Between Intifada and Resistance

by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem

Media attention to the prospect of a new Palestinian intifada has risen because of the events unfolding in the Palestinian territory occupied in ‘67, and it seems these media outlets are searching for an intifada, and want one.

The media call the “new” intifada, should it happen and continue, the third intifada. But in truth, this would be the twenty-fifth intifada in Palestinian history since 1920. The Palestinian people has carried out many uprisings against the British and against the Zionist occupation, and will continue to do so as long as the occupation sits upon the Palestinian people’s chest.

I do not know why Palestinian politicians, or some of them, and the various media outlets, are so preoccupied with a new intifada — do they see it as the way out of the impasse of occupation, and the means of reaching a solution to the Palestinian cause? Looking at history, we do not find a single Palestinian intifada that produced what was needed for Palestinians at the time. All our uprisings have failed, and some produced negative results for the Palestinian people, such as the 1987 intifada, which the Palestinian leadership crowned with recognition of Israel and, afterward, security coordination.

Here we must distinguish between intifada and resistance. An intifada consists of acts of protest — stone-throwing, issuing statements, burning tires, writing on walls, and so on — while gunfire is not a protest act but an act of resistance. Some Palestinian uprisings have included gunfire, or bombings and acts of martyrdom, but this has never constituted a daily phenomenon such that we could say resistance is ablaze in Palestine. An intifada protests the practices of the controlling party, which takes painful measures against people, restricting them, wounding their dignity, and disrupting their daily lives — it is not a means of liberation but a means of easing harsh measures against people. The protester does not have in mind ridding himself of the one who oppresses or subjugates him; rather, he places his concerns before the oppressor and all who support him, hoping they might take his demands into consideration. That is, protest constitutes a means of drawing attention and warning the occupier or controlling power that matters could explode.

Resistance differs from protest, which is usually marked by peaceful or semi-peaceful means. Resistance constitutes an open and clear confrontation aimed at ridding oneself of the occupier or controlling power, and it spares no means of confrontation, however violent, in pursuit of that goal. Resistance is a reaction to an action, and whoever carries out that reaction aims to eliminate and overcome the source of pain and subjugation. The reaction is usually marked by the use of the very same methods and means the controlling power itself employs — if bullets are one of the controller’s tools, then whoever resists does not hesitate to use bullets wherever possible.

Resistance has several stages, and boycott, in all its forms, constitutes the first stage of resistance. The one who suffers harm proceeds to boycott the occupier economically, culturally, politically, commercially, academically, and so on, maintaining no relationship at all with his adversary beyond one of confrontation. The second stage consists of partial civil disobedience, which includes defying certain laws and instructions the occupier legislates, with the aim of complicating its ability to pursue people. For instance, people stop licensing their cars, or refuse to teach certain curricula in schools and teach something different from what the enemy wants instead.

The third stage consists of total civil disobedience, meaning refusal to comply with any of the occupation’s laws and instructions, and forming committees in the various population centers to oversee people’s daily affairs and organize cooperation among themselves. The fourth stage is armed struggle — that is, taking up arms against the enemy and waging a people’s war against it, with the aim of liberation and achieving national independence. This stage is the one that most severely subjugates the enemy and forces it to reconsider inflicting injustice on people, withdrawing to lick its wounds.

What is regrettable in Palestine is that the very first stage of resistance has not yet been achieved, and Palestinians, after all these long years of occupation, still consume Zionist goods, to the point that a considerable proportion of people still ask the shopkeeper for Zionist goods over Arab goods. As for the other stages, Palestinians have not yet tried civil disobedience at all.

Some factions have tried armed struggle, carrying out military operations against the enemy and inflicting on it a great many losses. Martyrdom operations were the most severe blow Zionist security ever faced, to the point that many Zionists were forced to emigrate from the Palestine occupied in ‘48, fearing for their own safety and seeking security. The Zionist entity lived on its nerves during the period of martyrdom operations, and their cessation restored to it a sense of security. Discontinuation is itself a recurring phenomenon in Palestinian history: the people offer enormous sacrifices, but the leaderships do not insist on continuing the resistance or the protest, and often enter into losing bargains with the enemy instead. The leaderships aborted the 1936 general strike, and the revolt that accompanied it, and the leaderships aborted the 1987 intifada, and likewise the martyrdom operations that punctuated the Al-Aqsa Intifada.

Time has moved beyond stones, and stones are no longer a means of struggle for those who have matured, revolutionarily, and are committed to liberating their homelands. It is worth noting that stones cost the Palestinian people dearly, since many martyrs and wounded fall for them, while only a few Zionist soldiers might be hit by a stone here or there. Recently, for instance, seven martyrs fell in Gaza because of stones, while not a single Zionist soldier fell. This is a difficult equation. In combat there is a killer and a killed on both sides of the confrontation, but it cannot be that only one side is the one being killed.

Source: Translated from the original Arabic, “بين الانتفاضة والمقاومة” by Dr. Abdul-Sattar Kassem.