Elias Rodriguez. Photo: Ahmed Mofeed.
By Khaled Barakat – May 29, 2025
The operation carried out by the feda’i Elias Rodriguez was not a passing event or an act isolated from the current political and strategic context. Rather, it marked a pivotal moment in clarifying positions and exposing contradictions—especially in the international arenas where solidarity movements with the Palestinian people are active. Occurring amid one of the fiercest phases of the genocidal war waged by the Zionist entity against the Gaza Strip for more than twenty months, the operation was a natural and legitimate response to this brutal aggression and an echo of the voice of resistance that remains alive and deeply rooted in the conscience of free peoples.
The revolutionary intellectual and martyr Ghassan Kanafani (1936–1972) was the foremost theorist of revolutionary violence in confronting imperialism and Zionism. Kanafani’s link to armed struggle was not romantic but was tightly bound to his political thought, his convictions, and the approach whose logical and moral coherence he defended until the moment of his martyrdom. This practical, organic connection was among the chief reasons for his assassination.
Kanafani also waged an unrelenting intellectual struggle against those—whether Palestinians, Arabs, or others—who opposed “external operations.” The author of the dictum “behind the enemy everywhere” continually affirmed, up to the moment of his assassination, that there is neither separation nor contradiction between the actions of the fedayeen in Palestine and across its borders and “external operations,” so long as the political strategy is unified and the enemy is one. Has the enemy camp changed today? Have its colonial policies changed, or have they grown even more savage?
Rodriguez’s heroic operation clarified that the “solidarity movement” with the Palestinian people is not a single current or unified vision, but rather a mixture of diverse forces: some believe in the path of resistance and the liberation of Palestine from the river to the sea, while others have positioned themselves within liberal frameworks that confine the conflict to human rights discourse and the diplomatic arena, and practically call for what is termed the “two-state solution” as the only viable horizon for the Arab-Zionist conflict. This divergence is not new. It reflects the political and ideological contradictions that have always accompanied international solidarity movements, from the Algerian revolution to the support movements for the struggles in Vietnam, South Africa, Ireland, and others. In fact, it also reveals internal Palestinian contradictions—but that is a longer discussion…
At the heart of this complex picture lies the importance of Rodriguez’s operation. It was not only a security challenge to the U.S. security apparatus but also held up a mirror reflecting the reality of positions: who truly stands with the resistance, and who hides behind general slogans to promote a vision oscillating between nihilism and surrender. Many speak of “the Palestinian people’s right to resist,” yet they reject any actual, conscious practice of this right if it steps outside the bounds of discourse acceptable in the West, a discourse that often translates into calls for compromises and political concessions, foremost among them the promotion of the “two-state solution” and a “peace” that entails recognition of the Zionist entity’s legitimacy and the surrender of Palestine—and of our minds as well.
Conversely, there are those who stood firmly and clearly with the resistance, not only as a theoretical concept, but as practical action grounded in the principles of liberation, return, and the rejection of the occupation’s legitimacy. These are the natural extension of Palestinian liberation movements around the world, who view the Palestinian struggle as part of a global front against colonialism, racism, and predatory and brutal capitalism. For this reason, we are witnessing the advance of radical labor, youth, student, and women’s forces, while the trend of “conditional solidarity” is in retreat.
Rodriguez’s operation not only revealed the limits of liberal discourse; it also restored the value of direct action as a mobilizing and agitational tool, placing everyone before their responsibilities. The broad popular response to this operation, particularly among youth and within Palestinian, Arab, and Muslim communities, reveals that popular sentiment remains aligned with armed struggle and a revolutionary position on Palestine. The battle being waged by the Palestinian people is not confined to the West Bank and Gaza, but extends and expands globally within the framework of revolutionary struggle against imperialism, Zionism, and reactionary and fascist regimes.
Palestine is a Genocide in Service of Western Imperial Order
These differences, despite their sharpness, must not turn into a source of nihilistic discord; rather, they should be understood as part of the natural plurality within global liberation movements. Historically, solidarity movements with just causes have witnessed similar divergences, whether in supporting the Cuban revolution, the struggles of Latin America, or even positions on the resistance in Iraq and Lebanon. However, there is an urgent need to prevent the enemy from exploiting this “plurality,” especially amid the genocide. The Zionists, through propaganda campaigns and political and legal pressures, seek to demonize all who support the resistance and its supporters, and to sow doubt and distrust within the ranks of solidarity activists in general.
Our assessment is that the majority of the Palestinian people—inside the homeland and in the diaspora—especially in light of the massacres in Gaza, see the revival of feda’i action as a revolutionary necessity. They are calling for broader popular participation in supporting the resistance, whether political, financial, media, or cultural support, or through direct involvement. This is the popular cradle and the revolutionary driving force needed to halt the aggression, shift the balance of power, and achieve liberation. The greater the occupation’s crimes, the deeper the conviction that there is no place for neutrality and that confronting the enemy has become a duty, not a choice.
Today’s battle is not confined to Gaza or the West Bank, but includes the diaspora as well. Therefore, Rodriguez’s operation represents a cry in the face of the American system, and a message that resistance is not the preserve of geography, race, or color, but is an affiliation, an identity, and an ethical and political stance that allows for no compromise.
In conclusion, the forces of resistance and their allies must build on this moment, broaden the circles of revolutionary dialogue with liberation movements on an international level, and safeguard their ranks against the Zionist campaigns that seek to isolate and defame the resisters. The battle is long and open to all possibilities, but clarity of vision and direction—as Rodriguez demonstrated—is the first condition for victory.
