Occupation and Resistance

Framing Occupation and Resistance in This Conflict

The ideas of occupation and resistance sit at the heart of the Israel Palestine conflict after 1967. This chapter introduces how these two terms are used in this specific context, why they are so disputed, and how they shape political life, daily experiences, and moral debates on all sides.

When people speak of “occupation” here, they usually refer to Israeli control over the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip after the 1967 war. When they speak of “resistance,” they usually refer to how Palestinians respond to that control, which can include political organizing, civil protest, cultural work, and armed struggle. At the same time, Israelis often use very different words, such as “security,” “administration,” or “counterterrorism.” These competing terms already show that occupation and resistance are not only legal or military questions, but also deeply tied to identity and narrative.

To understand occupation and resistance in this conflict, it is useful to see them as a relationship. Policies of control shape the forms of resistance that emerge. In turn, methods of resistance influence how the occupying power justifies and adapts its policies. Over time, this interaction becomes a cycle that affects institutions, public opinion, and the chances for any negotiated solution.

Occupation as a System of Control

In this conflict, occupation is not only about the presence of foreign troops. It also involves a complex system of laws, permits, physical barriers, and economic and security arrangements that regulate life in the occupied territories. These mechanisms structure who can move where, who can build or farm, who controls resources such as land and water, and who is subjected to which courts and police forces.

A central feature is the distinction between different legal regimes. Palestinians in the occupied territories are typically governed under a form of military law created by the occupying power. Israeli settlers who move into settlements in these same territories are usually governed under civilian Israeli law. This duality produces sharp inequalities in rights, protections, and daily treatment, even when people live in close physical proximity. Supporters of the Israeli policies usually describe these measures as responses to security threats. Critics describe them as tools that entrench domination and dispossession.

Over time, administrative details such as issuing ID cards, controlling population registries, regulating building permits, and managing tax collection become powerful instruments. They shape who is recognized, who can live with whom, who can start a business, and who can be pressured or punished through bureaucratic means. From the perspective of many Palestinians, this makes the occupation present not only at military checkpoints, but also in town planning, education, and family life.

Resistance as a Spectrum of Responses

Resistance in this context covers a wide range of actions and ideas. It is not limited to armed struggle, although armed groups are often the most visible in international media. Many Palestinians frame almost any attempt to preserve land, identity, and community under occupation as a form of resistance. This can include staying on one’s land despite pressure to leave, organizing local committees, documenting abuses, or creating art, music, and literature that assert Palestinian existence and rights.

Political resistance involves forming parties, unions, and popular committees, drafting programs for national liberation, and engaging in diplomacy. Legal resistance appears when individuals and organizations bring cases to Israeli courts, international forums, or human rights bodies. Economic resistance can include calls for boycotts, campaigns against cooperation with occupying institutions, or community efforts to build some degree of self reliance.

At the same time, some Palestinian groups advocate or carry out armed resistance, which may include attacks on soldiers, settlers, or civilians. They typically justify this by appealing to concepts of anti colonial struggle and the right to resist foreign occupation. Many Israelis and others abroad, however, view such acts primarily through the lens of terrorism and security, particularly when civilians are targeted. This clash of interpretations about what counts as legitimate resistance is one of the most emotionally charged and morally contested aspects of the conflict.

The Logic of Security and Counter Resistance

For Israelis who support the current military and security arrangements, occupation is not usually described in those terms. Instead, it is framed as temporary control of hostile territory, necessary for defense. The key words in this perspective are “security,” “terrorism,” and “prevention.” Checkpoints, surveillance, raids, arrests, and restrictions on movement are justified as necessary to prevent attacks and protect Israeli lives.

From this viewpoint, Palestinian resistance that takes violent forms appears not as struggle against occupation, but as a direct threat that proves why ongoing control is needed. Security services gather intelligence, carry out targeted arrests, and conduct operations meant to disrupt resistance networks. When rockets are fired or suicide bombings occur, the logic of security gains strength in Israeli politics, and more severe measures often follow. These measures, in turn, are experienced by Palestinians as intensified occupation, which fuels further resentment and sometimes more radical forms of resistance.

This cycle creates a situation in which each side sees its own actions as defensive and the other side’s actions as the main cause of ongoing violence. For Palestinians, occupation is the root problem that explains why some turn to armed struggle. For many Israelis, attacks against them are the root problem that explains why strong security control is unavoidable. Occupation and resistance become mirror images in which each side reads the same events through radically different lenses.

Everyday Life Between Compliance and Defiance

Under occupation, ordinary daily activities often become political, whether people want this or not. Traveling to work, attending school, visiting relatives, or going to hospital can involve passing through checkpoints, dealing with permits, or facing delays and inspections. These experiences shape how people understand power, injustice, and identity.

In this setting, even quiet acts can take on the meaning of resistance. Choosing to speak a particular language, to teach certain histories, to plant olive trees, or to rebuild a demolished house can be seen as defiance of a system that seeks to control space and movement. Families and communities develop informal strategies to cope with and sometimes outmaneuver regulations, such as using alternative routes, establishing local cooperatives, or relying on extended kin networks when formal structures fail them.

At the same time, not everyone chooses or is able to resist. Many people focus on survival, education, and work. Some collaborate with occupying authorities out of fear, material need, or political conviction. Others adopt a more pragmatic approach and try to separate their daily lives from the broader national struggle. These varied responses show that resistance is not uniform, and that individuals constantly negotiate between risk and necessity, principle and pragmatism.

Symbolism, Martyrdom, and the Politics of Legitimacy

In a prolonged occupation, symbols and stories become as important as weapons or court rulings. Walls, flags, names of streets, and maps all express claims to sovereignty and belonging. For Palestinians, figures seen as martyrs or prisoners become icons of steadfastness. For many Israelis, soldiers and victims of attacks become symbols of sacrifice and national unity. These symbolic figures inhabit public spaces, media, and education, and help define who is considered a hero, a traitor, a victim, or a perpetrator.

Martyrdom in particular has a powerful place in some forms of Palestinian resistance culture. It can involve religious ideas about reward after death, but also secular ideas about sacrificing one’s life for the people or the land. This can inspire courage and solidarity, but can also be used to justify or glorify violence, including against civilians. On the Israeli side, ceremonies, monuments, and collective memories surrounding fallen soldiers and victims of attacks reinforce a sense of being under existential threat, and can make concessions feel like betrayal.

Internationally, both sides compete over legitimacy. Palestinians seek recognition as a people under occupation with a right to resist. Israelis seek recognition as a state under attack with a right to defend itself. Human rights language, international law, historical analogies, and media campaigns are all deployed to convince global audiences. In this contest, not only actions on the ground, but also the framing of those actions as resistance, terrorism, self defense, or oppression, become central.

Nonviolent Resistance and its Challenges

Within Palestinian society, there have always been advocates of nonviolent resistance. They draw on global examples of civil disobedience, as well as on local traditions of community organizing. Nonviolent methods include marches, sit ins, refusal to cooperate with certain official bodies, tax protests, boycotts, and campaigns to accompany farmers or protect homes. These approaches aim to expose the injustice of occupation, win broader support at home and abroad, and avoid the moral and political costs of armed struggle.

However, nonviolent resistance faces serious obstacles. It can be met with arrests, physical repression, and restrictions similar to those used against armed groups. Media attention often focuses more on violent incidents, which can overshadow nonviolent efforts. Within Palestinian society, some people see nonviolence as too weak in the face of a powerful occupier, especially when they feel that previous peaceful efforts did not bring freedom. Among Israelis, many do not distinguish clearly between different methods of resistance, and see most organized protest as hostile or threatening.

Despite these challenges, nonviolent efforts have sometimes changed international perceptions and influenced policy debates. They also keep alive a vision of resistance that tries to separate the struggle against occupation from the harming of civilians. The ongoing tension between armed and nonviolent strategies is a key internal debate within the broader Palestinian movement.

Fragmentation, Control, and the Limits of Resistance

A central feature of the occupation as it developed over time is fragmentation. Palestinian communities in different areas can be subject to different rules, institutions, and physical barriers. They may have separate identity documents, different levels of access to land and resources, and varying exposure to military or police presence. This fragmentation makes broad, coordinated resistance more difficult, because people face different immediate pressures and have unequal capacities to act.

At the same time, the occupying power has learned to combine overt force with more subtle forms of control. These can include economic incentives, selective easing of restrictions, co optation of local elites, and security cooperation with Palestinian authorities. Such practices can reduce open confrontation but can also create deep divisions and mistrust within Palestinian society. Some view local leaders who work with the occupying power as necessary pragmatists, others as collaborators who weaken collective resistance.

In this environment, resistance often shifts from large scale confrontations to smaller, more localized forms. Cultural and digital spaces become increasingly important, as young people use social media, music, and visual arts to express dissent, share experiences, and organize. The occupation is no longer experienced only at roadblocks or during raids, but also through algorithms, online surveillance, and the global circulation of images and testimonies.

Moral Ambiguity and Human Costs

The relationship between occupation and resistance is saturated with moral ambiguity. International law recognizes a people’s right to self determination and, in broad terms, to resist foreign occupation. At the same time, it strictly prohibits targeting civilians and certain methods of warfare. Many Palestinians argue that the injustice of occupation must be understood before judging how some choose to resist. Many Israelis argue that the deliberate targeting of civilians cannot be justified by any political cause.

On the ground, it is often civilians who pay the highest price. Military operations, armed attacks, collective punishments, and punitive measures like house demolitions or mass arrests leave deep scars. Trauma, fear, grief, and anger accumulate over generations. Children grow up hearing stories that shape how they see the other side, often with little direct contact. The result is a hardened emotional landscape where empathy becomes rare and suspicion is the default.

This human cost is not an accidental side effect. It is a direct consequence of a prolonged situation in which one side holds dominant power over the other, and the other side struggles to change that reality. Occupation and resistance, seen from this perspective, are not abstract concepts but lived experiences that mark bodies, families, and memories.

Occupation, Resistance, and the Question of the Future

The structure of occupation and the forms of resistance that respond to it have major implications for any future political arrangement. As long as occupation persists, Palestinian politics will likely continue to revolve around how best to resist and what goals to pursue. As long as resistance includes violent attacks, Israeli politics will likely continue to emphasize security and control. Each side’s strategy reinforces the fears and expectations of the other.

Some argue that ending occupation is a necessary precondition for ending violence. Others argue that ending violence is a necessary precondition for ending occupation. These positions are not only strategic, they are also moral narratives about who must move first and who is primarily responsible. In practice, shifts in power, regional dynamics, leadership, and public opinion can all influence whether occupation becomes more entrenched or begins to be rolled back, and whether resistance takes more violent or more nonviolent forms.

Understanding occupation and resistance in the Israel Palestine conflict therefore means recognizing a tangled set of legal structures, security doctrines, political projects, and human responses. It is a relationship that has evolved over decades and that shapes almost every aspect of the conflict, from high level negotiations to the smallest details of daily life.