The battle of the “Al-Aqsa Flood” has significantly altered mental images and narrative patterns regarding how to fight the Zionist enemy. It has also brought changes in political discourse and the choices adopted by actors and activists. Within this context, there are noticeable shifts in the discourse condemning the resistance, represented in the “Normalization Discourse,” which considers the possibility of accepting the idea of two states in Palestine, or in the “Discouraging Discourse,” which strips resistance groups of religious legitimacy with various justifications and claims.
The following lines are an attempt to analyze the structure of the two discourses towards the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation, exploring their dimensions.
Firstly: The Discouraging Discourse:
The discouraging discourse emerges from a religious background, particularly in a Salafi direction, and encompasses various factions represented by Salafi figures in the Arabian Gulf region, Egypt, or Morocco. This discourse finds its most clear representation in a certain Saudi Sheikh who does not hesitate in describing “Hamas” as “evil; in fact, the mere definition of evil!” He goes on to argue that it brought death and destruction to our Palestinian brethren through its actions on October 7. Naturally, the Salafi preacher cannot make such claims without a textual reference from the Quran or Hadith. Therefore, he relies on references without direct or indirect relevance to support his assertions.
The “discouraging discourse” originates from religious authority, especially of a Salafi orientation
This Saudi Sheikh says, “Allah the Almighty says: 'Whoever kills a soul unless for a soul or for corruption [done] in the land - it is as if he had slain mankind entirely.' (Al-Ma'idah: 32). The Prophet, peace be upon him, also said: No person is killed wrongfully, but a share of responsibility for his blood will be upon, the first son of Adam, because he was the first one to kill.' (Agreed upon). So, woe to those who cause the shedding of the blood of many Muslims with their schemes to gain financial and political benefits!” Here, the Sheikh overlooks that the divine discourse is directed towards the killer, i.e., the Zionists, not towards “Hamas.”
Sharing his same opinion is another certain Sheikh, who assumes that the decision to attack the Zionists should have been the Palestinians' and not exclusive to one faction. He forgets that military decisions should not be left to a few individuals and should not be subject to public opinion. Otherwise, the strategic element of surprise is lost, and there is no war that occurred after surveying public opinion.
This perspective also occurs in Egypt, with one of its prominent representatives being a certain Sheikh who establishes a connection between the “Al-Aqsa Flood” and the “September 11, 2001, events” in the United States. He goes on to assert that what happened on October 7 was orchestrated by the Zionist occupation, whose intelligence agencies turned a blind eye to it, deliberately ignoring what they knew for certain. They allowed the Palestinian attack to appear overwhelming and destructive to the entity. Just as America sacrificed 3,000 lives in the “9/11 events” to benefit through its purported fight against terrorism, the entity sacrifices and will sacrifice one and a half thousand lives to implement the plan of forced displacement and create its alternative homeland!
Two other Sheikhs share this opinion, along with others believing that “Israel” paved the way for this attack. Moreover, they hold the belief that the “Hamas” movement itself is a creation of “Israel.”
The “normalization discourse" is based on the hypothesis of accepting the idea of two states, one Arab and the other Jewish
This opinion is based on an assumption that is not explicitly stated in the Salafi discourse, which is that weakness and oppression are the inevitable fate of Muslims. Those holding this view cannot conceive that the Muslim intellect possesses the choice of preparation and planning in light of its limited resources that can be utilized, as stated in the Quran: “And prepare against them whatever you are able of power and of steeds of war by which you may terrify the enemy of Allah and your enemy.” (Al-Anfal: 60).
On the other hand, the connection between the “September 11 events” and the “Al-Aqsa Flood” is merely an allegation unsupported by any material or logical evidence. Salafis have not even bothered to provide evidence to support this claim, which is noteworthy considering that the Salafi methodology gives great importance to evidence and often rejects contemporary interpretations that lack evidence.
However, there are observable retreats within this discourse, as reflected in the statement of the Egyptian Salafist Call on October 8, 2023, which states: “All forms of peaceful or armed resistance, as estimated by the leaders of the Palestinian struggle—who are more knowledgeable about their situation and the situation of their enemy—are part of legitimate jihad, as Allah, the Almighty, mentioned: 'Indeed, Allah has purchased from the believers their lives and their properties [in exchange] for that they will have Paradise. They fight in the cause of Allah, so they kill and are killed.' (At-Tawbah: 111). The Islamic nation must at least stand up and form a correct characterization of the Zionist crimes in Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank. It must assert the right of the resistance to resist the occupation until it leaves, or at least spare the sanctities of Muslims.”
Secondly: The Normalization Discourse:
This discourse is based on a fundamental assumption, which is the acceptance of the idea of two states, one Arab and the other Jewish. It first emerged in 1947 when the United Nations adopted the partition resolution, which led to the outbreak of the 1948 war. This idea was accepted by some leftist thinkers, followed later by liberals. An ideal manifestation of this discourse can be found in some politicians and activists, such as a certain individual who wrote in the U.S. magazine “Newsweek” that “Hamas” occupies Gaza and Palestinians suffer because of “Hamas,” not the “Israelis.” Therefore, Gaza must be liberated from “Hamas” and from Iranian influence!
Normalization is on its way to collapse, and discouragement will only be championed by the authority scholars
A certain Jordanian politician agrees with this sentiment. In an article published in the “Asharq Al-Awsat” newspaper before the “Al-Aqsa Flood,” he stated that “it is not true at all that the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) is a national liberation movement. Can anyone believe in any sense that 'Hamas' is a national liberation movement and has no connection to all these polarizations and shifts occurring in this region, while it is closely tied up to Iran?”
As for the Egyptian researcher, she labeled “Hamas” as a terrorist in an interview broadcasted by the “Israeli” Institute for National Security Studies. She stated that “Israel” is waging a war against terrorism on behalf of the Middle East and the world. Additionally, she described the “Al-Aqsa Flood” operation as a heinous massacre and characterized the “Israeli” bloody reaction against Palestinian civilians as self-defense!
Despite these prevailing stances, the normalization discourse has witnessed intellectual correction by the Egyptian thinker who wrote an article in the Egyptian newspaper “Al-Ahram,” in which he stated, “Today, as I have watched with anger, resentment, and pain the crimes and atrocities that happened and still happen in Gaza, crimes that make humanity shudder, I say: I apologize for my favorable opinion of the “Israelis,” who have revealed a heinous racist criminal essence. I apologize to the martyrs of Gaza and to every Palestinian child, woman, and man. I apologize.” He went on to assert that what is happening extends beyond “Hamas” to punish the entire Palestinian people.
These words lead us to believe that the project of normalization with the Zionist enemy is on the path to decline and vanish, as is the discouragement discourse, which, over time, may find no one to raise its banner except the authority scholars.
-----------
Read the article in Arabic
