on the colony? How can we push for the restoration of Syria’s capacity to stand firm against the colony? How can we adopt policies that preserve the cohesion of Lebanese society in the face of the enemy’s efforts to fragment it? How can Palestine lead the global movements in its support? How can we stimulate the reverse migration of Jews from Palestine? How can we establish a resistance media that exploits the contradictions among the settlers to drive them toward infighting? And what are the other overlooked arenas of confrontation?

As we have mentioned, the occupation’s violence is calculated, and our response to it must be calculated as well. Let us therefore move toward a liberating and democratic political project that protects our societies from defeat and disintegration and mobilizes their capacities until the colony is dismantled.

OPINION: Do not surrender to despair or hope

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