Grassroots
Unarmed
First Intifada

Challenging First Intifada
for every Militarised System

The First Intifada marked a significant departure from traditional Palestinian armed resistance, introducing a new paradigm of grassroots, decentralized, and nonviolent resistance. 

The shift from a centralized, hierarchic military approach to a decentralized, locally driven movement proved to be a strategic challenge for both Israeli authorities and the traditional armed resistance leadership in exile.

The militarized nature of Israeli society was accustomed to dealing with armed conflicts and hierarchical military structures. The unexpected rise of a nonviolent grassroots movement caught Israel off guard, as it faced a different kind of resistance that focused on civil disobedience, strikes, and popular protests rather than armed confrontations. This posed a unique challenge for the Israeli military, as traditional tactics designed for armed conflicts were less effective against unarmed civilian resistance.

Simultaneously, the traditional armed resistance, mainly based in exile and accustomed to a centralized decision-making process, found itself sidelined by the emergence of a decentralized movement within the occupied territories. The local leadership that emerged during the First Intifada was more organic, reflecting the sentiments and needs of the people on the ground. This decentralized structure allowed for more flexibility, adaptability, and a direct connection to the grievances of the local population.

The success of the First Intifada, in part, stemmed from its ability to capture global attention and sympathy. The nonviolent nature of the resistance, coupled with the oppressive response from the Israeli military, generated international support and condemnation. Images of heavily armed soldiers facing unarmed civilians, including children, drew widespread attention and triggered a global call for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The shift from a militarized approach to a grassroots, nonviolent resistance was not only a strategic challenge for Israel but also an economic threat to the traditional armed resistance leadership. The armed resistance, accustomed to managing financial flows and maintaining control, faced a decline in relevance as the focus shifted to the locally driven, nonviolent resistance within the occupied territories.

Overall, the First Intifada brought about a significant change in the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, challenging traditional military strategies and providing a model of resistance that went beyond the conventional armed struggle.

Unarmed Grassroots Movement

The First Intifada was a Palestinian uprising against Israeli rule that began in December 1987 and lasted until the early 1990s. The term "Intifada" translates to "shaking off" in Arabic, signifying the Palestinian population's attempt to shake off Israeli occupation.

The use of the Arabic word without translation emphasises the unique nature of these uprisings, particularly the comprehensive involvement of various layers of Palestinian society. The First Intifada saw a coordinated effort that went beyond street protests and involved different aspects of daily life.

Widespread & Coordinated Resistance 

The term "Intifada" not only encapsulates the idea of a popular uprising but also conveys the widespread and coordinated nature of the resistance. It represents a collective, grassroots movement that extended beyond spontaneous acts of protest to include organised efforts in various facets of society. This comprehensive engagement aimed to challenge and resist the Israeli occupation on multiple fronts, contributing to the unique character and impact of the First Intifada in the broader context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Naila and the Uprising

Julia Bacha:  “First Intifada which is largely misunderstood in the West but also in Palestinian society... creation of parallel institutions: so building your own civil society in preparation for an independent state, and they managed to do that at a level that no other movement historically the anti-apartheid movement or the civil right movements actually was able to do to the extent that they built an entire infrastructure of hospitals, schools, of security that was separate from the occupying military power... the reason why they were able to be so effective in building those institutions was because the women were the ones leading the underground resistance and that is a story that Palestinians don't know today and the reason why they don't know is because as you saw in the end of the film they were pushed aside and that was a tragedy and it's a travesty and has huge implications today for the possibility of a successful movement emerging in the region correcting narratives correcting the history is critically important for informing how we move into the future.”

Localised leadership

The leadership of the Intifada was largely decentralised, with local committees organizing and coordinating activities.

Instead of having a centralized leadership, the Intifada was characterised by local leaders and committees that emerged at the grassroots level. These leaders often arose from within the communities themselves, understanding the local dynamics, needs, and concerns.

The "localised leadership" approach allowed for a more flexible and adaptive response to the challenges posed by the Israeli occupation. Local leaders could tailor their strategies to the specific circumstances of their communities. This decentralized structure also made it more challenging for Israeli authorities to suppress the uprising by targeting a few central figures.

The secret committees played a crucial role in managing various sectors of society during the general strike. These committees, composed of local leaders and activists, helped organise and sustain the resistance efforts across different domains like education, health, and commerce. This approach facilitated a more resilient and enduring form of resistance, as it drew strength from the collective will and participation of the entire community.

In essence, the "localised leadership" of the First Intifada was a strategic response to the need for adaptive, community-driven resistance against the Israeli occupation, contributing to the overall effectiveness and longevity of the uprising.

Israeli Response 

The Israeli military response was characterised by a strategy known as "Iron Fist" or "Break Their Bones." This approach was implemented by then-Defence Minister Yitzhak Rabin, who later became the Prime Minister of Israel (assassinated by Israeli right-wing extremist on November 4, 1995).

The "Iron Fist" policy was marked by a heavy-handed and militarized response to suppress the Palestinian uprising.

1. Military Crackdown: The Israeli military, including the Israel Settler Colonial Forces, engaged in widespread crackdowns in the Palestinian occupied territories. This involved the deployment of troops, tanks, and other military assets to quell protests and demonstrations.

2. Curfews and Restrictions: The imposition of curfews and severe movement restrictions on Palestinian communities was a common tactic. This limited the mobility of the Palestinian population and constrained their daily lives.

3. Arrests and Detentions: There was a significant increase in arrests and detentions of Palestinians suspected of participating in or supporting the Intifada. This included both adults and, controversially, minors.

4. Use of Force: The Israeli military employed a range of measures, including live ammunition, rubber bullets, and tear gas, to disperse crowds and quell demonstrations. The use of force sometimes resulted in casualties among Palestinian civilians, including deaths and injuries.

5. Administrative Measures: Administrative detention, a policy allowing for the arrest and detention of individuals without trial, was frequently used during this period.

Israeli Defense Minister:
"Break Their Bones" Policy 

The "Break Their Bones" policy was a specific aspect of the broader "Iron Fist" approach. The phrase was coined by Rabin and reflected the intention to use forceful measures to deter Palestinians from participating in the uprising. The tactic involved deliberately causing physical harm to protesters by breaking their bones, particularly their limbs, during confrontations.

While the Israeli military's response was aimed at restoring order and suppressing the Intifada, the "Iron Fist" policy faced international criticism for its harsh methods and the human rights implications of its implementation. The use of force, curfews, and mass arrests contributed to a cycle of violence and heightened tensions during the First Intifada.


Global Impact 

The First Intifada had a significant international impact, capturing global attention and evoking reactions from various parts of the world. Several factors contributed to its international resonance:

• Media Coverage: The uprising coincided with a period of increased global media coverage. Television and print media extensively covered the events, broadcasting images of Palestinian civilians, including children, facing heavily armed Israeli soldiers. The shocking visuals, such as the breaking of bones captured on camera, stirred international emotions and condemnation.

• Global Attention: The First Intifada drew international attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with widespread media coverage of the Palestinian resistance and Israeli countermeasures.

• Shift in Public Opinion: The uprising contributed to a shift in global public opinion, generating sympathy for the Palestinian cause and raising awareness of the conditions under Israeli occupation.

• Global Solidarity: The images of Palestinian resistance, particularly in the face of what was perceived as disproportionate force by the Israeli military, generated sympathy and solidarity worldwide. Protests and demonstrations expressing support for the Palestinian cause took place in many countries.

• Diplomatic Repercussions: The international community, including various governments and international organizations, responded to the unfolding events. The United Nations and its agencies addressed the situation, and the UN Security Council held discussions on the matter.

• Human Rights Concerns: Human rights organizations expressed concern about the Israeli military's tactics, including the use of live ammunition, mass arrests, and administrative detentions. Reports of human rights abuses fueled debates on the global stage.

• Boycotts and Sanctions: Some individuals and groups called for boycotts and sanctions against Israel in response to its handling of the Intifada. These calls echoed in various parts of the world and contributed to the broader Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement that emerged in subsequent years.

• Political Discourse: The First Intifada influenced political discourse on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. It prompted discussions on the need for a peaceful resolution and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

• Diplomatic Developments: The uprising indirectly contributed to diplomatic initiatives, including the Madrid Conference in 1991

Overall, the First Intifada left a lasting imprint on the collective memory of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The images and narratives associated with the uprising contributed to a heightened awareness of the situation and influenced international perspectives on the quest for a just and lasting resolution to the conflict.

Haidar Abdel-Shafi,
unshakable morals and integrity

Settler Colonial Occupation Exposed

First Intifada representatives were at the same level of headstates of USA, Russia, and Israel.

Madrid International Conference 1991 

The Madrid International Conference in 1991 marked a significant turning point in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and represented a unique moment in the history of diplomatic efforts to address the longstanding issues in the region. 

Key points related to the conference:

1. Shifting Dynamics: The conference brought together key players in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including representatives from Israel and the Palestinian territories. The fact that Yitzhak Shamir, the Israeli Prime Minister known for his hardline stance, was sitting at the same table as Palestinian representatives indicated a shift in diplomatic dynamics.

2. Acknowledgment of Palestinian Identity: Shamir's acknowledgment of the "Palestinian" identity during the conference was a noteworthy departure from previous Israeli positions. The recognition of Palestinian identity and association with the land marked a symbolic shift in the discourse surrounding the conflict.

3. Global Support for Resolution: The international community, represented by major world powers such as the United States (President George H.W. Bush) and the Soviet Union (President Mikhail Gorbachev), demonstrated a united front in pushing for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conference reflected a rare instance of superpower cooperation on the Middle East peace process.

4. Involvement of First Intifada Representatives: The inclusion of representatives from the First Intifada at the same level as heads of state was unprecedented. This recognition reflected the global acknowledgment of the importance of involving grassroots movements and considering the aspirations of the Palestinian people in the diplomatic process.

5. Hope and Expectations: The conference generated a sense of hope and excitement for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. The collective international effort and the involvement of high-profile leaders raised expectations for progress toward a two-state solution.

6. Pressure on Israel: The presence of international leaders and the global spotlight on the conference put pressure on Israel to engage in meaningful negotiations and consider concessions. 


The Madrid International Conference represented a unique moment of international cooperation and diplomatic engagement, providing a glimmer of hope for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The acknowledgment of Palestinian identity and the involvement of grassroots representatives signalled a departure from traditional diplomatic approaches.

First Intifada
Exposed Decades of Ineffective Armed Fight

The First Intifada marked a significant shift in the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by challenging the traditional hierarchical military mindset. This uprising, characterized by grassroots, non-violent resistance, posed a unique challenge for Israel, which was accustomed to dealing with armed confrontations. The decentralized nature of the Intifada, with widespread local participation and leadership, made it difficult for the Israeli military to suppress through traditional means.

The hierarchical pyramid of military operations, where a few individuals held command and control over many, was disrupted by the spontaneous and distributed nature of the Intifada.
Unlike conventional armed resistance, the First Intifada involved a broad spectrum of the Palestinian population, including men, women, and children. 


This decentralized approach made it challenging for the Israeli military to identify specific leaders or focal points to suppress the uprising effectively.

On the other hand, this shift also posed challenges for the traditional military arm resistance in exile, which was centralized in decision-making and keen on maintaining control over financial resources. 

The success of the First Intifada drew attention to the effectiveness of localized, grassroots leadership and raised questions about the relevance and legitimacy of the centralized military structures in exile.


The decentralized resistance of the First Intifada demonstrated that effective leadership could emerge organically from within the occupied territories. 

This challenged the traditional military leadership's narrative that emphasized a centralized command structure as the only viable form of resistance. 

The shift in focus towards local leadership was a departure from the established norms of the Palestinian resistance movement.

The First Intifada
disrupted the established hierarchical military mindset,
both for Israel and for the traditional armed resistance.

It showcased the power of decentralized, grassroots movements and prompted a reassessment of leadership structures within the broader Palestinian struggle.
This shift had implications not only for the immediate challenges posed by the Intifada but also for the broader dynamics of the Palestinian resistance movement.

Salman Abu Sitta in Conversation with Visualizing Palestine "Our war is not a Military one, it's an Existence War"

Julia Bacha:  “First Intifada which is largely misunderstood also in Palestinian society... women were the ones leading the underground resistance... but they were pushed aside... that has huge implications today for the possibility of a successful movement... how we move into the future.”
"it was a grassroots movement, it was very horizontal"


First Intifada Leadership

Unarmed

The First Intifada leadership embraced non-violent resistance, mobilizing the Palestinian population without relying on armed tactics.

Accountable

Leaders of the First Intifada were more accountable for their actions, as the movement was rooted in the community and had to maintain credibility.

Knows the Ground

The leadership was intimately connected to the local realities and challenges, being directly present in the occupied territories.

Not Involved in Regional Interests

The focus of the First Intifada leadership was on the Palestinian cause and the rights of the people, without being entangled in broader regional interests.


Humble

Humility characterized the leaders of the First Intifada, as they sought to represent the genuine aspirations and struggles of the Palestinian people.

Culture of Values and Rights

The leadership of the First Intifada was driven by a culture that emphasized human rights, dignity, and fundamental values.

Grassroot Activity

The movement originated from the grassroots, involving ordinary Palestinians in civil disobedience and protest activities.

Looking After the Poor

The leaders of the First Intifada were attentive to the needs of the impoverished segments of society, reflecting a commitment to social justice.

Depth and Strength

The strength of the First Intifada lay in its depth, drawing from the genuine sentiments of the Palestinian people.

Clear

The goals and objectives of the First Intifada were clear, focused on ending the Israeli occupation and achieving self-determination.

Honest

The leadership maintained honesty in its communication and actions, earning trust from the Palestinian population.

Avoiding Armed Clashes

The First Intifada leadership deliberately avoided armed clashes, recognising that such confrontations could strengthen the Israeli narrative.


The success of the First Intifada, rooted in its cultural alignment with the aspirations of the Palestinian people, contrasts with the shortcomings of a leadership that relied on outdated strategies and external dependencies.
The fundamental differences in mindset, approach, and impact between the First Intifada leadership and the traditional leadership in exile will be exposed in next sections.


Not Allowed to Return to Their Homes