Who’s to resist whom? [Archives:2007/1012/Opinion]
Dr. Samia Al-Aghbari
In an age of globalization, the concept of resistance has become ambiguous and surrounded by clouds and thick fog. The concept of resistance no longer is the same as before Sept. 11, 2001, having one meaning, which is resisting foreign invasion by a particular country. This concept has changed and become open to more than one interpretation, as well as both unintentionally and purposefully confused.
Those fighting occupation in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan or other locations are in an unenviable situation. It's not enough that their countries are occupied, their riches exhausted and their capabilities destroyed. Worse than this is that their national resistance is accused of not being national, but rather indecent. Thus, they have no right to resist those described as “advocates of freedom, progress and peace,” namely the occupying invaders, particularly the United States and the Zionists.
The question doesn't stop at that point. Even if adopting peaceful and democratic methods like demonstrations and sit-ins, any popular resistance is viewed as a revolutionary movement hostile to democracy and legitimacy and consequently, marked as being subservient to the foreigner and endeavoring to create sabotage.
This raises various questions. What's the new concept of resistance? Who resists whom and why resist? Is it not the resister – whether an individual, a group or an entire nation – who sustains harm, injustice and conquest, such as usurping their land, plundering their property and being exposed to displacement and physical harm? How is it to prevent resisting all of that?
Despite the fact that such popular national resistance mostly is in a weaker financial, military and technological position than the occupying aggressor, who is financially, militarily and technologically superior, the resistance doesn't fear this superiority, usually organizing itself to fight the usurper occupier of their land, achieve many great victories and inflict successive defeats upon the aggressors and their supporters.
The resistance's superiority is attributed to possessing the strongest and most important weapon – faith in the justice of such resistance, as well as religious, legal and human legitimacy.
If colonialist forces try to defame national resistance by accusing it and describing such resisters as terrorists, extremists and the like in an attempt to degrade their steadfastness, they won't succeed in realizing such mean goals and greed. In the long run, colonialist losses will be larger, fiercer and more decisive. What currently is happening in the international arena is an attempt by colonialist forces to recruit opportunist elements to abort resistance, thus emptying it of its national and human content.
Reality proves that the more colonialists and their stooges pressure the resistance, the more increased its strength and resolution. Resistance movements won't spare any effort to implement all forms and means of resistance to surprise the enemy.
The most important factor contributing to strengthening resistance is unity of individuals under the banner of resisting the enemy, wherein there's no difference between one group or another as all unite under the banner of resistance, regardless of sectarian, ethnic, regional, tribal or political affiliation. Thus, the fundamental goal becomes resisting the occupier. There's no difference between Shi'ite or Sunni, Muslim or Christian or even between male and female as all form one fabric, brushing aside their differences.
Those believing in resistance will be impossible to conquer or humiliate and they'll continue generation after generation. The concept of resistance will remain as it has been since ancient times, i.e., resistance against aggressors and tyrants in every time and place.
Dr. Samia Al-Aghbari is an active female Yemeni journalist working in Al-Sahwa newspaper and contributes to other media
Source: Al-Thwart Newspaper
——
[archive-e:1012-v:14-y:2007-d:2007-01-01-p:opinion]
