The Al-Aqsa Flood and Colonial Narratives: The Triad of Essential Struggles for Palestinian Liberation - Mohammed Al-Fazari
An Essential Introduction
The Palestinian matter stands as a vivid example of colonialism, mirroring the European colonization experienced by nations in the Middle East, Africa, and South Asia over the last three centuries. This case is particularly severe due to its nature as “settler” colonialism, involving the forceful displacement and occupation of people’s homes and lands, accompanied by acts of violence. However, Zionist ideology has employed various narratives to shift focus away from the colonial aspect. Among the most prominent is the “religious narrative,” including claims of the Promised Land and a historical right to the territory. Additionally, the “geographical argument” posits the land as without people, framing the Zionist movement as representing a persecuted group deserving of their own state.
Supposing we accept the Zionist assertion of entitlement to Palestinian land based on the establishment of Jewish kingdoms, the last of which ceased to exist in the early half of the second century AD—nearly 19 centuries ago—it follows that, by the same reasoning, Muslims might equally claim a right to reclaim Andalusia (the south of the Iberian Peninsula), given that Islamic rule there only concluded about five centuries ago. Following this line of thought, it becomes apparent that numerous nations and peoples could similarly stake claims to various lands based on historical presence.
Indeed, as noted by American Jewish scholar Noam Chomsky, the Zionist entity is characterized as a settler state, seemingly out of place in the modern era and more akin to the colonial powers of past centuries. This state’s approach is considered even more severe than the apartheid regime of South Africa, which, despite its oppressive policies, did not aim to eradicate black Africans through displacement or violence. In contrast, the Zionist entity appears to be relentlessly pursuing the complete removal of Palestinians, a goal reflected in its consistent non-compliance with international resolutions.
Since the defeat of the Arabs in the Six-day War of 1967, the stance of Palestinian Arabs has been one of reluctant acceptance, conceding to the harsh realities of their situation. This has led them to agree to a division of historic Palestinian land with the occupying entity, even consenting to the establishment of a Palestinian state on merely 42% of the land of historic Palestine. Despite these significant concessions, the feasibility of a two-state solution has dwindled due to Israel’s extensive occupation of Palestinian territories, leaving scarcely any land for the formation of a Palestinian state. Additionally, the prospect of a single, democratic state solution seems unattainable in light of the apartheid-like policies enforced by the entity and the Jewish State Law enacted by the Israeli Knesset in 2018.
“I am firmly convinced that one day, Palestine will achieve liberation, putting an end to colonialism just as other forms of colonialism in the Middle East have ceased”
To fully grasp the nature of the Israeli occupying power and its Zionist colonial venture, it’s essential to delve into and analyze colonial discourse and the theories that challenge it. Central to this discourse was the concept of imperialist ideology, which served as a driving force for colonial expansion and provided the rationale for European dominance, allowing for the infringement on the sovereignty of other nations. Edward Said highlighted that a major catalyst for European imperial colonialism was Orientalism. This perspective, rooted in cultural essentialism, cast the East as undeveloped and needing guidance, thereby framing Western intervention as a moral obligation. Such views were often underpinned by beliefs in white superiority, a notion that constitutes a form of racism.
In his 1937 address to the Palestinian Royal Commission, Winston Churchill, a renowned British Prime Minister, influential figure, and Nobel Prize laureate in Literature spoke about the Palestinian people and their right to return to their land. He stated, “I do not believe that a dog on a leash can claim a definitive right to the place he occupies, regardless of the duration of his stay. I do not recognize this right. Similarly, I do not consider the fate of the Native Americans in America or the Aboriginal people in Australia to be a gross error. I do not view their experiences as tragic simply because a stronger race, a higher supplanted them, or, as one might say, a wiser race.” This statement reflects Churchill’s strong belief in a racial hierarchy, which, in his view, justified the rights of colonization and legitimized its actions.
***
I am firmly convinced that one day, Palestine will achieve liberation, putting an end to colonialism just as other forms of colonialism in the Middle East have ceased. This belief stems particularly from the failure of the two-state solution, hindered by Zionist obstinacy and their ongoing settlement endeavors, as well as the impracticality of establishing a single state that accommodates both Jews and Palestinians due to its incompatibility with Zionist ideology. The liberation of Palestine will be accomplished through three crucial and equally significant battles:
- The battle of armed resistance waged by its people
by nations that recognize and support the Palestinian cause.
- The battle for raising awareness, utilizing tools like social media, boycotts, and strikes.
- The battle involves diplomatic and economic pressure exerted.
First Battle: Armed Resistance
A compelling narrative unfolds in the context of twentieth-century national liberation movements, underscoring a vital truth: “What was taken by force can only be regained by force.” This principle is evident in the study of various liberation movements, including Ireland’s struggle against British colonial rule—a rule that, ironically, supported the Zionist project by allocating lands it did not possess. Such historical examples reveal that freedom for oppressed peoples is attainable primarily through their bold and unwavering resistance against occupation and injustice.
The historical trajectories of national liberation movements in Algeria, Libya, India, and numerous nations across Africa and Asia further affirm that reclaiming rights and dignity for these peoples necessitates decisive and strong action. While applying force does not exclusively imply armed conflict, it consistently reflects a determination and strength of spirit, evident in popular resistance movements. This enduring truth is mirrored in the experiences of many nations that achieved their independence and restored their dignity by standing up against oppression and injustice. A notable example is China’s recovery of Hong Kong, a feat achieved only when China demonstrated its formidable power in the international arena. This raises a pertinent question: Could China have reacquired Hong Kong solely through international law had it lacked sovereignty and significant military and economic influence?
Related articles
Second Battle: Diplomacy and Economic Pressure
I firmly believe that the world is governed more by natural laws—the law of the jungle, the law of force—than by international statutes. In this paradigm, the powerful exert their dominance to safeguard their interests and set the standards of right and wrong. The options for the weaker parties are stark: either capitulate, willingly or under duress or face the consequences.
The history of the United Nations is replete with resolutions that have explicitly condemned the practices and policies of the occupying power in Palestine. Over the years, both the General Assembly and the UN Security Council have passed numerous resolutions denouncing the actions of the Zionist entity and calling for a halt to activities deemed illegal and antagonistic to peace. For instance, in 1947, the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, proposing the partition of Palestine into two states. However, Israel declared its independence in 1948 without adhering to this resolution. On various occasions, the United Nations has also passed resolutions condemning the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories since 1967 and demanding a withdrawal. In 1975, Resolution 3376 of the General Assembly labeled Israel as a settler-occupying state and affirmed the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination. More recently, in the past decade, the United Nations has strongly criticized Israeli actions, such as the construction of settlements, the separation of Palestinian families, and land confiscation.
Despite these decisions, Israel has persisted with its Zionist settlement project, demonstrating its disregard for international law and its reluctance to adhere to international demands for compliance with resolutions. This obstinate behavior underscores a stark reality: the efficacy and validity of law are often determined more by the power of the enforcing parties than by its inherent legitimacy, and it falters in the face of superior force. This scenario is essentially an embodiment of the law of the jungle.
However, despite the apparent failure of the international community to effectively address the Palestinian issue—largely due to the influence of Western powers, particularly the United States, and the decisions of their institutions—this approach remains a vital and potent tool. It can be highly effective when earnestly and collectively leveraged by states that support the cause. This acknowledgment suggests that, while challenging, the path of diplomacy and economic pressure, backed by collective international support, can still play a crucial role in the struggle.
Third Battle: Awareness
People’s actions and attitudes are deeply influenced by their awareness, shaped by the information they receive. Many individuals, particularly in Western societies, have been systematically kept in the dark about various issues, including the Palestinian cause, due to orchestrated propaganda efforts. History reminds us that colonizers have consistently labeled any form of popular resistance as terrorism, sabotage, or piracy, often with the complicity of their local henchmen.
The invasion of Iraq starkly revealed the impotence of the international community and its institutions. Similarly, the events surrounding Al-Aqsa, in addition to affirming this weakness, also highlighted the prevalent racism in the West, especially within their governments and long-established media organizations. These institutions have egregiously strayed from the fundamental values and ethics of journalism. The tragic events in Gaza further exposed their hypocrisy and contradictions.
In this landscape, social media platforms emerge as powerful tools for altering this awareness, unveiling the truth, and clearing the fog of imperialist propaganda that has clouded the consciousness of Western populations. This is largely due to their independence from the centralized editorial control that official media institutions have adhered to for decades. These institutions, influenced by the political and economic agendas of their owners, have played a significant role in constructing a narrative that diverges from the reality of the Palestinian plight, shaping the perceptions of Westerners.
As such, the awareness of these populations is bound to gradually influence their countries’ political and institutional fabric positively, especially if they are consistently exposed to narratives that challenge the imperialist discourse. This shift in awareness can become crucial in shaping public opinion and, ultimately, policy decisions concerning the Palestinian issue.
***
On Boycott and Strike
Boycotts and strikes are potent tools in the third battle, not just for their economic impact but also for their influence on consciousness. I categorize them under the third battle rather than the second. While substantial, I believe their economic effects are inherently limited and can often be circumvented by capital owners. Nevertheless, these methods play a crucial role in keeping the issue alive in the minds of ordinary people who support the cause, not merely as an Arab or Islamic issue but as a fundamentally humanitarian one.
Boycotts and strikes symbolize protest of the international community’s failures and the ineffectiveness of its institutions. They represent the freedom to openly object, to say “no” in the face of imperialist aggression. A prime example of this global solidarity was the call for a worldwide strike for Gaza on December 11, 2023. While notable, the economic impact of such an event is secondary to its moral significance and the heightened awareness it can foster through peaceful means.
The resilience of the people of Gaza and the resistance factions, by standing firm and undermining the Zionist narratives, has inspired diverse populations towards a level of international solidarity unprecedented in recent decades, especially in the Arab world. It’s becoming increasingly difficult for any rational, objective person with a proper understanding of the Palestinian issue to deny that Israel is an apartheid, occupying, colonial entity far removed from the ideals of democracy and human rights.
This recognition is grounded in the harrowing history of the Zionist entity, established upon the atrocities committed against Palestinians. Examples, though not exhaustive, include the Deir Yassin massacre (1948), the Sabra and Shatila massacre (1982), and the repeated massacres in Gaza (2008, 2012, 2014, 2021, and the most recent in 2023 following the Al-Aqsa flood). These events underscore the entity’s foundational disregard for human rights and democratic values.
On the Western Position
Europe, particularly Germany, remains haunted by a guilt complex due to its historical treatment of Jews. Yet, there persists an inclination to project this anti-Semitism specifically onto Arabs and Palestinians. The West continues to manifest its anti-Semitism through its unwavering support for the Israeli entity, implying a preference for keeping Jews away from Europe, even at the cost of their lives. This attitude mirrors the racist, purifying practices against Jews, which culminated under the Nazi regime. Ironically, these practices served the Zionist agenda by driving Jewish immigration to Palestine while simultaneously aligning with the anti-Semitic goal of expelling Jews from Europe. A prime example is the “Balfour Declaration,” whose author was known for his anti-Semitic views.
Moreover, the Western support for the Zionist colonial entity prioritizes strategic interests over humanitarian concerns and human rights. The American stance is particularly evident in this regard. It has consistently employed a rhetoric of “human rights” while simultaneously sanctioning Israel’s actions, such as the massacres in Gaza, where the death toll at the time of writing exceeded 17,000 victims, a desperate attempt by Israel to salvage its image after the Al-Aqsa flood scandal.
The position of US President Biden, who openly declared himself a Zionist, regardless of not being Jewish, further illustrates this point. He even asserted that had Israel not existed, efforts would have been made to establish it. This perspective can only be understood through an imperialist-colonial lens; for America, Israel represents not only a strategic ally but also a military outpost that reduces the need for multiple bases and carriers in the Middle East. Biden acknowledged this in a 2007 television interview when he was a senator, where he reflected on the global implications without Israel, highlighting the necessity of numerous warships and troops in the region.
The American position is not surprising, as it aligns with U.S. interests and reflects a historical parallel in the founding of the American and Israeli states. Both were established through settlement and ethnic cleansing of indigenous populations.
On Operation Al-Aqsa Flood
The use of violence against civilians in any geopolitical conflict is universally unacceptable, and this principle undoubtedly applies to the civilians of the Zionist occupying entity. However, a critical question arises: Can these “civilians” be seen as minor components within the larger mechanism of the oppressive Zionist regime? This includes individuals who serve as reserve soldiers between the ages of 18-45, both men and women or those who, by their mere presence, implicitly support and sustain the occupation. The only exception to this consideration would be minors.
What can be expected from a people subjected to the daily realities of occupation, violence, and racist policies? Simultaneously, the opposing side firmly denies the possibility of a Palestinian state, insisting instead that the occupying entity is exclusively a Jewish state. This inherently implies that non-Jewish individuals are perpetually denied equal citizenship rights.
Regarding the people of Gaza, their plight defies easy description. For over 16 years, they have endured a severe siege imposed by the Zionist occupation. This siege has severely restricted their movement and effectively imprisoned them in what can be described as the world’s largest open-air prison. The situation in Gaza is a stark reminder of the harsh realities faced by those living under prolonged and stringent occupation.
The intractable situation in the Palestinian conflict is largely attributed to the oppressive tactics of the occupier, underpinned by a colonial Zionist ideology that resembles apartheid. This approach has effectively rendered both the one-state and two-state solutions unviable. Despite the inherent injustice of these solutions, as Israel is fundamentally a colonial occupying state akin to the French in Algeria, the Italians in Libya, and the British in Aden, the occupier bears the responsibility for escalating the Palestinian issue to its current state of absurdity, inevitably leading to increased casualties on both sides.
Historically, the occupying entity has propagated misleading narratives on various incidents, only later conceding to the truth. This pattern is exemplified by the initial denial of responsibility for the 1996 Qana massacre in a United Nations camp in southern Lebanon, which resulted in over 250 casualties, predominantly women and children. Similarly, the case of the assassination of Palestinian journalist Sherine Abu Aqla initially saw denial from Israel, followed by an admission of responsibility after a UN investigation. These incidents are just two examples in a long list of similar occurrences.
Given this historical context, skepticism arises regarding Israeli narratives about the events of Al-Aqsa Flood. The attempt to malign the resistance using media and diplomatic efforts, backed by Western support, particularly from the United States, casts doubt on these narratives. This skepticism is further reinforced by the unraveling of certain claims, such as the absence of incidents involving beheaded children or raped women, as initially alleged. Therefore, the portrayal of Hamas militants deliberately targeting Israeli civilians is called into question, especially considering the resistance’s established conduct towards Israeli prisoners and kidnappers, which has been witnessed globally. This conduct starkly contrasts with the narrative of indiscriminate violence against civilians.
On Political Islam
In my earlier article titled “The Palestinian Issue… Between Islamic and Humanitarian Internationalization,” I discussed the internationalization of the Palestinian issue as an Islamic matter. My viewpoint was as follows:
With the rise of the Islamic awakening and the proliferation of political Islam groups and organizations in the Arab world, particularly in the seventh decade of the last century, the Palestinian issue began to veer off course. These groups started to frame the issue as a central Islamic concern, neglecting the fact that the population of Palestine before the occupation was not exclusively Muslim. The region was home to diverse races, religions, and sects, including Jews, Armenians, Copts, Baha’is, Turkmen, Romas, Ahmadis, Druze, Samaritans, and Syriacs. This redefinition transformed the Palestinian issue from a case of human suffering and a blatant violation of the rights of people living in a region known as Palestine into a narrowly perceived religious conflict between Jews and Muslims. Such a shift overshadowed the broader dimensions of the issue, reducing its visibility and significance.
I believe the political success of the Palestinian issue hinges on its internationalization as a conflict between the indigenous Palestinians – encompassing diverse religions, sects, races, and ideologies – and an oppressive Zionist occupier. Additionally, portraying it as a case of human suffering could garner sympathy from those unfamiliar with it. However, the current trend, which began with the Islamic Awakening, presents the issue on the international stage as a religious conflict between Judaism and Islam. This framing inadvertently benefits the occupier, as history often substantiates the Jewish historical presence in the region. The redefinition of the issue by political Islam, extracting it from its original context and reducing it to a historical religious conflict, has significantly aided the occupier. Both the occupier and political Islam have diverted international attention and the focus of those interested in the issue away from its core: a brutal occupation.
If political Islam were to recognize this reality, the perception and handling of the Palestinian issue could shift positively. While the religious and Islamic narrative plays a crucial role in rallying the Muslim populace, the attempt to overly Islamize the issue has distanced it from its fundamental human context. This context naturally elicits empathy from anyone opposed to the occupation, displacement, killing, ethnic cleansing, and apartheid.
Consider if Hamas were framed as a national resistance organization without the underpinnings of political Islam. This could potentially reduce the number of accusations leveraged by the occupying entity to justify its violations and massacres. The issue’s essence would be seen more clearly as a struggle against occupation rather than being entangled in religious ideologies, which might change the international perspective and response to the conflict.
On Arab Zionism
The principle of freedom of belief and thought is fundamental. Whether one chooses not to believe in Islam or not to align with the ideologies of political Islam, both organizationally and intellectually, these are personal freedoms that should be respected. However, conflating these personal choices with the nature of Palestinian resistance, especially when it is Islamic in character, and using this as a basis to question the legitimacy and right of resistance simply because it is led by Muslims or proponents of political Islam is problematic. Such a stance reflects a lack of depth in understanding, a superficial approach to thinking, and a disregard for both historical and political contexts. It also signifies a lack of awareness of the history and nuances of the Palestinian issue. This approach, which diminishes the legitimacy of resistance based on religious or ideological affiliations, can be seen as a form of intellectual naivety and a misunderstanding of the complex dynamics that underpin the struggle.
Your disapproval of political Islam or the religion of Islam itself does not negate the legitimacy and right of others to resist. Resistance is an act legitimized by the justice of the cause, not the identities of those involved. The Palestinian issue is a just humanitarian cause beyond any personal disagreements one might have with the individuals or factions involved. The situation in Palestine is not simply a conflict but an occupation and settler colonialism with deep historical roots, both regionally and globally. The events following October 7th do not represent a war but rather a genocide rooted in Zionist ideology, with the occupying power founded on principles of displacement and extermination from its inception. The occurrence on October 7th is just one instance in the long history of Palestinian resistance, spanning over a century.
Hence, support or defense of the Palestinian cause is valid, irrespective of any intellectual disagreements one may have, and this is your right. Advocating for this cause is just and clearly defined from humanitarian, historical, and legal perspectives. Any Palestinian who resists the occupation, no matter how much you may ideologically differ from them, is exercising their right, which you must also respect. Their resistance is legitimized by the justice of the cause and the nature of the resistance itself.
Palestine as My Cause
Palestine is a just and humanitarian cause that retains its righteousness regardless of shifting circumstances or differences with its people or any faction. It is a matter deeply rooted in human dignity. Therefore, in the spirit of humanity, aligned with international law and the global recognition of human rights, I uphold Palestine as my cause.
This Article has been Published originally on Muwatin
تعليقات
إرسال تعليق