Embedded Files
www.BoycottApartheid.org
Grassroots
The Foundations of the First Intifada:
The Foundations of the First Intifada:
Elements and Conditions for Grassroots Resistance
Elements and Conditions for Grassroots Resistance
The First Intifada, which began in 1987, stands as a testament to the resilience, creativity, and unity of the Palestinian people in the face of occupation. Far from being a spontaneous outburst, the Intifada was the product of years of intellectual, social, and organizational preparation within Palestinian society. This remarkable grassroots movement reshaped global perceptions of the Palestinian struggle and demonstrated the power of collective civil resistance.
1. Intellectual and Civil Society Maturity
1. Intellectual and Civil Society Maturity
During the 1970s and 1980s, Palestinian society in the Occupied Territories of the West Bank and Gaza witnessed a flourishing of intellectual activity. Cities like Birzeit, Jerusalem, Nablus, and Al-Bireh became hubs for debates, discussions, and activism. This intellectual environment nurtured a politically aware and engaged society, which understood the complexities of their struggle and sought innovative solutions to confront Israeli occupation.
This period saw the rise of unions, civil organizations, and grassroots movements that bridged the gaps between different segments of society. Through structured dialogue and collective action, these organizations cultivated a shared vision of resistance that extended beyond armed conflict to encompass education, healthcare, and social solidarity.
2. Organized Networks of Support
2. Organized Networks of Support
The civil society of this era developed trusted networks of support that were critical in building an underground infrastructure. These networks provided resources, disseminated information, and ensured that communities were prepared for long-term resistance. The culture of mutual support created a foundation of trust and collaboration that transcended political and social divides, enabling the Intifada to sustain itself for years.
3. Clear Opposition and Unifying Enemy
3. Clear Opposition and Unifying Enemy
Before the Oslo Accords, the Israeli occupation was represented by soldiers in uniform, speaking a different language, and visibly opposing Palestinian aspirations. This stark division galvanized Palestinian society, unifying its members against a common and clearly identifiable adversary. The presence of an external oppressor reinforced solidarity and focused efforts on collective resistance.
4. Grassroots Leadership
4. Grassroots Leadership
Local leadership, deeply embedded within Palestinian society, played a crucial role in organizing the Intifada. These leaders understood the needs and aspirations of their communities and were able to mobilize people effectively. Unlike the corrupt exiled leadership, grassroots leaders prioritized the collective good over personal gain, earning the trust and respect of the population.
5. The Spirit of Innovation
5. The Spirit of Innovation
Faced with the limitations of ineffective armed resistance post-1967 and the failures of the exiled leadership, Palestinians turned to innovative methods of resistance. The First Intifada was characterized by widespread civil disobedience, strikes, boycotts, and peaceful protests that captured global attention and garnered international support. This unique form of resistance became a model of how oppressed societies could confront powerful adversaries without resorting to conventional warfare.
The Betrayal of Oslo and Erosion of Achievements
The Betrayal of Oslo and Erosion of Achievements
The Oslo Accords of the 1990s marked a turning point, but not the one many had hoped for. The establishment of the Palestinian Authority (PA), born out of secretive deals between Israel and the exiled leadership, betrayed the grassroots achievements of the First Intifada.
Where Israeli oppression had failed to break Palestinian society, the PA succeeded in infiltrating and eroding it from within. Speaking the same language and presenting itself as a liberator, the PA used deceptive rhetoric to mask its authoritarian practices. Over three decades, its actions, coordinated with Israeli intelligence, systematically silenced dissent, cracked down on civil society, and delegitimized Palestinian resistance.
Lessons and the Call to Return to Basics
Lessons and the Call to Return to Basics
The First Intifada’s success was rooted in its grassroots nature, intellectual maturity, and collective organization. To regain these strengths, Palestinians must critically assess the role of the PA and its complicity in undermining their struggle. The PA has revealed itself not as a vehicle for liberation, but as an agent of erosion, emboldening Israeli policies and weakening Palestinian society from within.
The current moment demands courage and clarity. By exposing the PA’s real nature and returning to the principles that guided the First Intifada, Palestinians can rebuild their civil society and reclaim their path toward liberation. The global community, especially human rights advocates, must recognize these dynamics to ensure their efforts genuinely support the aspirations of the Palestinian people.
Understanding the Depth of Underground Grassroots Movement
Understanding the Depth of Underground Grassroots Movement
The First Intifada (1987–1993) remains one of the most significant and misunderstood grassroots movements in Palestinian history. Often depicted in the West as merely a wave of stone-throwing protests, this uprising was far deeper, embodying a complex and highly organized civil resistance that engaged nearly all segments of Palestinian society.
Key Aspects of the First Intifada:
Key Aspects of the First Intifada:
1. Grassroots Organization and Parallel Institutions
The First Intifada was not solely a reaction to the Israeli occupation; it was a proactive movement to build autonomy and challenge occupation through the creation of parallel institutions. Palestinian society organized itself to create alternatives to the occupying power's institutions:
Health and Education: Networks of underground schools and clinics were established to provide services independently of Israeli oversight.
Agriculture and Economy: Boycotts of Israeli goods were coupled with local food production initiatives to sustain Palestinian communities economically.
Social Cohesion: Neighborhood committees coordinated community efforts, including dispute resolution, mutual aid, and support for families affected by arrests or raids.
This infrastructure reflected the people's aspiration for self-reliance, preparing the groundwork for an independent state.
2. Leadership by Women
Women played a pivotal role in the First Intifada. They led much of the underground resistance. Women’s committees managed food distribution, ran underground schools, and facilitated communication between different parts of the movement. Their leadership was integral to maintaining the movement’s cohesion and success.
Unfortunately, as the Oslo Accords emerged, the formalization of leadership roles largely sidelined women, marking a departure from the inclusive leadership of the grassroots movement. This marginalization had long-term implications for Palestinian society, as it removed a key source of organizational strength and innovation.
3. Nonviolent Resistance and Strategic Coordination
Although the image of stone-throwing youth became emblematic, the First Intifada's core strategy was nonviolent resistance:
General strikes, boycotts, and mass protests disrupted the occupation's economic and administrative machinery.
Leaflets distributed by underground networks provided clear guidance for coordinated actions.
Symbolic actions, like refusing to pay taxes, underscored the movement's defiance of Israeli control.
4. Global Recognition of "Intifada"
The term "Intifada" was not translated into equivalent terms like "uprising" because its meaning transcends these descriptors. It conveys a profound act of collective self-assertion and resistance. The global retention of the Arabic term reflects its specificity and the unique model of resistance it represented, far more than mere rebellion, it was a cultural and political reawakening.
Challenges and Misrepresentation
Challenges and Misrepresentation
Post-Intifada Politics: The grassroots leadership and infrastructure of the First Intifada were dismantled as external actors and the formalized Palestinian Authority (PA) emerged post-Oslo. This transition marked a significant rupture with the movement's ideals and methods.
Misunderstanding of Depth: Much of the world, including Palestinians in the diaspora, remains unaware of the organizational depth of the First Intifada. This misunderstanding reduces it to a symbolic moment rather than appreciating it as a sophisticated model of resistance.
The First Intifada is a testament to the power of organized, collective action in the face of systemic oppression. Its emphasis on grassroots mobilization, inclusivity, and resilience serves as a valuable model for resistance movements worldwide. Recognizing and understanding its complexity is crucial not only for Palestinians but also for global solidarity movements, as it offers lessons in how to sustain meaningful resistance and build a foundation for future self-determination.
Beyond the Dichotomy of Armed Conflict:
Beyond the Dichotomy of Armed Conflict:
Highlighting the Power of Unarmed Resistance
Highlighting the Power of Unarmed Resistance
Palestinians often fall into the trap of simplifying the conflict as a dichotomy between two opposing military forces: the Israeli military state and the armed resistance. This narrative overlooks the vital, unarmed resistance led by Palestinian civil society, which has historically played a pivotal role in the struggle for freedom. This form of resistance, rich in its grassroots infrastructure and collective participation, is often lost in translation and ignored by mainstream Western media.
To counter this, Palestinians in the diaspora must shift the focus to what is overlooked, the resilience and efforts of indigenous unarmed civilians. Advocacy should prioritize highlighting these stories while communicating in a responsible and welcoming manner. By understanding that many people lack knowledge due to media censorship, Palestinians can engage constructively, using their voices to inform and inspire solidarity. Such an approach not only conveys the message effectively but also builds bridges with global audiences, ensuring the broader struggle for justice is not overshadowed by narrow, militarized narratives.
Challenging First Intifada
for every Militarised System
Challenging First Intifada
for every Militarised System
The First Intifada marked a significant departure from traditional Palestinian armed resistance, introducing a new paradigm of grassroots, decentralized, and nonviolent resistance.
The shift from a centralized, hierarchic military approach to a decentralized, locally driven movement proved to be a strategic challenge for both Israeli authorities and the traditional armed resistance leadership in exile.
The militarized nature of Israeli society was accustomed to dealing with armed conflicts and hierarchical military structures. The unexpected rise of a nonviolent grassroots movement caught Israel off guard, as it faced a different kind of resistance that focused on civil disobedience, strikes, and popular protests rather than armed confrontations. This posed a unique challenge for the Israeli military, as traditional tactics designed for armed conflicts were less effective against unarmed civilian resistance.
Simultaneously, the traditional armed resistance, mainly based in exile and accustomed to a centralized decision-making process, found itself sidelined by the emergence of a decentralized movement within the occupied territories. The local leadership that emerged during the First Intifada was more organic, reflecting the sentiments and needs of the people on the ground. This decentralized structure allowed for more flexibility, adaptability, and a direct connection to the grievances of the local population.
The success of the First Intifada, in part, stemmed from its ability to capture global attention and sympathy. The nonviolent nature of the resistance, coupled with the oppressive response from the Israeli military, generated international support and condemnation. Images of heavily armed soldiers facing unarmed civilians, including children, drew widespread attention and triggered a global call for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The shift from a militarized approach to a grassroots, nonviolent resistance was not only a strategic challenge for Israel but also an economic threat to the traditional armed resistance leadership. The armed resistance, accustomed to managing financial flows and maintaining control, faced a decline in relevance as the focus shifted to the locally driven, nonviolent resistance within the occupied territories.
Overall, the First Intifada brought about a significant change in the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, challenging traditional military strategies and providing a model of resistance that went beyond the conventional armed struggle.
Unarmed Grassroots Movement
The First Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule that began in December 1987 and lasted until the early 1990s. The term "Intifada" translates to "shaking off" in Arabic, signifying the Palestinian population's attempt to shake off Israeli occupation.
The use of the Arabic word without translation emphasises the unique nature of these uprisings, particularly the comprehensive involvement of various layers of Palestinian society. The First Intifada saw a coordinated effort that went beyond street protests and involved different aspects of daily life.
Widespread & Coordinated Resistance
The term "Intifada" not only encapsulates the idea of a popular uprising but also conveys the widespread and coordinated nature of the resistance. It represents a collective, grassroots movement that extended beyond spontaneous acts of protest to include organised efforts in various facets of society. This comprehensive engagement aimed to challenge and resist the Israeli occupation on multiple fronts, contributing to the unique character and impact of the First Intifada in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
"it was a grassroots movement, it was very horizontal"
Naila and the Uprising
Naila and the Uprising
Julia Bacha: “First Intifada which is largely misunderstood in the West but also in Palestinian society... creation of parallel institutions: so building your own civil society in preparation for an independent state, and they managed to do that at a level that no other movement historically the anti-apartheid movement or the civil right movements actually was able to do to the extent that they built an entire infrastructure of hospitals, schools, of security that was separate from the occupying military power... the reason why they were able to be so effective in building those institutions was because the women were the ones leading the underground resistance and that is a story that Palestinians don't know today and the reason why they don't know is because as you saw in the end of the film they were pushed aside and that was a tragedy and it's a travesty and has huge implications today for the possibility of a successful movement emerging in the region correcting narratives correcting the history is critically important for informing how we move into the future.”
Localised leadership
The leadership of the Intifada was largely decentralised, with local committees organizing and coordinating activities.
Instead of having a centralized leadership, the Intifada was characterised by local leaders and committees that emerged at the grassroots level. These leaders often arose from within the communities themselves, understanding the local dynamics, needs, and concerns.
The "localised leadership" approach allowed for a more flexible and adaptive response to the challenges posed by the Israeli occupation. Local leaders could tailor their strategies to the specific circumstances of their communities. This decentralized structure also made it more challenging for Israeli authorities to suppress the uprising by targeting a few central figures.
The secret committees played a crucial role in managing various sectors of society during the general strike. These committees, composed of local leaders and activists, helped organise and sustain the resistance efforts across different domains like education, health, and commerce. This approach facilitated a more resilient and enduring form of resistance, as it drew strength from the collective will and participation of the entire community.
In essence, the "localised leadership" of the First Intifada was a strategic response to the need for adaptive, community-driven resistance against the Israeli occupation, contributing to the overall effectiveness and longevity of the uprising.
Israeli Response
The Israeli military response was characterised by a strategy known as "Iron Fist" or "Break Their Bones." This approach was implemented by then-Defence Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who later became the Prime Minister of Israel (assassinated by Israeli right-wing extremist on November 4, 1995).
The "Iron Fist" policy was marked by a heavy-handed and militarized response to suppress the Palestinian uprising.
1. Military Crackdown: The Israeli military, including the Israel Settler-Colonial Forces, engaged in widespread crackdowns in the Palestinian occupied territories. This involved the deployment of troops, tanks, and other military assets to quell protests and demonstrations.
2. Curfews and Restrictions: The imposition of curfews and severe movement restrictions on Palestinian communities was a common tactic. This limited the mobility of the Palestinian population and constrained their daily lives.
3. Arrests and Detentions: There was a significant increase in arrests and detentions of Palestinians suspected of participating in or supporting the Intifada. This included both adults and, controversially, minors.
4. Use of Force: The Israeli military employed a range of measures, including live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas, to disperse crowds and quell demonstrations. The use of force sometimes resulted in casualties among Palestinian civilians, including deaths and injuries.
5. Administrative Measures: Administrative detention, a policy allowing for the arrest and detention of individuals without trial, was frequently used during this period.
Israeli Defense Minister:
"Break Their Bones" Policy
The "Break Their Bones" policy was a specific aspect of the broader "Iron Fist" approach. The phrase was coined by Rabin and reflected the intention to use forceful measures to deter Palestinians from participating in the uprising. The tactic involved deliberately causing physical harm to protesters by breaking their bones, particularly their limbs, during confrontations.
While the Israeli military's response was aimed at restoring order and suppressing the Intifada, the "Iron Fist" policy faced international criticism for its harsh methods and the human rights implications of its implementation. The use of force, curfews, and mass arrests contributed to a cycle of violence and heightened tensions during the First Intifada.
Global Impact
The First Intifada had a significant international impact, capturing global attention and evoking reactions from various parts of the world. Several factors contributed to its international resonance:
• Media Coverage: The uprising coincided with a period of increased global media coverage. Television and print media extensively covered the events, broadcasting images of Palestinian civilians, including children, facing heavily armed Israeli soldiers. The shocking visuals, such as the breaking of bones captured on camera, stirred international emotions and condemnation.
• Global Attention: The First Intifada drew international attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with widespread media coverage of the Palestinian resistance and Israeli countermeasures.
• Shift in Public Opinion: The uprising contributed to a shift in global public opinion, generating sympathy for the Palestinian cause and raising awareness of the conditions under Israeli occupation.
• Global Solidarity: The images of Palestinian resistance, particularly in the face of what was perceived as disproportionate force by the Israeli military, generated sympathy and solidarity worldwide. Protests and demonstrations expressing support for the Palestinian cause took place in many countries.
• Diplomatic Repercussions: The international community, including various governments and international organizations, responded to the unfolding events. The United Nations and its agencies addressed the situation, and the UN Security Council held discussions on the matter.
• Human Rights Concerns: Human rights organizations expressed concern about the Israeli military's tactics, including the use of live ammunition, mass arrests, and administrative detentions. Reports of human rights abuses fueled debates on the global stage.
• Boycotts and Sanctions: Some individuals and groups called for boycotts and sanctions against Israel in response to its handling of the Intifada. These calls echoed in various parts of the world and contributed to the broader Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that emerged in subsequent years.
• Political Discourse: The First Intifada influenced political discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It prompted discussions on the need for a peaceful resolution and the establishment of a Palestinian state.
• Diplomatic Developments: The uprising indirectly contributed to diplomatic initiatives, including the Madrid Conference in 1991
Overall, the First Intifada left a lasting imprint on the collective memory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The images and narratives associated with the uprising contributed to a heightened awareness of the situation and influenced international perspectives on the quest for a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.
Haidar Abdel-Shafi,
unshakable morals and integrity
Settler-Colonial Occupation Exposed
First Intifada representatives were at the same level of headstates of USA, Russia, and Israel.
Madrid International Conference 1991
The Madrid International Conference in 1991 marked a significant turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and represented a unique moment in the history of diplomatic efforts to address the longstanding issues in the region.
Key points related to the conference:
1. Shifting Dynamics: The conference brought together key players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including representatives from Israel and the Palestinian territories. The fact that Yitzhak Shamir, the Israeli Prime Minister known for his hardline stance, was sitting at the same table as Palestinian representatives indicated a shift in diplomatic dynamics.
2. Acknowledgment of Palestinian Identity: Shamir's acknowledgment of the "Palestinian" identity during the conference was a noteworthy departure from previous Israeli positions. The recognition of Palestinian identity and association with the land marked a symbolic shift in the discourse surrounding the conflict.
3. Global Support for Resolution: The international community, represented by major world powers such as the United States (President George H.W. Bush) and the Soviet Union (President Mikhail Gorbachev), demonstrated a united front in pushing for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference reflected a rare instance of superpower cooperation on the Middle East peace process.
4. Involvement of First Intifada Representatives: The inclusion of representatives from the First Intifada at the same level as heads of state was unprecedented. This recognition reflected the global acknowledgment of the importance of involving grassroots movements and considering the aspirations of the Palestinian people in the diplomatic process.
5. Hope and Expectations: The conference generated a sense of hope and excitement for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The collective international effort and the involvement of high-profile leaders raised expectations for progress toward a two-state solution.
6. Pressure on Israel: The presence of international leaders and the global spotlight on the conference put pressure on Israel to engage in meaningful negotiations and consider concessions.
The Madrid International Conference represented a unique moment of international cooperation and diplomatic engagement, providing a glimmer of hope for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The acknowledgment of Palestinian identity and the involvement of grassroots representatives signalled a departure from traditional diplomatic approaches.
First Intifada
Exposed Decades of Ineffective Armed Fight
First Intifada
Exposed Decades of Ineffective Armed Fight
The First Intifada marked a significant shift in the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by challenging the traditional hierarchical military mindset. This uprising, characterized by grassroots, non-violent resistance, posed a unique challenge for Israel, which was accustomed to dealing with armed confrontations. The decentralized nature of the Intifada, with widespread local participation and leadership, made it difficult for the Israeli military to suppress through traditional means.
The hierarchical pyramid of military operations, where a few individuals held command and control over many, was disrupted by the spontaneous and distributed nature of the Intifada.
Unlike conventional armed resistance, the First Intifada involved a broad spectrum of the Palestinian population, including men, women, and children.
This decentralized approach made it challenging for the Israeli military to identify specific leaders or focal points to suppress the uprising effectively.
On the other hand, this shift also posed challenges for the traditional military arm resistance in exile, which was centralized in decision-making and keen on maintaining control over financial resources.
The success of the First Intifada drew attention to the effectiveness of localized, grassroots leadership and raised questions about the relevance and legitimacy of the centralized military structures in exile.
The decentralized resistance of the First Intifada demonstrated that effective leadership could emerge organically from within the occupied territories.
This challenged the traditional military leadership's narrative that emphasized a centralized command structure as the only viable form of resistance.
The shift in focus towards local leadership was a departure from the established norms of the Palestinian resistance movement.
The First Intifada
disrupted the established hierarchical military mindset,
both for Israel and for the traditional armed resistance.
The First Intifada
disrupted the established hierarchical military mindset,
both for Israel and for the traditional armed resistance.
It showcased the power of decentralized, grassroots movements and prompted a reassessment of leadership structures within the broader Palestinian struggle.
This shift had implications not only for the immediate challenges posed by the Intifada but also for the broader dynamics of the Palestinian resistance movement.
Salman Abu Sitta in Conversation with Visualizing Palestine "Our war is not a Military one, it's an Existence War"
Julia Bacha: “First Intifada which is largely misunderstood also in Palestinian society... women were the ones leading the underground resistance... but they were pushed aside... that has huge implications today for the possibility of a successful movement... how we move into the future.”
"it was a grassroots movement, it was very horizontal"
First Intifada Leadership
Unarmed
Unarmed
The First Intifada leadership embraced non-violent resistance, mobilizing the Palestinian population without relying on armed tactics.
Accountable
Accountable
Leaders of the First Intifada were more accountable for their actions, as the movement was rooted in the community and had to maintain credibility.
Knows the Ground
Knows the Ground
The leadership was intimately connected to the local realities and challenges, being directly present in the occupied territories.
Not Involved in Regional Interests
Not Involved in Regional Interests
The focus of the First Intifada leadership was on the Palestinian cause and the rights of the people, without being entangled in broader regional interests.
Humble
Humble
Humility characterized the leaders of the First Intifada, as they sought to represent the genuine aspirations and struggles of the Palestinian people.
Culture of Values and Rights
Culture of Values and Rights
The leadership of the First Intifada was driven by a culture that emphasized human rights, dignity, and fundamental values.
Grassroot Activity
Grassroot Activity
The movement originated from the grassroots, involving ordinary Palestinians in civil disobedience and protest activities.
Looking After the Poor
Looking After the Poor
The leaders of the First Intifada were attentive to the needs of the impoverished segments of society, reflecting a commitment to social justice.
Depth and Strength
Depth and Strength
The strength of the First Intifada lay in its depth, drawing from the genuine sentiments of the Palestinian people.
Clear
Clear
The goals and objectives of the First Intifada were clear, focused on ending the Israeli occupation and achieving self-determination.
Honest
Honest
The leadership maintained honesty in its communication and actions, earning trust from the Palestinian population.
Avoiding Armed Clashes
Avoiding Armed Clashes
The First Intifada leadership deliberately avoided armed clashes, recognising that such confrontations could strengthen the Israeli narrative.
The success of the First Intifada, rooted in its cultural alignment with the aspirations of the Palestinian people, contrasts with the shortcomings of a leadership that relied on outdated strategies and external dependencies.
The fundamental differences in mindset, approach, and impact between the First Intifada leadership and the traditional leadership in exile will be exposed in next sections.
Not Allowed to Return to Their Homes
Not Allowed to Return to Their Homes
Report abuse