![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article examines the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine’s (PIJ) framing to explain the radicalisation and short-term tactical variations of its violent repertoires of action during the Second Intifada. By adopting a framing-sensitive approach, the analysis reveals that PIJ actions should be approached as relational performances that communicated a symbolic message to different audiences, beyond their immediate targets. This, in turn, solves some of the puzzles regarding the mixed effects of repression on political violence. Furthermore, by analysing PIJ through the lens of social movement theory, the article contributes to de-orientalise the academic knowledge on this group by highlighting the context-dependent character of its mobilisation strategies against Israel.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Dr Lorenzo Bosi, Dr Andrew Thomson, Dr. Colin Harper, and Dr Anna Kruglova for their support and advice, which was crucial for writing this piece. I also would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers who provided insightful feedback on ways to strengthen this paper.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1. Although nowadays PIJ represents the third largest organisation in Palestine (after Fatah and Hamas), research on the group remains rare (Dot-Pouillard and Rébillard 2013). Apart from the pioneering studies of Legrain (1988, 1990) on the emergence of PIJ during the 1980s, to date only three monographies have focused on the history and ideology of the group: Skare (2021), Alhaj et al. (2014) and Hatina (2001). Nevertheless, it is still possible to reiterate detailed information on the early history of PIJ by consulting the works of Milton-Edwards (1996) and Abu-Amr (1994).
2. The Second Intifada (2000–2005) – following the First Intifada (1989–1993) – refers to a Palestinian uprising against the Israeli occupation in the background of the collapse of the Peace Process between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. While this uprising had initially emerged as a series of non-violent campaigns, the latter had soon been eclipsed by an escalation of violence both by the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) and various Palestinian militant factions, including PIJ.
3. I understand the term “de-orientalise” as Gunning explains it: challenging the assumption that non-Western groups are driven by ideological fanatism and irrational behaviour, thus lacking “either the agency or the structural context that Western movements are assumed to have” (2009, 172).
4. In Terrorism Studies, the term “radicalisation” is often employed in reference to “changes in beliefs, feelings and behaviours in directions that increasingly justify intergroup violence“ (McCauley and Moskalenko 2008, 416). Since the primary focus of this article is on PIJ tactics, I adopt a definition of radicalisation that places the focus on its behavioural aspect (Neumann 2013, 873), investigating those dynamics that culminate with an involvement in the actual use of violence (della Porta and LaFree 2012).
5. The 1967 borders refers to those that existed before the 1967 Six Day War in which Israel occupied East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. This term indicates the de facto border (pre-1967 Israeli occupation) between the state of Israel and what was left of historic Palestine (pre-1948 borders). The 1948 borders refers to the lines along the Suez Canal in the West, the Jordan River in the East and the Golan Heights in the North, prior to the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948.
6. The PLO’s proclamation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders dates back to the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (Palestine National Council 1988).