Dr. Wasil Abu Yousef: The Beijing Agreement included an agreement on the necessity of reaching consensus on the appropriate form of resistance.

Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem: The absence of dialogue has deepened crises, and responsible discussion is important to reach the most appropriate form to confront the occupation in the West Bank

Nihad Abu Ghosh: Choosing the type of resistance based on national consensus, taking into account the differences in circumstances, place and time

Samah Khalifa: The necessity of agreeing on a unified program and vision that constitutes a strategy for the Palestinian people’s struggle

Imad Ghayatha: It is necessary to integrate the forms of struggle and leave the state of stagnation and calcification in the language of national discourse

In light of the increasing challenges facing the Palestinian national movement, there is an urgent need to rebuild a unified national discourse that restores confidence between the various arms of the Palestinian resistance, and to agree on the form of resistance according to place, time, and circumstances.

In separate interviews with Al-Quds.com and Al-Quds.com, writers, political analysts and university professors believe that the political division that the Palestinians have long suffered from has resulted in a stagnation in the language of dialogue and the emergence of problems regarding specific forms of resistance, which has negatively affected national consensus and led to a discrepancy in the means used to confront the occupation.

Analysts who met with “I” and “Al-Quds” Dot Com believe that reconsidering the tools used in the struggle has become a necessary requirement, as reckless adventures must be avoided. Moreover, national options for achieving Palestinian rights cannot be limited to one form of resistance, whether armed, peaceful, political, diplomatic or legal. Rather, these forms must be integrated to achieve the goals of the Palestinian struggle. Moreover, using specific forms of struggle at a certain stage does not mean rejecting other forms.

Strengthening steadfastness is the main key to thwarting the occupation's plans

Dr. Wasil Abu Yousef, the General Coordinator of the National and Islamic Forces, confirms that the reconciliation agreement in Beijing included an agreement on the legitimacy of all forms of Palestinian struggle, with the necessity of reaching a national consensus on the form of resistance appropriate for each stage.

He explains that the past years have shown the importance of popular resistance, especially in areas exposed to settler attacks, stressing that strengthening the steadfastness of the Palestinian people is the main key to thwarting the plans of the Israeli occupation.

Abu Yousef points out that all Palestinian factions agree on the necessity of activating popular resistance in areas exposed to attacks, especially in the West Bank, including Jerusalem.

Abu Yousef confirms that there is a certain level of joint coordination between the factions to ensure the continuation of resistance in the face of the settlers’ attacks on villages, towns and Bedouin communities.

Forming local protection committees is an urgent necessity

He explains that the formation of local protection committees is an urgent necessity to enable citizens to defend themselves against these attacks.

Abu Yousef stresses that the Palestinian people have the right to resist the crimes they are subjected to by the occupation, including killing and liquidation, explaining that achieving this right requires comprehensive national unity to strengthen the steadfastness of the Palestinian people.

Abu Yousef stresses that all the factions of the national action agree that the form of resistance must be a matter of consensus, stressing the importance of national unity to achieve the common goals of the Palestinian people in confronting the occupation.

The importance of opening a dialogue on methods and means that reflect national interests

For his part, writer and political analyst Dr. Abdul Majeed Suwailem confirms that the absence of internal Palestinian dialogue has deepened the crises suffered by the Palestinian people and has affected their fateful issues.

Suwailem stresses the importance of opening a dialogue on methods and means that reflect national interests, away from unilateral or centralized orientations.

Suwailem explains that the discussion must be serious, effective and responsible, especially if its goal is to reach the most appropriate form of confronting the Israeli occupation in the West Bank.

Suwailem points out that the issue of resistance against the occupation is basically a topic of discussion adopted by various Palestinian forces, parties and factions, and there are also different and opposing opinions adopted by other parties.

Suwailem stresses that the discussion should focus on the basic principle that resisting what the settlers and the occupation army are doing is a national necessity, and all available means must be used to achieve this.

Suwailem explains that the settlers’ attacks are not only intended to terrorize the residents, but also aim to seize land and form settlement outposts, as happens in “pastoral settlement” and other methods used by the settlers under the protection and supervision of the occupation army.

He believes that resistance in this case is required and necessary, whether armed or unarmed, describing the debate on this issue as "sterile", because the people under occupation have the right to use all means of resistance. However, Suwailem points out that the most important question is about the most effective form.

Suwailem addresses the bombing operations, for example, noting that they are not effective and contradict international law, stressing the need for a serious discussion about these actions, but he pointed out the difficulty of controlling people’s reactions after all the massacres committed by the occupation in the Gaza Strip or through the killing and deliberate starvation imposed on the Palestinian people.

He believes that the responsible national debate should focus on resistance to defend oneself by all possible and available means, with the necessity of taking into account what international law stipulates in confronting occupation.

Suwailem stresses the importance of having a clear standard and measure in discussing this issue, warning against sanctifying a particular form of resistance over others, stressing the need for the discussion to take into account the circumstances and interests of the Palestinian people, and to be consistent with international law because Palestine is an integral part of this law.

The problem goes beyond Gaza to include the entire Palestinian issue

Regarding the events of October 7, Suwailem points out that they cannot be compared to what is happening in the West Bank, as the Gaza Strip has been suffering from a siege that has lasted for 17 years, which he considered “the largest prison in human history.”

Suwailem points out that the attack carried out by Hamas may have been motivated by reasons related to the siege of the Gaza Strip or Israeli attempts to liquidate the Palestinian cause, considering that the problem goes beyond Gaza to include the entire Palestinian cause.

As for confronting the settlers and the occupation army in the West Bank, Suwailem stresses the need to be precise in the method and form of resistance, and that the interests of the Palestinian people should be the priority, while adhering to the requirements of international law.

Suwailem points out that the settlers and the occupation army do not leave room for peaceful struggle, but it must continue despite that, warning against complete dependence on it in light of the ongoing settlement attack.

Suwailem stresses that the correct position is to combine all possible forms of resistance, with a careful balance of the interests of the Palestinian people, and taking into account international requirements to maintain international support and solidarity with the Palestinian cause.

Suwailem calls for choosing the most effective methods capable of influencing the global and regional levels, in order to mobilize support and advocates for Palestinian national rights.

The importance of unity in choosing the form of struggle

In turn, writer and political analyst Nihad Abu Ghosh confirms that the absence of national agreement on forms of resistance is due to the continued state of division and the conflict of political options, which has had a negative impact on the frameworks of national struggle.

Abu Ghosh explains that this division led to a conflict between forms of resistance rather than their integration, stressing that the objective basis for resistance was determined in the decisions of the Palestinian National Council during its session in 2018, where it recognized the right of the Palestinian people to use all forms of struggle consistent with international legitimacy.

He points out that the choice of the type of resistance must be based on national consensus, as the nature of resistance varies according to circumstances, place and time.

Abu Ghosh points out the importance of unity in choosing the form of struggle, warning that choosing any form of resistance poorly could lead to negative effects.

The occupation is responsible for the crimes, not the resistance.

But Abu Ghosh stresses at the same time the need not to hold the resistance responsible for the crimes of genocide, stressing that the occupation is responsible for the crimes it commits, such as mass assassinations and targeting civilians with the aim of eliminating a single resistance fighter, as well as starvation and collective punishment.

Abu Ghosh points out that this targeting stems from the fact that the occupation, with its racism, considers the lives of Israelis more important than the lives of thousands of Palestinians, and does not pay attention to their lives, as crime and genocide are part of the occupation’s strategy and political history.

Abu Ghosh says: "It is not right for the resistance forces to engage in adventurous battles without calculation. Sometimes it requires waiting and other times it requires speeding up the work."

Abu Ghosh believes that resistance without national unity may be less effective, and that political action and negotiations without unity may be less successful, calling for unity and choosing the appropriate method of struggle.

Guerilla action should not be an alternative to organized national action.

He touched on the absence of the role of the factions in the mobilization of the masses in the West Bank, pointing out that this absence is what pushes towards individual action, while stressing that the guerrilla action should not be an alternative to organized national action.

Abu Ghosh refers to the opinion of Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, who stressed that “resistance must be rational and mature.”

Abu Ghosh explains the existence of two opposing lines in the struggle, the first is realism, which may turn into surrender and defeatist logic if we overdo it, and the second is revolutionism, which may become an ill-considered adventure if we do not take into account the objective circumstances, stressing the necessity of combining realism and revolutionism to achieve realistic change without surrendering to reality.

Abu Ghosh confirms that the Israeli liquidation project targets everything Palestinian, not just resistance work, calling for anticipating events and choosing the appropriate form of resistance, pointing to the state of calcification that the national forces are suffering from, and their need to make room for the young generation to lead the stage.

He points to the absence of tools for popular action as in the first intifada due to the division, stressing the necessity of implementing the outcomes of the Beijing meeting to translate unity into all aspects of the Palestinian situation.

Abu Ghosh points out that the international environment prohibits harming civilians, which requires mobilizing the resistance to preserve the ethics of resistance, while emphasizing that the Palestinian resistance is more moral than the occupation in everything.

The difference in the orientations of the factions prevents agreement on a resistance approach

In turn, writer and political analyst Samah Khalifa points out that “a study of history shows that confronting the enemy can only be achieved through armed resistance, but as a result of successive negotiations and undeclared agreements, in addition to the absence of Arab support and the Palestinian Authority’s lack of equal power, resort was made to what is called “peaceful resistance” to confront the occupation, which is limited to denunciation, condemnation and dialogue.”

Khalifa believes that the difference in the nature of the form of resistance is evident in the different orientations of the Palestinian factions between those who support armed resistance and those who prefer peaceful resistance, which prevents agreement on a single approach to confront the occupier.

She points out that this division deepens the differences over the legitimacy of governance and representation, which makes the factions’ attempts to end the division and strengthen national unity within the framework of the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people doomed to failure.

Khalifa points out that there is a time gap between the first Intifada that broke out in 1987 and the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” as the popular trend was towards the Palestine Liberation Organization as the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people, amid difficult economic conditions. At the time, there was hope that the organization would bring about development in the Palestinian cause, but things deteriorated with the passage of time, as the oppression of the people increased, and then the demonstrations that extended between the West Bank and Gaza culminated in the Oslo Accords.

Khalifa points out that this agreement led to the emergence of a new resistance that is compatible with the emergency circumstances, as we see today in the West Bank following the loss of hope and the dispersion of the compass.

Khalifa believes that the problem lies in two main parties: the first is the Israeli occupation, which seeks to inflame the situation to achieve internal political goals ranging from preserving the government seat to the vision of religious extremists such as Ben Gvir and Smotrich. The second party is the Palestinian people, who seek a decent and stable life, but are losing it day after day due to the absence of the authority and factions from the people’s orientations and the presence of an occupier working to exterminate the Palestinian people, who find themselves by nature heading towards resistance to defend themselves and their rights.

Khalifa stresses that it is necessary to reinforce the importance of choosing the form of resistance, which requires achieving national unity and developing a unified program and vision that constitutes a strategy for the Palestinian people’s struggle, stressing that this is the only way to achieve the goals of the Palestinian people in confronting the occupier.

The political division has led to a state of stagnation and calcification in the language of national discourse.

As for Imad Ghayatha, a professor of political science at Birzeit University, he believes that “the political division that afflicted the Palestinian national movement led to a state of stagnation and calcification in the language of national discourse, which negatively affected trust between the arms of the resistance in its various forms.”

He explains that this situation led to the closure of dialogue between the factions, and the emergence of contempt for a certain form of resistance in comparison to other forms, which is a natural result of the failure to establish an agreed-upon national program that determines the appropriate forms of struggle according to place and time.

Ghayatha points out that the means used in the Palestinian struggle suffer from a lack of agreement between the factions, stressing the importance of reconsidering how to protect the popular incubator, by avoiding taking risks in choosing a form of resistance.

Ghayatha stresses that the Palestinians should not limit themselves to a specific option, and continue to question the choice of one form of resistance over another, stressing that national rights cannot be achieved through negotiations alone or through weapons alone, but rather through the integration of forms of struggle.

Using one form of struggle at one point does not mean rejecting other forms.

Ghayatha stresses that “using a certain form of national struggle at a certain stage does not mean rejecting other forms, and that the right to self-determination is not achieved only by using weapons, but rather requires a comprehensive political program.”

Ghayatha asserts that if the gun is raised without a clear political vision, it becomes a lost gun, and may lead to disastrous results, pointing out that one of the problems of revolutions lies in adopting the slogan “No voice is louder than the voice of battle.”

Ghayatha stresses that rebuilding the Palestinian national movement has become necessary, especially since it has not been able to agree on a comprehensive national vision and program that would spare the Palestinian people calamities.

Ghayatha stresses that resistance, in its broadest sense, is embodied in the ability of any society to preserve its rights and persevere, but achieving this requires consensus on a national program in line with international laws.

Ghayatha warns of the disastrous consequences of the presence of the resistance fighters among the population centers, adding that the problem lies in the fact that no one dares to evaluate the resistance fighters’ experience in a critical and frank manner.