āThere is a deep structure at work here, one that insists the Palestinian must always remain the sufferer, the testifier, the exhibit. Even those who claim solidarity often do so on the condition that we remain suspended in that role: the bearer of pain, not the producer of thought. Resistance, when it is acknowledged at all, is quarantinedārendered as reactive, as blind, as ultimately unworthy of conceptual dignity.
But something has shifted. The past two years of uninterrupted massacre of death, met not with silence but with a new and furious clarity, have begun to trouble that arrangement. I no longer believe the refusal to allow Palestinians the capacity to theorize their resistance is merely about Palestine. It is, more dangerously, about the world. What is feared is not our liberation per se, but that resistance might become thinkable again. That it might circulate. That it might take root in other zones of abandonment. That the Palestinian, no longer the mute emblem of suffering, might become the figure through which the question of emancipation reenters the political imagination.
What we are witnessing is not merely a colonial relation between Israel and Palestine, but the enforcement of a structureāone whose operations exceed the geographic or juridical boundaries of the so-called space of the conflict, places like Gaza or the West Bank. There is a conditional sympathy that circulates widely, often cloaked in the language of humanitarian concern. But this sympathy functions, quite precisely, to salvage Zionism from its own contradictions. It offers a moral alibi while safeguarding the permanence of Israel not simply as a state, but as a form: a hinge in the architecture of the global order.
This is an order that requires the Eastern Mediterraneanāhistorically the cradle of anti-imperial dreamingāto remain fractured, administrated, and violently unwhole. Zionism, in this configuration, is not a historical anomaly but a necessary instrument. Its continuance is essential to a geopolitical trinity that has governed the region since the colonial partitioning: the circulation of oil, the logic of capital accumulation, and the strategic dismemberment of Arab political possibility. In this sense, Israel is not just protected; it is structurally indispensable. To resist Israel, then, is not merely to engage a settler colony. It is to pierce through a wider imperial grammar, a grammar that depends on the unmaking of Arab futurity, the perpetual decomposition of political sovereignty, and the translation of every act of resistance into terror, every uprising into pathology.
This is why Palestinian resistance, when it dares to speak in its own name and not through the ventriloquism of legality or pity, becomes intolerable. It is not the violence that terrifiesāit is the lucidity. The refusal to be disciplined into victimhood. The insistence on meaning, on strategy, on the political imagination as something other than mourning.ā - Abdaljawad Omar on The Grammar of Resistance: Rethinking Palestine Beyond Fear and Pity.