The media will demand that we condemn the Palestinian resistance. We must refuse.
Early on Saturday, October 7, the Palestinian resistance launched an unprecedented decolonial operation, firing over 5,000 rockets, breaking the 16+ year siege, infiltrating several illegal Israeli settlements, taking back stolen Palestinian lands, and targeting and capturing countless colonial settlers, in uniform and plain-clothes. Coined “The Flood of Al-Aqsa,” the operation retaliates against repeated Zionist raids and violations of Al-Aqsa mosque, attacks on Palestinian women, and the killing of over 700 Palestinians so far this year. But Indigenous resistance is never purely reflexive. The operation aims for liberation, decolonization in its truest sense, and indigenous return. In the coming days, Palestinians will inevitably be hauled into press rooms and asked, ordered, to condemn. Echoing the colonial Requirimiento of 1513, imperial media shall command Palestinians to accept the legitimacy of colonial rule, to be content as colonial subjects, to accept that should they “not obey, and refuse to receive their lord, and resist and contradict…the deaths and losses which shall accrue from this…[shall be their] fault.” Of course, the benevolent colonial rulers, “highnesses,” and “cavaliers,”—don’t forget the “liberal” settlers—shall protest that such had to be the case, that the barbarous native Palestinian made them do it. Many will be drawn in. Many will fold. Resistance now, will be as difficult a task as ever, and is thus of paramount importance.
Crucial to colonialism, the practice of Imperialism, is controlling narrative. Yet, where many have focused on exposing the contents of colonial narrative, analyzing terminology and dissecting claims, the structural frameworks of imperial ideology have been overlooked. Where imperial ideologies have largely been eroded—albeit internalized and ritually spewed—their power structures, their positioning of observer and subject have persisted and pervaded even well-meaning minds. In the context of the Zionist colonization of Palestine, these hierarchical power structures have meant it is the Palestinian who must explain himself, justify his actions, rationalize his presence, prove his humanity. The Palestinian bears the burden of proof.
In taking the first step toward dominating the narrative and showering upon both the Palestinian and the observer a fusillade of fallacy, smears, and accusations, Hasbara, injected with tens of millions of dollars, has succeeded in placing the Palestinians on the back foot. Thus, Palestinian voices and international advocates have largely been bogged down in dispelling myths, responding to Imperial rhetoric, and combatting colonial accusations. Even the most outspoken and radical have fallen prey to imperial control—revolutionary thought within the borders, inside the ghetto, between the checkpoints of colonial frameworks. The promulgation of an authentic, independent Palestinian narrative has taken a back seat. It is here that Imperial narrative power structures come into play: Who asks the questions? Who must answer? Who is scrutinized? Who gets to judge?
read more: https://mondoweiss.net/2023/10/we-must-refuse-to-apologize-for-palestinian-humanity/
archive: https://archive.ph/V73eZ
The states didn’t wipe Saudi Arabia off the map when 9/11 happened. And we hadn’t really talked about wiping Saudi Arabia off the map for decades, sent in colonists to steal land or regularly executed Saudi citizens.
The states responded with a largely humiliating show of force in the wrong countries, took ten years to achieve their stated goals and shamefully admitted at various times to an awful amount of civilian casualties that were supposed to be avoided as much as possible while dismantling al Qaeda and capturing bin Laden.
The Israeli defense minister is currently explaining publicly how Palestinians are animals and Israel is acting accordingly by withholding electricity, food, water, fuel from civilians while they indiscriminately attack civilian and military targets.
So the outrage following an attack is comparable though unequal, but the history, context and intention is not at all comparable and making the parallel to 9/11 is a mistake, or(more likely) a jingoistic attempt to trick Americans into supporting a rapidly concluding genocide.