Controversial Resistance Operations.. Can We Return to Before the Oslo Accords?

Author: ابراهيم ابراش

Today marks 32 years since the signing of the Oslo Accords, which remain a subject of controversy, particularly regarding the cessation of armed struggle and the reliance on a political settlement. The purpose of addressing this topic is not the agreement itself—about which we have written extensively—since the Israeli right-wing government openly declares that the agreement was a strategic mistake that should be practically reversed by dismantling its most significant achievement, which is the Palestinian Authority. However, we are revisiting it in the context of renewed debate surrounding resistance operations after the recent attack in the Ramot settlement on the outskirts of Jerusalem, carried out by two young men from the West Bank a few days ago, which targeted a bus carrying (Israeli) civilians, resulting in the deaths of 6 passengers, with my conviction that every Jewish Israeli is a soldier, settler, or participant in the genocide against our people in any way.
This operation differs from the previous attacks involving car ramming and stabbings witnessed in the West Bank, as well as from all prior operations regarding its timing. This compels us to briefly revisit the history of resistance operations and their relationship with international and regional changes, the complexities of the internal Palestinian situation, and the shift in Israeli society with the arrival of the far-right, which does not conceal its objectives of displacing Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank and liquidating not only the achievements of Oslo but the entire Palestinian issue.
In the early days of armed struggle or resistance in the mid-1960s, led by the PLO, Fatah, the Popular Front, and others—before the emergence of Hamas and Islamic Jihad—this struggle enjoyed widespread popular support among Palestinians and Arabs. Leader Gamal Abdel Nasser even described the Palestinian resistance as the noblest phenomenon in history. At that time, the resistance achieved political gains on both Arab and international levels, as it galvanized national identity and transformed the issue from merely a refugee issue to a national liberation issue, affirming the Palestinian people's right to self-determination on their land and their right to resist occupation by all available means. The PLO was recognized as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people in 1974, including President Abu Amar’s visit to the United Nations, where many recall the heroic operations inside the Green Line executed by the Storm Forces of Fatah, such as the Dalia al-Maghribi operation, and others, all of which targeted the occupation forces and settlers while avoiding civilians.
However, with the collapse of the global and Arab systems following the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc, and the collapse of the Arab regional system due to the Gulf War II in 1991, the PLO was compelled to sign the Oslo Accords and establish the Palestinian Authority, starting negotiations on final status issues. The PLO called on all factions to cease resistance operations within the occupied territories so as not to provide the enemy with an excuse to evade negotiations and occasionally raised suspicions about Israel’s role in certain operations, despite Israel’s turning against the settlement process and the Oslo Accords, revealing its true intentions with the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 and the failure of the Camp David II meetings, culminating in the invasion of the West Bank in 2002. Nevertheless, Hamas and Islamic Jihad, along with other factions, continued military operations that made no distinction between civilians and military personnel, while Israel persisted in violating the Oslo Accords by continuing settlement activities and destroying everything that the Palestinian Authority built, especially in Gaza, including the airport, ministries, and continuing the dispute and debate over armed resistance operations within the occupied territories.
After Hamas's coup and its control over the Gaza Strip, it stopped direct military operations within the occupied territories to focus on consolidating its authority in the Strip and building stable military capabilities such as tunnels, rockets, and armed brigades as a defensive strategy for its governance, wagering that Israel would accept this equation indefinitely. However, Israel aimed to entrench the division and thwart the two-state solution, singling out Hamas and resistance factions in Gaza and isolating the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank. Nonetheless, the debate about the efficacy of launching rockets from Gaza continued, with President Abu Mazen describing them as pointless rockets.
The onslaught, the war of extermination, and the outrageous threats from enemy leaders to target all Palestinians, both resistors and non-resistors, coincide with the war of extermination, destruction, and death in Gaza, and hunger, against the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, with expansion of settlement projects and destruction of camps and homes, accompanied by clear statements that the entire Palestinian people are enemies of Israel and must be displaced, killed, or imprisoned in large detention centers, as articulated by the terrorist Smotrich, who is most explicit in expressing the true objectives of the war.
Now, with the Remote operation, the debate surrounding armed struggle renews. Was the operation a natural response to Israel's terrorist actions in Gaza and even the West Bank, deserving of endorsement and potentially marking the beginning of a comprehensive civil and armed uprising against the occupation, regardless of the enemy's reaction in the West Bank? Or shall we limit ourselves to understanding the motives behind it and supporting it while being cautious about escalating direct military confrontations that might facilitate the enemy’s plans in the West Bank, arguing that it isn’t just Israel targeting civilians but also Palestinians?
Unfortunately, all Israelis unite in their denunciation of any Palestinian military operation, rallying around their government and army, and skillfully using every resistance operation for their propaganda, serving their lies and narrative, while Palestinians and Arabs disagree about them between those who denounce, those who are skeptical, or at least not supportive of them at this time, and a group that supports them and sometimes adopts them regardless of the enemy's reaction, as they advocate that defending the (doctrine) and principle from their perspective is more important than the lives of individuals who they consider martyrdom projects, and even more critical than the homeland and land!!!!
Some may say it is impossible to return to the status before Oslo, meaning a direct confrontation between the occupation and the people subjected to it, and Israel bears responsibility for over five million Palestinians in the West Bank, Jerusalem, and Gaza since there are achievements, the most significant of which is that the majority of the world recognizes the two-state solution and the right of the Palestinian people to a Palestinian state! However, without downplaying this achievement, discussions revolve around a state under occupation, leading us back to the starting point: how can we compel Israel to end its occupation? Here, we also return to what we have repeatedly requested—a need for a future national strategy with multiple pathways for the phase after recognition of the state, as the United Nations will not offer us a state on a silver platter.