Neoliberal Developments, National Consciousness, and Political Economies of Resistance in Palestine

Abstract

This essay explores the concept of political economies of resistance in Palestine as an alternative to the anticolonial imaginary articulated by nationalist visions, and the potential for liberation offered by local actors who articulate these political economies of resistance. It considers Frantz Fanon’s vision of national consciousness, its relevance to Palestinian resistance in the context of settler colonialism, and its aid in the articulation of political economies of resistance as a way to imagine otherwise in global politics. The impact of the Oslo peace process is discussed as a signalling of the end of a sort of Palestinian anticolonial utopia, with particular attention to the Palestinian nationalism embodied by leadership such as the Palestinian Authority, and its weddedness to liberal notions of economics and politics. It then considers contemporary Palestinian claims of politics and economies of resistance that are both local and transnational in their articulation, arguing that nationalist commitments to anticolonial utopias foreclose, not only the ability to imagine otherwise in global politics, but also obscure the otherwise already interrupting the histories of colonial modernity.

• military occupation
• nationalism
• neoliberalism
• Palestine
• political economy
• postcolonialism
• resistance
• settler colonialism

Acknowledgments

Many thanks to Alina Sajed, Naeem Inayatullah, and the anonymous reviewer for their helpful comments.

Notes

1 As Lewis R. Gordon puts it, Fanon is “careful to raise the question of how a transition could be made from necolonialism to a genuine postcolonialism instead of, as Achille Mbembe has observed, the emergence of a ‘postcolony,’ that is, a legally independent entity with all the sociological and material trappings of a colony” (Gordon 2015, 121).

2 In addition to engaging Fanon and other postcolonial writers, this essay draws from humanitarian reports and policy analyses, as well as my own fieldwork in Palestine–Israel, with interviews conducted across a range of civil society organizations in January and September 2015.

3 Signed in 1993, the Oslo Accords provide the overarching political framework defining relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority. It was intended as an interim agreement towards a final settlement based on UN Resolution 242, leading to the creation of a Palestinian State alongside Israel. This “two-state solution” has never been realized.

4 Chakrabarty (2000) describes the effects of this “historicizing” modernist discourse that consigns “rude” nations (like Palestinians, Indians, or Africans) to an imaginary waiting room of history – waiting until they move out of their anachronistic “prepolitical” stage to the stage of the “modern citizen” (8).

5 Another indicator of this was that Fayyad was not even able to get approval for a UN post as Libya envoy. See “U.S. Moves” (2017) and “U.N. Council” (2017).

6 See Harvey (2005), Mitchell (2002), Haddad (2016), and Tartir and Seidel (2019). While its usage is wide and varied, neoliberalism refers here to a logic and an order that advances an understanding of social and political freedom that can only be realized in free market terms. On a point particularly salient in this “post Oslo” era in occupied Palestine, Monbiot (2016) underscores Naomi Klein’s conclusions that neoliberal theorists advocated the use of crises to impose unpopular policies while people were distracted, for example, in the aftermath of Pinochet’s coup, the Iraq war, and Hurricane Katrina.

7 This widely quoted statement is taken from an interview with Meir in the Sunday Times (London), 15 June 1969 (quoted in Khalidi 1997, 147).

8 This invisibility also emerges with a focus on the effectiveness of resistance and the depoliticization of power and conflict. If resistance is known by its effectiveness, it may not appear. But if it is not about effectiveness, for example if it is about the locations of power, resistance appears wherever power appears. In other words, resistance does not emerge as a strategy seeking effectiveness, it emerges in relationship to power. That is another key element to this anticolonial imaginary or discourse on political economies of resistance. It is not concerned with conflict per se and the pursuit of peace using liberal tools like peace processes, good governance, or foreign direct investment, it is concerned with the exercise of power (which requires violence) and resistance that co-constitutes power.

9 Many thanks to an anonymous reviewer for providing this attention to apperception in considering the disturbing visibility and invisibility of violence and suffering.

10 Classic works in the field of political economy in Palestine include Sayigh (1979), Zureik (1983), Abed (1989), and Roy (1995). For more recent analyses, see Farsakh (2016), Khalidi and Samour (2011), Samara (2000), Turner and Shweiki (2014), Tabar and Salamanca (2015), and Haddad (2016).

11 For more on this history of Palestine–Israel, see Pappé (2014) and Shlaim (2000).

12 Challenging a cash-crop economy is also linked to an embrace of traditional cultural industries. Supporting and “exporting Palestinians’ rich cultural heritage (unlike vulnerable cash-crops such as carnations and strawberries) can help educate people globally about the Palestinian cause and provide opportunities to preserve cultural industries” (Tartir, Bahour, and Abdelnour 2012, 4).

13 I am indebted to an anonymous reviewer for highlighting this line of inquiry.

14 For more on the construction of poverty and the depoliticizing effects of economic development, see Escobar (1995) and Ferguson (1994).

15 Palestinian poet Mahmoud Darwish wrote about these visions of steadfastness also in terms of belonging and landedness and spoke often about this sort of longing and belonging, identification and attachment to a place. It drove the question: “Where can I free myself from the homeland in my body?” (2013, 15). The reference to Darwish reminds us that any notion of independence that does not pay attention to land (homeland) is false.

16 A contemporary aspect of this global solidarity relates to the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement (BDS). In particular, BDS organizers and activists are called on to raise awareness and make connections by providing a platform for fostering relationships that link farming and herding initiatives with global movements (Abdelnour, Tartir, and Zurayk 2012, 8).

Additional information

Funding

The research for this essay was made possible by the financial support of Nonviolence International’s Randall Research Scholarship and the American University Provost’s Office Doctoral Student Research Award.