One of the main reasons for launching Decolonize Palestine was to challenge the bevy of pro-Israel myths permeating discussions on Palestine. There are many reasons why we chose to focus specifically on pro-Israel myths. Chief among them is that they are simply much more widespread in mainstream discourse, and have come to be internalized as conventional wisdom by many.
Another reason is that relatively speaking, the Palestinian and Arab narrative of the Palestinian question is much closer to reality than the Zionist one. For instance, the Palestinians never had to invent myths to justify why they were more deserving of the land, they have simply always been there. Consequently, they had little reason to come up with intricate mythology, full of fraudulent talking-points, legitimizing erasing another people [You can read more about this here]. Indeed, every year more research emerges; as more Israeli archives are declassified, Israeli media “discovers” what the Palestinians had been saying for decades. Palestinian claims of forced labor and internment camps during the Nakba, for example, have long been dismissed as wartime propaganda. However, recent research shows that these camps were very real, and newly-discovered ICRC reports from the time described the situation of the Palestinians interned there as “slavery”.
This is not to say that Palestinians are immune to myths or propaganda while Israelis are not. Rather, it is to say that the question of power is a vital one that must be kept in mind.
For example, Christian Zionists in the United States are convinced that for Armageddon to happen, Israel must be strong and stable- that is, before the second coming and its Jewish population is forced to convert or die. They form one of the strongest pro-Israel voting blocs in the United States, especially in the Republican party. They have the numbers, resources, and dogma to act on whatever beliefs they have. Through lobbying and other activities, they work tirelessly to make sure that Israel is strongly supported by the United States no matter what it does.
An Israeli settler can look at any piece of land in the West Bank, and claim –based on nothing– that it was the site of some ancient presence. They can then simply gather a group of like-minded individuals and erect an outpost, effectively colonizing the land with the automatic support and protection of the IDF.
This is simply not the case for Palestinians.
With this distinction in mind, let’s take a look at a curious phenomenon that has recently emerged on Palestinian social media: The watermelon.
As a result of social media platforms such as Facebook censoring Palestinian content, including the Palestinian flag, images of watermelon slices have become ubiquitous in pro-Palestine circles. This harkens back to Israel banning anything Palestinian that could be interpreted as making a political statement, or displaying nationalistic imagery, including the Palestinian flag. The adopters of the watermelon claim that after Israel banned the colors of the Palestinian flag, Palestinians resorted to displaying slices of watermelon instead, as they mimicked the colors of the flag -red, black, green and white. This method for bypassing Israeli censors allegedly prospered during the first Intifada where it became a widespread practice.
While the intentions of this adoption are admirable, there is very little evidence to suggest such a practice took place, especially during the first Intifada. We suspect that this belief arose from a misunderstanding stemming from this interview with Sliman Mansour, the prominent Palestinian artist.
Mansour and his fellow artists’ exhibition was shut down due to its “political nature”. Not only was the Palestinian flag not allowed, but anything mimicking its colors was also totally banned. So, one of the artists asked “What if I were to make a flower of red, green, black and white?” To which the soldier replied:
‘It will be confiscated. Even if you paint a watermelon, it will be confiscated.’
Mansour himself does not recollect any artist using the watermelon in their art as a political statement. It was all as hypothetical as the aforementioned flower his colleague asked about.
There is no mention at all of this practice in the literature of the first Intifada. There are references to people using the watermelon as an example of the banned color combination -which we are not disputing- but none of the widespread use of watermelon slices as a political statement or as a substitute for the Palestinian flag.
There is one singular New York Times story from 1993 that mentions watermelon slices:
“In the Gaza Strip, where young men were once arrested for carrying sliced watermelons – thus displaying the red, black and green Palestinian colours – soldiers stand by, blase, as processions march by waving the once-banned flag,”
This detail was later retracted, due to insufficient evidence of this ever happening. You will notice that most stories covering the watermelon phenomenon today link back to this same article. Of course, Israel has been known to arrest Palestinians for the flimsiest of pretexts, so this is not entirely outside the realm of possibility. However, there is little to suggest it was a widespread practice.
Additionally, we reached out to several members who were active in the popular committees of the Intifada regarding this issue, none of them could recollect anyone ever using watermelons as symbols of resistance.
Naturally, we are open to any kind of correction, and if there is some mention in literature we missed or a reliable documented source, we are happy to update the article as necessary. However, if this practice was as widespread as claimed, we wouldn’t need to be searching this deeply for a mention of it, in both Arabic and English sources.
Revolutionary movements tend to produce revolutionary iconography. These symbols can take a wide variety of forms ranging from art, to even the revolutionaries themselves becoming immortalized. However, there is also a danger inherent to the adoption of symbols, or rather what or who is chosen to be turned into a symbol.
It goes without saying that adopting a symbol based on a myth leaves it open to attacks from Hasbara organizations and other pro-Israel groups. The go-to tactic of these groups is to cling to any factual inaccuracies -no matter how minuscule- in an attempt to discredit the entire movement. You need only browse a website like “NGO Monitor” to find a mountain of examples of sentences broken down, taken out of context, and twisted beyond recognition to frame them as antisemitic. Nevertheless, Palestinian content will be attacked regardless of how factual it is, with the legions of Nakba deniers attesting to this fact. Fear of defamation from pro-Israel advocates is not the main concern here, but rather something a bit more complicated that the pro-Palestine movement needs to reckon with.
The adoption of something or someone as a symbol can often be the quickest way to diffuse it and empty it of its radical significance. Take the revolutionary legacy of Nelson Mandela for example. Upon his death, western media rushed to call him a “man of peace”, describing how his principled non-violence paved the way for the fall of Apartheid South Africa. What was conspicuously missing from these obituaries, is the fact that Nelson Mandela underwent military training, established the military wing of the ANC, and planned attacks against the Apartheid government. What was also missing, is the fact that at the time these newspapers called him a terrorist, and published opinion pieces on why Apartheid had “nuances”, and how equal voting rights was a “recipe for slaughter”.
The revolution is taken out of the revolutionary, and they become a harmless icon, divorced from their radical politics and actions. They are declawed, and a distorted, tame version of their life is propagated and celebrated by the very forces they dedicated their lives to fighting. Unfortunately, such an occurrence is not unique to our present day, as Lenin so succinctly wrote more than a century ago:
“During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred, and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their deaths, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons, to canonize them, so to say, and to hallow their names, to a certain extent, for the ‘consolation’ of the oppressed classes, and with the object of duping the latter, while, at the same time, robbing the revolutionary theory of its substance, blunting its revolutionary edge, and vulgarizing it.”
Another pertinent example is Martin Luther King, whose real, radical politics are glossed over, morphing into a caricature upon which any stance or position can be projected. At the end of the day, distorted and misquoted tidbits from his long struggle amount to “MLK wouldn’t want you to make me uncomfortable”. That is quite clearly the complete antithesis of MLK’s increasingly radical politics, which posed such a threat to the U.S. empire that he was assassinated.
As you might have surmised, this is no longer about mere watermelons, but a growing trend in Palestine advocacy. As the struggle for Palestinian rights becomes more mainstream, it will undoubtedly attract a more diverse range of supporters, not all of who necessarily share the same radical politics that birthed the Palestinian revolution. Suddenly, being involved in some aspects of Palestine solidarity does not mean the automatic end to your career that it used to. In this context, reformists will emerge; that is, those who strive for inclusion in imperialist systems rather than their dismantlement, and who believe that if they moderate the Palestinian call for freedom enough, they can still climb, both socially and professionally.
There is a reason why the myth of the watermelon gained so much momentum without even the most basic of fact-checking. Because it is respectable. It is safe, it is easy, it is convenient. Why do you think the originators of this symbol chose the first Intifada as its supposed genesis?
Because it is considered the “good” Intifada, the unarmed one, the peaceful one, the mythical and ideal version of Palestinians. The one you can support without that large a risk to your career or social standing in the west. This is naturally contrasted with the second Intifada, the “bad” one, the armed one.
There is a recent trend in Palestinian solidarity circles to turn the Palestinian into the perfect victim. Perhaps this is done in an effort to draw more sympathy for Palestinians, but it has -at times unintentionally- created a mythic, sanitized, meek version of Palestinians who would rather wave watermelons at their tormentors instead of picking up a rifle to resist their colonization.
To be clear: we are not saying that anyone using this symbol subscribes to the views described above. Neither are we saying that this cannot be an effective part of resistance and awareness-spreading. Our fear is that symbolic gestures alone will come to dominate the Palestine solidarity movement, to the detriment of Palestinians on the ground.
Unfortunately, we could already see vestiges of such politics during the last Israeli onslaught on the Gaza Strip. People were full-heartedly supportive of the Palestinians of Jerusalem, as they resisted the eviction of their homes in Sheikh Jarrah with what little was available to them. The moment the Palestinians in Gaza chose to support them militarily, however, the tune changed. Suddenly, many pundits and “allies” started wagging their fingers, talking about it not being the “time” or “the way” to resist Israeli colonialism, despite the action being overwhelmingly supported by the very Palestinians on the ground in Jerusalem they claimed to champion.
Steven Salaita wrote an excellent article on this kind of conditional support:
“Watch how your favorite pundit reacts when Palestinians take up armed struggle or consort with actors beyond the U.S. sphere of influence. Does the pundit drop the crowd-pleasing slogans and start yammering about strategic errors and moral failures among the resistance? Does the pundit exhibit a sudden compulsion to nuance? Does the pundit begin ruminating about how this-or-that U.S. enemy is actually worse than Israel? Those are your tells.”
Once again, we are not saying anyone using the watermelon or propagating the myth practices these politics intentionally or otherwise. Rather, it is our concern that its ahistorical prominence represents the latest attempt at respectability politics within Palestine solidarity circles. It can have its uses, but the attempts of its originators to claim it as some Intifada political tradition is perhaps misguided at best, and malicious at worst. Unlike Israelis, we do not need to exaggerate or conjure historical events from thin air. As always, the truth is on our side.
- Abufarha, Nasser. “Land of symbols: Cactus, poppies, orange and olive trees in Palestine.” Identities: Global Studies in Culture and Power 15.3 (2008): 343-368.
- Chaves, Alexandra. How the watermelon became a symbol of Palestinian resistance. The National News. May 30th, 2021. [Link]
- Medeiros, Lydia. A Lesson on the Powerful Symbolism Found in Palestinian Art. Savoir Flair. May 18th, 2021. [Link]
- Salaita, Steven. The taming of anti Zionism in the United States. StevenSalaita.com. August 4th, 2021. [Link]