On the surface, there does not seem to be any connection between the resistance attack on Israeli occupation soldiers in Hebron and the mass killing spree that took place at a church in Jordan’s Karak governorate. However, experience tells us to look for connections in terms of the timing and the intended beneficiaries.
Both acts took place on Friday, Oct. 23. One can be declared legal under international law regarding the right to resist occupation, while the other was a clear act of terrorism against a defenseless population.
Security experts have coined the term “reciprocal radicalization” to explain how opposing radical groups help each other grow, mobilize and justify their existence.
In the case of Hebron, two Palestinians attacked a legitimate target in terms of the laws of war. They killed two Israeli occupation soldiers while making the ultimate sacrifice. In Jordan, three armed men killed nine innocent worshippers in a small, peaceful Christian village and fled the scene.
In the Palestinian context, one can look to Newton’s third law: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” The people maintaining the occupation may believe that its military might and international support grant it the right to suppress Palestinian nationalism without paying a price and without facing accountability — either globally or locally.
While people have a legitimate right to resist, valid questions remain about the timing of the operation in Hebron
Daoud Kuttab
Nations may bide their time but they do not forget. During the 1970s and 1980s, long years passed without any significant resistance — whether violent or nonviolent — within the Occupied Territories. While the Palestinian revolution remained active abroad, armed resistance was notably absent internally. The Israelis mistakenly interpreted this Palestinian calm as an acceptance of the status quo, leading them to continue evading any fair and comprehensive solution and the result was two intifadas.
Today, the Palestinian people face a bloody escalation of settlement activity — one that ravages both the land and its people and is unhindered by any accountability or deterrent.
While people have a legitimate right to resist — including through armed struggle — valid questions remain about the timing of the operation in Hebron. It is well known that the occupation army, the settlers and Israel’s extremist political leadership have for months been searching for a pretext to intensify their repression of the Palestinian people and fulfill their malicious electoral agendas. The operation took place just four days before a pivotal election — one that could keep this pro-settler government in power for years to come.
Some might argue that the Israeli opposition is no better. After all, its leader — Gadi Eisenkot, a former army chief who served in the security Cabinet during the genocidal war on Gaza — has explicitly rejected the idea of a Palestinian state. This may be true but if we look at what our people — both within the territories and in the Palestinian leadership, especially those in Gaza — are calling for, we arrive at the conclusion that what is needed at this moment is, at the very least, a brief respite to catch one’s breath.
In contrast to the general support for the Jordanian leadership, public trust in all Palestinian factions has waned
Daoud Kuttab
The mass killing in Jordan appears to have had two goals: to shatter Jordan’s stability and tranquility, and to sow division among different religious sectors of the Jordanian people.
The attack in Hebron was a perfect gift to Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-wing settler government, which has been goading Palestinians to react to settler violence so that they can do to the West Bank what they have done to Gaza. Whether knowingly or not, the Palestinian attackers in Hebron fell into this Israeli trap and the result has been demolitions and the displacement of hundreds of Palestinians. The effect on the Israeli public will become clearer when the results of Tuesday’s elections are known.
In Jordan, the reaction was swift and powerful. The entire nation rose up in unison to reject the goals of the attackers and to encourage the security forces in their pursuit of justice. The capture of the assailants brings in the direct actors but it will take some time to find out who was behind them, who encouraged them and what local rhetoric encouraged them to carry out such an evil act.
In contrast to the general support for the Jordanian leadership, public trust in all Palestinian factions has waned. Many believe that the ruling elites within most of these factions have come to prioritize their own narrow interests, disregarding the broader public good.
It is difficult to object to military operations against occupation soldiers — soldiers who, despite a UN resolution calling for a ceasefire, have not ceased for a single day the killing of Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Furthermore, every day we see images and videos of settlers acting with impunity: assaulting unarmed civilians, stealing their crops, destroying their homes and burning their vehicles.
But is this part of an agreed-upon strategy or merely the unilateral action of specific individuals or factions, taken without consultation?
Today, Palestinian leaders must follow the Jordanian example by rising above their differences and taking a serious initiative toward genuine consultation on a national strategy that commands majority support. If this proves impossible at present, then it is essential — and urgent — to hold presidential and legislative elections. This would pave the way for a leadership that truly represents the people — a leadership capable of shouldering the pain, suffering and aspirations of a population that has endured, and continues to endure, daily hardship.
This new leadership — comprising all national and Islamic factions, as well as independent figures — must demonstrate a sense of responsibility commensurate with the people’s demands. It should engage directly with the public and develop an effective national strategy that balances legitimate resistance — which could, for instance, take the form of nonviolent resistance — with the people’s practical, day-to-day needs.
The Palestinian situation is already sufficiently complex; it requires a discerning leadership capable of taking a holistic view and formulating a struggle-oriented program that can be implemented without the severe harm we witness today.
The killings in Jordan and the revengeful destruction in the West Bank, plus the potential continuation of the extremist Israeli government, require all to think and rethink policies. It may be right to use armed struggle to resist the occupation but any such act must be grounded in an agreed-upon national consensus.
Opponents of civility are trying to shake up a stable country in a burning region. All prayers are for Jordan and Palestine and their people to overcome this difficult situation and rise above it for the common good.
Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and former Ferris Professor of Journalism at Princeton University. He is the author of “State of Palestine Now: Practical and Logical Arguments for the Best Way to Bring Peace to the Middle East.” X: @daoudkuttab