Monday, April 13, 2015

Characteristics of the First Intifada


Although the Palestinians realized that their strength came from mass civil disobedience in the form of boycotting Israeli goods, denying tax collections and organizing unarmed confrontations in the First Intifada, Israel was very successful to play both the victim and justified arbitrator of the occupied territories.   
As Dajani points out, Israel successfully broke down any power that the Palestinian popular committees worked towards using “divide and rule” tactics such as massive tax raids and travel bans against communities that stood out against the occupation.  There were paid collaborators that worked on behalf of Israel to infiltrate the Palestinian community and would identify the activists who would become “the victims of Israeli death squads.”  The Palestinians were also disillusioned with the Arab leadership in general because of Israeli overview, and the PLO in particular, which they felt had not come to their aid or worked toward their independence.   
Violence that was attributed to the First Intifada was not solely attributed to the Israeli government.  Although the root of the problem goes back to Israel conquering the occupied territories in the 1967 six day war, the tensions that mounted during the First Intifada had a self-destructive effect from within Palestinian Communities which then transitioned to a rebirth of identity that gained international recognition in the years that followed.  The internal struggle of conflict between Palestinians loyal to the calls for freedom and those who collaborated with the Israeli forces resulted in around 1,000 casualties compared to the 1,100 estimated Palestinians killed directly by Israeli forces.     
Overall, the First Intifada was successful in that it unified a national identity and structured a plan for future change.  Many groups that organized in the Intifada had the end goal of a two state solution; however they realized that focusing on more specific rights first would create a sense of change that the masses could get behind. 

1 comment:

  1. What are the specific rights you are talking about in the last paragraph? Do those specific rights still dominate the conversation or is it more of a focus on a one-state or two-state solution? Though this is one of the most well studied conflicts in the world, a lot of people don't get into the nitty gritty. They just recite basic talking points and then go back to debating one state or two state.

    ReplyDelete