The recent death of Nelson Mandela led many to reflect not only on his impact and legacy in South Africa, but on the role of “great men” in making history. Whether reflectively or not, our theories of history play a role in how we understand the constitution and the trajectory of the events around us. This is particularly important as we look to situations of protracted conflict as these theories can inform questions such as how does conflict begin, how is conflict sustained and how can conflict be resolved or transformed? In a place like Palestine, one might identify at least a certain version of the “great men” theory of history at work when we hear questions like: Where is the Palestinian Gandhi (or Mandela, or King)? This question is often posed as observers survey both what appears to be an intractable conflict in Palestine-Israel as well as what they see as the predominance of Palestinian violence as either cause of and/or response to Israeli military occupation. The implication is that if there was a Palestinian leader who could lead a mass program of nonviolent direct action—like Gandhi in British colonial controlled India—Palestinians could finally be successful in ending the occupation and realizing political self-determination in the establishment of a state. The main questions explored in this paper will include: What has been the shape of nonviolent resistance in Palestine? How has this resistance been discursively fixed or destabilized? It gives particular attention to the persistence of certain understandings and articulations of nonviolent resistance that are expressed in questions such as “Where is the Palestinian Gandhi?” and offers a critique drawing from postcolonial theory as well as suggestions for future research, including an interrogation of the religious/secular binary. From a scholarly perspective, this topic is important not least in how it provides greater attention to the constitutive role of marginalized people in the production of concepts and practices of resistance, helping us to better understand overlooked and seemingly everyday practices. From a practical perspective, it aids in our recognition of the colonialist legacy latent in contemporary peacebuilding theory and practice and reminds us to constantly rethink the ways we inhabit a world shaped by colonial history. From a policy perspective, it allows us to examine the manner in which power is projected, presenting a “de-centering” as it discusses expressions of social organization and political subjectivity besides the state.