It's the Analyst that Resists and the Symptom that Persists...

Jacques Lacan, "Resistance, Persistence, Persistence"

According to seminar 2 (May 19, 1955), resistance is an analyst's illusion, the main issue is the persistence of the symptom/desire in the subject (resistance → insistence).

In the perspective I just opened up to you, you provoke resistance. In the sense you just heard, the only reason resistance, the resistance, is because you stepped on it. There is no resistance to the subject. The point is to release the persistence of the symptom... (p. 284)

There's only one resistance, and that's the analyst's. When he doesn't understand what he's dealing with, he resists, analyst. When he thinks interpreting is to show the subject what he desires in the sexual object, he doesn't understand what he's dealing with. He's wrong. What he thinks to be objective is downright abstraction. He is an analyst in a state of inaction and resistance.

However, it is about teaching the subject to name, express, and bring to existence this desire that is literally in existence and therefore insists on it. If Desire doesn't dare say his name, it's because the subject hasn't revealed it yet. (p. 285, c. War Sword)

According to the seminar "Stolen Letter" (April 26, 1955), there is persistence or persistence in the nucleus of symptomatic persistence (persistence → persistence):

In fact, examples of conservation based solely on the necessities of the symbolic chain (and unidentified suspended), that is, examples as I mentioned above, allow us to conceptualize where the indestructible persistence of unconscious desire is located; As paradoxical as it sounds, this persistence is one of the characteristics that Freud has insisted on in his own teaching. (source)

Notes:

See "The Sisterhood of Humanity" and "Resistance and Persistence: Contempt/Indpitableness and Dishonor"