The First Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation as a non-violent movement of unarmed resistance and civil disobedience. Ultimately, the end of the intifada was characterized by a failure to achieve Palestinian independence, as the occupation remained intact and Israel’s control of the Occupied Territories was reinforced through economic and political restraints. However, the Intifada’s non-violent social movement did leave a lasting impact by altering and reordering the social relationships and dynamics in both Palestine and Israel.
The Intifada changed societal relationships in Palestine by (1) creating divisions and factions within society, (2) defining the role of women in the national struggle, and lastly, (3) establishing the local committees, grassroots movements, and political spheres going into the future. Firstly, in terms of pitting factions and sections of society against each other, one major consequence of the intifada was the emergence of Hamas and political Islam. According to Souad Dajani, Hamas gained many supporters “because it was able to meet the needs of many residents for support, food, medical care and the like” (p. 57). Specifically, they offered a compelling message, especially in “view of the perceived failure of the secular PLO to achieve any political gains,” and prevented themselves as an alternative to the ineffective Palestinian Authority that was achieved after the end of the First Intifada (Id.). Their appeal to tradition resonated among the demoralized Palestinian population and Hamas was able to subsequently democratize and concentrate strategies for “the construction of the institutions and agencies of the forthcoming Palestinian state” (Id.). Secondly, the intifada clarified and shed light on the role of women in Palestinian society. Palestinian women have almost always been very active in the national movement but the Intifada increased the extent to which they were involved through political participation. Dajani mentions a new political self-consciousness by women and the “questioning of their role in the national struggle” and the public voicing of their desire to create a “separate women’s agenda beyond the goals of the overall” movement. Palestinian women began to view themselves as a feminist segment of a larger Palestinian society, which drew criticism from many as they perceived the feminism as a departure from tradition and religion by many. Thirdly, local and popular committees proliferated into ever widening spheres of the Palestinian community, organized grassroots movements, and determined the Intifada’s strategies. Thus, these public committees set the stage for how political discourse, resistance, and decision-making would develop going forward.
The intifada also changed social relationships in Israel with regards to three segments of Israeli society: (1) the public, (2) the government and (3) the Army. Dajani asserts that the intifada resulted in clear “lines between different poles in Israeli society” with regards to the Palestine issue (p. 63). The Israeli public was split into a division between staunch Zionist groups in favor of harsh repression of Palestinians and Israeli peace movements that were critical of the violence. This split was centered on the emergence of new assumptions about the relationship between security and peace, with the Left dissenting to excessive Israeli force and the Right supporting any measures necessary to protect the safety of the Israeli population. The Intifada altered the public perception of Palestinians in Israel by widening the social distance between the occupied and their occupiers (p. 61). Secondly, the intifada allowed for a conservative political agenda which would come to dominate and polarize the Israeli government. The Intifada occurred during the rule of Yitzhak Rabin’s “moderate” government, which still responded with indiscriminate force to uprisings. This dangerous precedent by centrist governments opened the room for more conservative platforms and policies like that of Likud and Netanyahu to easily and brutally oppress non-violent movements twenty-five years since the Intifada. Thirdly, the Intifada affected the relationship between the Israeli army and the Israeli community. The costs to the military were mostly moral. Morally, the IDF was met with much resentment internationally and even within Israel as people questioned the army’s excessive violence through political participation. On the other hand, the lack of empathy for the Palestinians was growing among both the general public and the Army and there was in fact a strong mutual hatred ofshared by both the Army and the majority of the general public.
I like your inclusion of women's role in the intifada and their own agenda. You speak highly of their actions as creating a departure from tradition and religion. But has that really changed their role in society? Is feminism really present and strong in the West Bank?
ReplyDelete