Palestinian right of armed resistance

Last updated

Contents

Many scholars have argued that Palestinians have the right to resist under international law, including armed resistance. This right to resist is in a jus ad bellum sense only; the conduct of such resistance ( jus in bello ) must be in accordance with laws of war. This implies that attacks on Israeli military targets could be allowed but attacks on Israeli civilians are prohibited. Whether it is Palestinians who have the right to resist against the Israeli occupation, or it is Israel that has the right to self-defense against Palestinian violence, is one of the most important questions in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. [1]

It is agreed that, under international law, Palestinians have the right to self-determination. [2] Many scholars support Palestinians' right to use armed struggle in pursuit of self-determination. Such a right is derived from Protocol I, Declaration on Friendly Relations, [3] as well as several resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. [4] Some writers caution that force can only be resorted to after non-violent means of achieving self-determination have been exhausted while other scholars state that Palestinians have indeed exhausted all non-violent means. [5] As evidence, such writers point to the failure of the Oslo Accords to bring about Palestinian self-determination, believing that armed resistance is the only option. [6] Some scholars argue Palestinians also have the right to self-defense, [7] but others point out that not everyone recognizes the State of Palestine and insist that only the ousted sovereign may invoke self-defense from an occupied territory. [8]

Scholars who support a right to armed resistance agree that such a right must be exercised in accordance with international humanitarian law. In particular, only Israeli soldiers may be targeted, and civilians must be spared. The State of Palestine has ratified and is a party to the Geneva Conventions.

Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions

Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions is frequently cited to justify Palestinians' right under international law to resist Israeli occupation. [9] [1] [10] Additional Protocol I (API) of the Geneva Conventions says in Article 1(4):

The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist régimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination

The authors of this article were referring to wars of national liberation that had accompanied decolonistion, the Israeli occupation of Palestinians and the racist apartheid South Africa. [10] "Alien occupation" refers to territory conquered by a state, but not yet annexed and was inhabited by a different ethnic group. [1]

While most countries have ratified API, Israel has not. However, if API has the status of customary international law, then all states would remain bound by it, even if they have not ratified it. [11] Whether Article 1(4) has the status of customary international law is disputed: [12] Clayton Swisher argues it has, [13] but Yoram Dinstein says it has not. [12]

Jan Hessbruegge writes that while international law is generally neutral in cases of rebellions, the above constitutes an exception that considers a rebellion to be "a lawful exercise of a right to resistance." [1] Yoram Dinstein argues that while international law doesn't prohibit such acts of resistance, it also doesn't prevent the occupying state from penalizing those who resist. [14] In this view, Palestinians who resist don't have protected prisoner of war status. [15]

Sahar Francis argues that the right of resistance against occupation is protected by international law, because Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention grants POW status to "organized resistance movements" who meet certain criteria. [16]

Declaration on Friendly Relations

The Declaration on Friendly Relations is considered the most significant achievement for the right of self-determination, as it was adopted unanimously by the UNGA without any opposition. [17] The relevant paragraph of that Declaration states,

Every State has the duty to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples...of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence. In their actions against, and resistance to, such forcible action in pursuit of the exercise of their right to self-determination, such peoples are entitled to seek and to receive support in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter.

—  Declaration on Friendly Relations

Richard A. Falk, applies this to the case of Palestinians, arguing that the Palestinian right to armed resistance stems from Israel's denial of Palestinian right of self-determination. [18] Thus, not only does it make Palestinian armed resistance legitimate, but it also legitimizes material support they may receive from third-party governments. [18] Likewise, in 1983 John F. Murphy said the Declaration of Friendly Relations indicated that most UNGA members deemed it permissible to supply arms to Palestinians. [3]

This right is affirmed in the context of the right of self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. [19] [20] The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has expressly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli military occupation, including through armed struggle. [21] [22] General Assembly resolution A/RES/38/17 (22/11/1983) stated that it "Reaffirmsthe legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle". [23]

Ben Saul argues that armed resistance here is only legitimized if a people's right to self-determination has been forcibly denied. [24] Jan Hessbruegge argues that the definition of "forcible denial of self-determination" is narrow, but does apply to Israel's occupation of Palestinians. [1] Jeremie Bracka agrees that Israel has denied Palestinian self-determination. [25] Antonio Cassese writes that the position that national liberation movements may only resort to force in response to "forcible denial of the right to self-determination" is an "awkward" legal situation that was created due to disagreements at the UN over when such movements can use force. [26] Nevertheless, Cassese writes, on two "rare" occasions the UNGA explicitly granted a people "license" to use force: namely the Palestinians (in 1977) and the Namibians (in 1984). [27]

Palestinian right of self-determination

The Palestinians' right to self-determination is widely recognized, and has been deemed "unassailable". [2] It has been confirmed by numerous UN resolutions. [2] Many scholars opine that Palestinians may resort to armed resistance to achieve their right to self-determination. [6] The legitimacy of armed resistance for the struggle of self-determination can be seen in the international treaties and UNGA resolutions (see sections above). [28] Some scholars opine that armed struggle is only legitimate after non-violent means of self-determination have failed (see sub-section below).

Marco Longobardo opines that the struggle for self-determination can only be invoked by armed groups operating under a national liberation movement recognized by the UNGA. [29] The UNGA recognized the PLO as a representative of Palestinians in a 1974 resolution, and even the UNSC invited it for discussions relating to Palestine/Israel. [30] The UNGA has also determined that the prolonged Israeli occupation is not justified, thus conferring legitimacy upon armed struggle against the occupying power (it also made that determination in case of Namibia and Western Sahara). [29]

Traditional jus ad bellum concerns conflict between states, but the struggle for self-determination can confer similar legitimacy to armed resistance movements. [28]

Exhaustion of non-violent means

Tom Farer argues that the spirit of the UN Charter is that violence must only be attempted as last resort. In his view, Palestinians have exhausted non-violent forms of resistance. [5] Immediately after 1967, some Palestinian leaders demanded autonomy in the occupied territories, but Israel rejected that. [5] In fact, Israel banned all political activity. Palestinians tried Gandhism by refusing to pay taxes, but Israel responded to that via violent beatings and mass detentions. [5] For the next 20 years, Israel denied Palestinians many human rights. The initial months of the 1988 First Intifada, according to Farer, were relatively non-lethal as it often involved teenagers armed with nothing but stones; yet Israel responded with lethal violence. [5]

Likewise, Ayman Salama argues the Palestinians, in their pursuit of self-determination, "have reached the end of their tether", leaving them with no choice but to use force. [31] He points out that Palestinians have recognized Israel's 1967 borders, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was spurned by Israel. [31]

Elyakim Rubenstein argues that Palestinians have no reason to resort to armed resistance given their rights are protected by Israeli courts, which he characterizes as "fair". [13] Clayton Swisher points out that few Palestinians view the Israeli courts as fair. [13]

In 2023, a letter by lawyers in the West Bank argued Palestinians had a right to resist, because the international community had failed the Palestinians. [32]

In referring to Palestinian armed resistance to Israel, Robbie Sabel points out that countries often don't allow people to peacefully gain self-determination. For example, only due to the armed resistance in Cyprus and in Kenya did the British finally allow those countries to gain independence. [33]

Oslo Accords

In 1996, Peter Malanczuk opined that as a result of the Oslo Accords, the PLO no longer has the right of armed resistance against Israel, nor can Israel invoke a right to force (including self-defense) against the PLO. [34] Some Israelis further argue that PLO's renunciation of armed resistance means that right no longer exists for other Palestinian groups either. However, Clayton Swisher argues that the right of armed resistance in non-derogable as it guaranteed under Protocol I, which has become a part of customary international law (non-derogable rights can't be signed away). Thus many Palestinians believe their right to resist exists in spite of Oslo. [13]

Richard Falk argues that by 2000, in spite of the Oslo process, it was clear that Israel would not be allowing for Palestinian right to self-determination; there exists strong consensus at the UN for the Palestinian right to self-determination. [35] Thus, Palestinians maintain their right to armed resistance to achieve self-determination, according to Falk. [35] In 2015, again he argued that Israel was using the peace process as cover for expanding illegal settlements and imposing apartheid on Palestinians, leaving Palestinians with resistance as the only way left to achieve self-determination. [6]

Marco Longobardo agrees that PLO's renunciation of armed resistance indicates peaceful means to end the occupation are preferred. [36] So long as both parties are conducting negotiations on Palestinian statehood, he opines, Palestinians can't claim the right to armed resistance on the basis of self-determination. [36] Indeed, in December 2017, Hamas called for a new "intifada" against Israel on the basis of the peace process being "destroyed", in the eyes of Palestinians, by the US decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem. [37] [36]

Tom Farer argued that the "renewal" of violent resistance (in the Second Intifada) was due to continued Israeli occupation and justified in international law. [5] He points out the 33 years of occupation had passed by then and that Palestinians had attempted various non-violent forms of resistance. [5]

In 2022, a report by OHCHR argued that given the Oslo process perpetuated the Israeli occupation, it violated the Palestinian right to self-determination, a jus cogens norm, therefore rendering the Oslo process invalid. [38] Shahd Hammouri cited that report to argue in favor of the Palestinian right to resist, in spite of the Oslo Accords. [39]

Palestinian right to self-defense

Many scholars have argued that Palestinians also possess the right to use force in defending themselves from the Israeli occupation, the naval blockade of Gaza, and Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. [7] [6] Many scholars argue that the aforementioned Israeli actions constitute acts of aggression against Palestinians. While some scholars argue Palestinians have the right to self-defense, others argue that only states have the right to self-defense and the State of Palestine doesn't exist.

Azmi Bishara argues for the Palestinian right to use force both for self-defense and also self-determination. [40] On the other hand, Jan Hessbruegge argues that non-state groups do not have the right to self-defense, but still upholds Palestinians' right to use force in pursuit of self-determination, as discussed in section above. [1] One reason why scholars differentiate between right to self-determination from right to self-defense, is because it is often held that while the former belongs to non-self governing peoples, the latter only belongs to states. [41] However, not all scholars agree with this view. [41]

Israeli acts of aggression

Those who support a Palestinian right to self-defense, cite Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians, the naval blockade of Gaza and the Israeli occupation itself as acts of aggression that justify self-defense.

Blockade of Gaza Strip

Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been under an Israeli naval and air blockade. The blockade has had devastating effects on availability of food and medicine in Gaza Strip, resulting in many deaths. [42] Marco Longobardo argues the blockade can be construed as an act of war, [43] and Yousef Shandi agrees that the blockade meets the UNGA definition of the crime of aggression. [42]

Attacks on civilians

Birzeit University professor Yousef Shandi argues that attacks by Israel on the Gaza Strip, including civilians, meet the UNGA definition of the crime of aggression. [42]

Palestinian Islamic Jihad has justified its military actions by citing the Palestinian right to self-defense, in response to the occupation and Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. [44] Likewise, Hamas has also characterized its military actions as an act of self-defense, citing Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights, destruction of infrastructure in Gaza etc. [45] The founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, differentiated between Palestinian armed struggle against Israel's occupation vs armed struggle against Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. [46]

The occupation itself

Palestinian professor Yousef Shandi quotes the Nuremberg trials, which upheld the right of self-defense of people against an enemy that "unrightfully" occupies territories. [47] But, Israeli professor Yoram Dinstein says that there is a widespread idea that civilians under military occupation have the right to forcibly resist the Occupying power, but this is a misconception. [48] If the occupied people try to resist the occupation, Dinstein argues, their actions are crimes that can be punished by the Occupying Power at its discretion. [48] [14]

John B. Quigley argues it is a legal for a state to try to forcibly recapture its own territory that is currently under occupation. [49] For example, in 1973, UNSC did not condemn Egypt and Syria for starting a war to retake the territory Israel took from them in 1967. [49]

Applicability to non-state groups

Whether non-state groups have the right to self-defense, and whether Palestinians constitute a state, are both controversial questions on which scholars are divided.

Article 51 of the UN charter

Article 51 of the UN charter states,

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of collective or individual self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.

Many scholars believe the Article 51 self-defense is only available to states. [50] [8] Shahd Hammouri argues the wording "collective or individual" leaves open the possibility of individuals and collectives organizing self-defense in response to aggression. [51]

Marko Milanovic argues that if one accepts a State of Palestine exists, then it would have the right to self-defense. Milanovic accepts there is no doubt whatsoever that Palestine ought to exist as a state, but despite widespread recognition, many states do not recognize it as a state, most notably Israel. [50] Palestine remains a non-member observer at the UN. Milanovic proposes one could possibly argue that Article 51 also applies to "self-determination units" that have not yet achieved statehood, but admits that is a difficult argument to make. [50] If Palestine does exist as a state, then Israel's occupation constitutes an armed attack against such a state. [50]

Francis Boyle argues that the State of Palestine possesses the right to self-defense, like all other states, and this includes the right to use force to end Israel's illegal occupation. He compares Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation to French resistance to Nazi occupation. [52]

Marco Longobardo argues that while Palestine is widely recognized, the Palestinian Authority has never invoked self-defense despite repeated Israeli attacks on the Gaza Strip. [8] Even countries which have condemned Israeli attacks and recognized Palestinian statehood have not yet affirmed the Palestinian right to self-defense. [8]

Self-defense from oppression

Jan Arno Hessbruegge writes that International Law, regrettably, does not give non-state groups a right to self-defense, not even from genocide. [53] For example, during the Rwandan Genocide, the UNSC criticized the use of force not just by the Rwandan government (which was committing the genocide) but also the use of force by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (which was trying to stop the genocide). [53] Similarly, the UNSC criticized all parties for violence during the Syrian Civil War, including those who were defending against atrocities. However, in the case of the First Libyan Civil War, the UNSC only condemned Gaddafi, not the rebels fighting against him. [53] Hessbruegge concedes that many writers, nevertheless, do believe a right to resist against a government that commits international crimes or oppression. [53]

Implication for Israeli right to self-defense

Scholars argue that if Palestinians have the right to self-defense then Israel does not; [54] in corollary, in a situation where Israel has the right to self-defense implies deeming Palestinian resistance to be illegal. [55] This is because a hypothetical situation in which both sides are justified in using force against the other is logically unfeasible. [55] This can be restated as: there can be no self-defense against legitimate self-defense. [54] Michael Neumann explains this via two analogies: robbers have no right to defend themselves against bank guards; Saddam's forces occupying Kuwait had no right to defend themselves against attacks by the US-led coalition, and in trying to defend themselves they committed further injustice. [56] Israeli professor David Heyd disagrees and gives the example of the Israel–Hamas war. If one assumes Hamas launched the October 7 attacks in self-defense (in response to Israel's occupation), Israel still had the right to defend its civilians from Hamas; likewise if ones assumes Israel's invasion was an act of self-defense, Hamas still had the right to defend Palestinian civilians from Israeli violence. [57]

Sharon Weill and Valentina Azarova argue that so long as Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, it may not invoke Article 51 right to self-defence. [55] Weill and Azarova argue that since Palestinians have the legitimate right of resistance to Israeli occupation, Hamas attacks on Israel are not jus ad bellum violations (although indiscriminate rocket attacks are jus in bello violations). [55]

As for what should Israel do in response to these attacks, some scholars propose: withdraw from occupied territories. Michael Neumann writes that self-defense is only allowed if there are no alternatives, but an occupying power, by definition, can always withdraw. [56] Yousef Shandi writes that Israel can only claim self-defense if the Palestinian armed attacks continue even after Israel ends its occupation of both the West Bank and Gaza Strip. [58] Sharon Weill and Valentina Azarova write that until Israel ends its occupation, it cannot invoke Article 51 right to self-defense. [55]

Legality of Israeli occupation

Jan Hessbruegge writes that "who exercises self-defense against whom" is one of the most important issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and depends on whether one considers Israel's occupation of the Palestinians as legal. If the occupation is lawful, then Israel has right to self-defense, but if the occupation is unlawful, then it is the Palestinians who would have the right to self-defense against Israel. [1]

Israel government dispute whether Israel still occupies Gaza in light of the 2005 disengagement. [59] Even if one assumes the Gaza Strip is not occupied, there is no dispute that the West Bank remains under Israeli control (Israel controls Area C directly, and also retains control over the Palestinian Authority, which governs Areas A and B). [60]

Russia—Ukraine analogy

Nathan J. Robinson compares Palestinian political violence against the Israeli occupation to the Ukrainian counteroffensives against the Russian occupation. [61] Robinson further compares Palestinian rocket attacks into Israeli territory to Ukrainian attacks that crossed into Russian territory. [61] He concludes that both Palestinians and Ukrainians have the right to resist, and doesn't support Israel's nor Russia's right to self-defense against such violence. [61] (Robinson emphasizes that right to resist does not justify violence against civilians [61] )

The comparison of Israel-Palestine to Russia-Ukraine is also made by an editorial in The New Humanitarian, [62] and by Moustafa Bayoumi, [63] Raji Sourani, [64] Nour Odeh, [65] Mustafa Barghouti, [65] and Shawan Jabarin. [65]

Harming civilians

Scholars who support a Palestinian right to resist Israeli occupation, nevertheless agree that this does not in any way justify killing or wounding civilians. [66] David Thompson states Palestinian militants must only attack occupying Israeli forces and refrain from attacking Israeli civilians. [66] Richard Falk, [18] Azmi Bishara, [67] and Francis Boyle, [52] all staunch supporters of Palestinian right to armed resistance, absolutely oppose any attacks on civilians. By contrast, Joshua Muravchik accuses supporters of the Palestinian right to resist of endorsing "murders aimed at civilian targets". [68]

"by all means"

The language used by supporters of Palestinian right to resist sometimes is written as "Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal." The "by all means" is meant to be interpreted in a jus ad bellum sense, and not in a jus in bello sense. [69] Azmi Bishara emphasizes that "any means" mean any means consistent with the UN Charter and other laws of war. [70] Shahd Hammouri, for example, emphasizes that the right to resist, like the right to self-defense, must adhere to international humanitarian law. [71] [69] Hammouri prefers the phrasing "Palestinian people have the right of resistance by all means consistent with the principles of the UN Charter." [69] Likewise, a 1974 UNGA resolution recognized "the right of the Palestinian people to regain its rights by all means in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations." [72]

Palestinian diplomatic activities

The 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence (along the 1967 borders) also proclaimed "the right of peoples to resist foreign occupation" but also rejected "terror in all its forms, including state terror". [73] Yasser Arafat later clarified that this was a reference to rejecting "anti-civilian terrorism". [73]

In 1989, one year after declaring independence, the Palestinian state ratified the Geneva Conventions, recognizing its obligations for warfare under International Humanitarian Law (eg not attacking civilians). [52] By contrast Israel has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to occupied Palestinian territories. [52] [74]

In 2001, Hamas tried to persuade foreign ministers attending the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to issue a statement in support for its suicide bombings. [18] In response, the Secretary General of the Arab League upheld the Palestinian right to resistance and self-defense against Israel's occupation, but also said that civilians must be protected. [75] In 2005, Hamas renounced the use of suicide bombings against civilians. [76]

Skepticism

Many supporters of Palestinians have lamented international law not being more assertive on the rights of stateless peoples. Yousef Munayyer argues that international law was "crafted by states, and largely for states" and ignored the needs of the stateless. [6]

Some believe that Palestinians do not have any right of armed resistance against Israel's occupation. As mentioned above, Israeli professor Yoram Dinstein argued that occupied people have no right to resist the military occupation. [14] In 2001, Amira Hass wrote that many Israelis do not believe Israel is occupying the Palestinians. Hass writes that these Israelis saw the Second Intifada as an unprovoked "act of aggression", rather than as an "act of resistance". [77]

Valentina Capurri writes that the Palestinian right to armed resistance is treat by skepticism by two groups. The first are those who do not believe Israel is oppressing the Palestinians, and the second group are those who argue Palestinians can only resist through non-violent means (e.g. many in the BDS movement). [78]

United Nations resolutions

A number of resolutions, both in the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and in the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) have been interpreted as upholding the right of armed resistance against foreign occupation, especially for the Palestinians.

UNSC on Fatah raids (1968)

After Israel's occupation of the West Bank in 1967, Fatah began launching raids against Israel from Jordan. While most raids were aimed at military targets, some were aimed at civilians. [4] Israel retaliated by attacking Fatah camps in Jordan, killing large numbers of people, many of them bystanders. [4]

Twice in 1968, the UNSC condemned Israeli retaliations against Fatah: UNSC 248 and UNSC 256. During the debates, UNSC non-permanent member Pakistan argued Fatah attacks on Israel were legitimate because their goal was for Palestinians to "return in freedom in their own homeland". [4] Likewise, France rejected Israel's claim to "security of the territory" under its jurisdiction, given that Israel's jurisdiction in the West Bank was established through occupation. [4] France further said Palestinians raids into Israel were the "almost inevitable consequence of military occupation". [4]

UNSC on raids on Portuguese colonies (1969)

Around the same time as Fatah was attacking Israel from Jordan, guerilla groups seeking independence were attacking Portuguese colonies of Angola, Mozambique, and Guinea-Bissau from neighboring states. Like Israel, Portugal made cross-border reprisal attacks against these guerillas into the neighboring states that were hosting the guerillas. [4] The UNSC condemned Portuguese reprisal attacks into Zambia (UNSC Res 268), Senegal (UNSC Res 273), and Guinea (UNSC Res 290). [4] It rejected Portugal's supposed right to retaliate against guerilla attacks, and instead criticized Portugal for failing to respect the locals' right to self-determination. [4] John Quigley opines that in doing so, the UNSC recognized guerillas' right to attack Portugal as superior to Portugal's right to attack the guerillas. [4]

UNGA resolutions

The 1971 UNGA resolution 2787 states, [79] [80]

Confirms the legality of the peoples's truggle for self-determination and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably in southern Africa and in particular that of the people of Zimbabwe, Namibia, Angola , Mozambique and Guinea (Bissau), as well as the Palestinian people , by all available means consistent with the Charter of the United Nations

The 1979 UNGA resolution 34/44 states, [81] [80]

Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and alien domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the peoples of Namibia and Zimbabwe, of the Palestinian people and of all peoples under colonial and alien domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, and national unity and sovereignty without external interference.

The 1982 UNGA resolution 37/43 states, [21] [22] [82]

Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle. Reaffirms the inalienable right of the Namibian people, the Palestinian people and all peoples under foreign and colonial domination to self-determination, national independence, territorial integrity, national unity and sovereignty without outside interference.

The 1983 UNGA resolution 38/17 states that it "Reaffirmsthe legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for their independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle". [23]

See also

Notes

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Hessbruegge, Jan Arno (2017). Human rights and personal self-defense in international law (First ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 316–317, 320–321. ISBN   9780190655020.
  2. 1 2 3 Bowen, Stephen (2021). Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Brill. pp. 125–127.
  3. 1 2 Murphy, John F. (1983). The United Nations and the control of international violence: a legal and political analysis. Manchester: Univ. Press. p. 145. ISBN   978-0-7190-0942-6.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Quigley 2005, p. 189-191.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Farer, Tom. Confronting Global Terrorism and American Neo-Conservatism. Oxford University Press. p. 188.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 Table, Al Jazeera Round. "Forum: How can Palestinians legally fight occupation?". Al Jazeera . Retrieved 2024-06-20.
  7. 1 2 "Palestine's Right to Defend Itself". Brookings. Retrieved 28 August 2024.
  8. 1 2 3 4 Longobardo 2018, p. 121-122.
  9. ↑ Cohen, Stanley L (2017-07-20). "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle". Al Jazeera . Retrieved 2024-06-20. Long ago, it was settled that resistance and even armed struggle against a colonial occupation force is not just recognised under international law but specifically endorsed. In accordance with international humanitarian law, wars of national liberation have been expressly embraced, through the adoption of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (pdf), as a protected and essential right of occupied people everywhere.
  10. 1 2 Chinkin, Christine; Kaldor, Mary (2017). International law and new wars (First published ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 236. ISBN   978-1-107-17121-3.
  11. ↑ "Customary international humanitarian law | International Committee of the Red Cross". www.icrc.org. 2016-05-20. Retrieved 2024-09-12.
  12. 1 2 Orakhelashvili, Alexander (2015-07-03). "Undesired, Yet omnipresent: Jus ad Bellum in its relation to other areas of international law". Journal on the Use of Force and International Law. 2 (2): 238–256. doi:10.1080/20531702.2015.1090219. ISSN   2053-1702.
  13. 1 2 3 4 Swisher, Clayton E. (2004). The truth about Camp David: the untold story about the collapse of the Middle East peace process. New York: Nation Books. pp. 142–143. ISBN   9781560256236.
  14. 1 2 3 Sabel 2022, p. 326.
  15. ↑ Sabel 2022, p. 327.
  16. ↑ Francis 2014, p. 42-43.
  17. ↑ Falk, Richard A.; Kratochwil, Friedrich V.; Mendlovitz, Saul H., eds. (1985). International law: a contemporary perspective. Studies on a just world order. Boulder: Westview Press. pp. 414–416. ISBN   978-0-86531-252-4.
  18. 1 2 3 4 Falk 2002, p. 27.
  19. ↑ "The right to resist in occupied Palestine: denial and suppression | openDemocracy".
  20. ↑ Guarnieri, Mya (December 22, 2011). "Palestinian right to fight occupation not only moral, but legal as well". +972 Magazine.
  21. 1 2 "Palestinians and the Right to Resist". CJPME - English.
  22. 1 2 Cohen, Stanley L. "Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle". Al Jazeera.
  23. 1 2 "Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution". Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2024-01-02.
  24. ↑ Saul, Ben. "Defending 'Terrorism': Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism in International Criminal Law". Australian Year Book of International Law. controversial denials of the right (in the narrow external sense) in Palestine...liberation movements have no legal right to use force to secure self-determination, but they do not breach international law by using force (defensively) against its forcible denial
  25. ↑ Bracka 2022, p. 80.
  26. ↑ Cassese, Antonio (1995). Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal. Cambridge University Press. p. 151.
  27. ↑ Murphy, Shannonbrooke (2012). The challenge of human rights: past, present and future. Cheltenham, UK ; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar. pp. 106–7. ISBN   9780857939005.
  28. 1 2 Longobardo 2018, p. 155-156"The ensemble of these treaty law provisions and GA resolutions seems to support the idea that armed resistance against the occupying power falls within the context of a legitimate struggle for self-determination...contribute to the idea that the majority of states consider the struggle against the occupying power to be legitimate."
  29. 1 2 Longobardo 2018, p. 156-157.
  30. ↑ Longobardo 2018, p. 155.
  31. 1 2 Salama, Ayman (2023-10-24). "The Palestinian right to resist". Al-Ahram .
  32. ↑ "Perspectives From Palestine: 'Palestinians Have the Right to Resist Israel's Occupation'". www.jurist.org. 2023-11-01. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  33. ↑ Sabel 2022, p. 325.
  34. ↑ Malanczuk, Peter (1 January 1996). "Some Basic Aspects of the Agreements Between Israel and the PLO from the Perspective of International Law". European Journal of International Law. 7 (4): 492–493. doi:10.1093/ejil/7.4.485.
  35. 1 2 Falk, Richard (2000-12-13). "International Law and the al-Aqsa Intifada". MERIP. Retrieved 2024-07-03.
  36. 1 2 3 Longobardo 2018, p. 158-159.
  37. ↑ "Hamas threatens new 'intifada' over US moves on Jerusalem". France 24. 2017-12-03. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  38. ↑ Albanese, Francesca (21 September 2022). "Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (A/77/356)" (PDF). pp. 19–20.
  39. ↑ Hammouri, Shahd (2023). "The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal" (PDF).
  40. ↑ Bishara 2024, p. 11.
  41. 1 2 Ohlin, Jens David (2016-03-31), Tesón, Fernando R. (ed.), "The Right to Exist and the Right to Resist", The Theory of Self-Determination (1 ed.), Cambridge University Press, pp. 81–83, 93, doi:10.1017/cbo9781316340639.005, ISBN   978-1-316-34063-9 , retrieved 2024-07-11
  42. 1 2 3 Shandi 2010, p. 395-396.
  43. ↑ Longobardo 2018, p. 197.
  44. ↑ Engeland, Anisseh van; Rudolph, Rachael M. (2008). From terrorism to politics. Ethics and global politics. Aldershot, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate. pp. 104, 106–107. ISBN   978-0-7546-4990-8. OCLC   191697312.
  45. ↑ Sen, Somdeep (2020). Decolonizing Palestine: Hamas between the anticolonial and the postcolonial. Ithaca [New York]: Cornell University Press. pp. 62–63, 71–72. ISBN   978-1-5017-5273-5.
  46. ↑ Usher, Graham (1999). Dispatches from Palestine: the rise and fall of the Oslo peace process. Middle East issues. London: Pluto Press. p. 168. ISBN   978-0-7453-1337-5.
  47. ↑ Shandi 2010, p. 401.
  48. 1 2 Dinstein, Yoram (2009). The International Law of Belligerent Occupation. Cambridge University Press. pp. 94–95.
  49. 1 2 Quigley 2005, p. 195.
  50. 1 2 3 4 Milanovic, Marko (2023-11-14). "Does Israel Have the Right to Defend Itself?". EJIL: Talk!. Retrieved 2024-07-10.
  51. ↑ Hammouri, Shahd (2023). "The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal" (PDF). Law for Palestine.
  52. 1 2 3 4 Boyle, Francis A. (2003). Palestine, Palestinians, and international law. Atlanta, Ga: Clarity Press. pp. 63–65. ISBN   978-0-932863-37-9.
  53. 1 2 3 4 Hessbruegge, Jan Arno (2017-02-17). Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law. Oxford University Press. pp. 326–330. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190655020.003.0007. ISBN   978-0-19-065502-0.
  54. 1 2 Shandi 2010, p. 400.
  55. 1 2 3 4 5 Azarova, Valentina; Weill, Sharon (2016). Bellal, Annyssa (ed.). Armed conflict in 2014. The war report. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 370–372. ISBN   978-0-19-876606-3.
  56. 1 2 Neumann, Michael (2005). The Case Against Israel. pp. 101, 208.
  57. ↑ Heyd, David (2024-11-26). "Can Two Opposing Narratives Be Equally Valid? Reflections on Zreik's Reflections on the War in Gaza". Analyse & Kritik. 46 (2): 319–341. doi:10.1515/auk-2024-2014. ISSN   0171-5860. In other words, even if we consider Hamas' attack as an act of self-defense from the constant military pressure by the IDF on Gaza, the Israeli soldiers have a duty to protect the Israeli civilians against the Palestinian justified self-defensive attack. And of course, this argument works symmetrically: even if Hamas' attack on October 7 was an unjustified belligerent act and Israel had all the right to defend itself by invading the Gaza Strip, it would be very strange to argue that Hamas ought not to try to repel the Israeli invaders by using violence in order to save their people (or themselves).
  58. ↑ Shandi 2010, pp. 395–397, 403–404.
  59. ↑ Dagres, Holly (31 October 2023). "Israel claims it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip. What does international law say?". Atlantic Council. Retrieved 22 September 2024.
  60. ↑ Cuyckens, Hanne (2018). Revisiting the law of occupation. Nova et vetera iuris gentium. Leiden Boston: Brill. p. 46. ISBN   978-90-04-35397-8.
  61. 1 2 3 4 Robinson, Nathan J. (2023-07-05). "If You Support Ukrainian Resistance to Occupation, You Must Also Support Palestinian Resistance to Occupation". Current Affairs. ISSN   2471-2647 . Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  62. ↑ "Media coverage of Israel and Gaza is rife with deadly double standards".
  63. ↑ Bayoumi, Moustafa (2023-10-11). "The double standard with Israel and Palestine leaves us in moral darkness". The Guardian. ISSN   0261-3077 . Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  64. ↑ "Speakers Highlight Need for Preserving International Law, Ensuring Accountability, as Conference of Civil Society Organizations Working on Palestine Opens | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases". press.un.org. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  65. 1 2 3 Hatuqa, Dalia (2024-07-30). "The View From Ramallah". Foreign Policy. Retrieved 2024-07-25.
  66. 1 2 Thompson, David J (January 2003). "Climbing the Iron Wall: Palestine and Self-determination". Griffith Law Review. 12 (2): 288–309. doi:10.1080/10383441.2003.10854522. ISSN   1038-3441.
  67. ↑ Bishara 2024, p. 20.
  68. ↑ Muravchik, Joshua. Making David into Goliath. Encounter Books. pp. 75–76.
  69. 1 2 3 Hammouri, Shahd (2023-10-08). "The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal". Law for Palestine. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
  70. ↑ Bishara 2024, p. 19.
  71. ↑ Hammouri, Shahd. "How international law is used to cover up Israeli settler-colonialism". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
  72. ↑ "Palestine question/Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people: Self-determination, independence, sovereignty, return - GA resolution". Question of Palestine. Retrieved 2024-07-11.
  73. 1 2 Weston, Burns H. (1991). "Relevance of International Law to Palestinian Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: In Legal Defense of the Intifada". Harvard International Law Journal . 32 (1): 130.
  74. ↑ "april 2001 ADVANCE COPY". www.hrw.org. Retrieved 2024-07-11. Israel stands alone in its interpretation that the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations do not apply to the West Bank and Gaza Strip.
  75. ↑ MacFarquhar, Neil (2001-12-11). "Hamas Seeks Muslim Support for Suicide Raids". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved 2024-07-05.
  76. ↑ Erlich, Reese (2010). Conversations with terrorists. Polipoint Press. p. 29.
  77. ↑ Rubenberg, Cheryl (2003). The Palestinians: in search of a just peace. Boulder, Colo: Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 335. ISBN   978-1-58826-200-4.
  78. ↑ Capurri, Valentina (2017). ""Don't ask me to be nonviolent unless you have demanded the same from my oppressor": Armed Resistance and the Right to Self-defence". Annual Review of Interdisciplinary Justice Research. 6: 277.
  79. ↑ "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights". UN General Assembly (26th Sess.: 1971). 1972.
  80. 1 2 Quigley 2005, p. 194.
  81. ↑ "34/44. Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights" (PDF).
  82. ↑ "Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights". UN General Assembly (37th Sess.: 1982–1983). 1983-01-27.

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gaza Strip</span> Autonomous territory in the Middle East

The Gaza Strip, also known simply as Gaza, is a small territory located on the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea; it is the smaller of the two Palestinian territories, the other being the West Bank, that make up the State of Palestine. Inhabited by mostly Palestinian refugees and their descendants, Gaza is one of the most densely populated territories in the world. An end of 2024 estimate puts the population of the Strip at 2.1 million. Gaza is bordered by Egypt on the southwest and Israel on the east and north. The territory has been under Israeli occupation since 1967.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hamas</span> Palestinian political and military organization

The Islamic Resistance Movement, abbreviated Hamas, is a Palestinian nationalist Sunni Islamist political organisation with a military wing known as the Al-Qassam Brigades. It has governed the Israeli-occupied Gaza Strip since 2007.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Palestine Liberation Organization</span> Palestinian nationalist coalition

The Palestine Liberation Organization is a Palestinian nationalist coalition that is internationally recognized as the official representative of the Palestinian people in both the Palestinian territories and the diaspora. It is currently represented by the Palestinian Authority based in the West Bank city of Al-Bireh.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israeli–Palestinian conflict</span> Ongoing military and political conflict in the Levant

The Israeli–Palestinian conflict is an ongoing military and political conflict about land and self-determination within the territory of the former Mandatory Palestine. Key aspects of the conflict include the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, the status of Jerusalem, Israeli settlements, borders, security, water rights, the permit regime, Palestinian freedom of movement, and the Palestinian right of return.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Palestinian political violence</span> Political violence by Palestinian nationalists

Palestinian political violence refers to acts of violence or terrorism committed by Palestinians with the intent to accomplish political goals, and often carried out in the context of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Common objectives of political violence by Palestinian groups include self-determination in and sovereignty over all of the region of Palestine, or the recognition of a Palestinian state inside the 1967 borders. This includes the objective of ending the Israeli occupation. More limited goals include the release of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel and recognition of the Palestinian right of return.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Israeli-occupied territories</span> Territories presently occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day War

Israel has occupied the Golan Heights of Syria and the Palestinian territories since the Six-Day War of 1967. It has previously occupied the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and southern Lebanon as well. Prior to 1967, control of the Palestinian territories was split between Egypt and Jordan, which occupied the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, respectively. The Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories and the Golan Heights, where Israel has transferred parts of its population and built large settlements, is the longest military occupation in modern history.

During the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, the Golan Heights, and the Sinai Peninsula. The Sinai Peninsula was returned to full sovereignty of Egypt in 1982 as a result of the Egypt–Israel peace treaty. The United Nations Security Council and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) both describe the West Bank and Western Golan Heights as "occupied territory" under international law, and the Supreme Court of Israel describes them as held "in belligerent occupation", however Israel's government calls the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" and argues that since Israel's unilateral disengagement plan of 2005, it does not militarily occupy the Gaza Strip, a statement rejected by the United Nations Human Rights Council and Human Rights Watch because Israel continues to maintain control of its airspace, waters and borders.

Issues relating to the State of Palestine and aspects of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict occupy continuous debates, resolutions, and resources at the United Nations. Since its founding in 1948, the United Nations Security Council, as of January 2010, has adopted 79 resolutions directly related to the Arab–Israeli conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Operation Hot Winter</span> 2008 military offensive in the Gaza strip

In 2008 the Israel Defense Forces launched Operation Hot Winter, also called Operation Warm Winter, in the Gaza Strip, starting on February 29, 2008 in response to Qassam rockets fired from the Strip by Hamas onto Israeli civilians. At least 112 Palestinians, along with three Israelis, were killed, and more than 150 Palestinians and seven Israelis were injured.

Accusations of violations regarding international humanitarian law, which governs the actions by belligerents during an armed conflict, have been directed at both Israel and Hamas for their actions during the 2008–2009 Gaza War. The accusations covered violating laws governing distinction and proportionality by Israel, the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian locations and extrajudicial violence within the Gaza Strip by Hamas. As of September 2009, some 360 complaints had been filed by individuals and NGOs at the prosecutor's office in the Hague calling for investigations into alleged crimes committed by Israel during the Gaza War.

Israeli settlements in the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, as well as in the Syrian Golan Heights, are illegal under international law. These settlements are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, and in breach of international declarations. In a 2024 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) relating to the Palestinian territories, the court reaffirmed the illegality of the settlements and called on Israel to end its occupation, cease its settlement activity, and evacuate all its settlers.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mustafa Barghouti</span> Palestinian physician and politician (born 1954)

Mustafa Barghouti is a Palestinian physician, activist, and politician who serves as General Secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative (PNI), also known as al-Mubadara.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine</span> Palestinian Marxist–Leninist organization

The Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine is a secular Palestinian Marxist–Leninist and Maoist organization. It is also frequently referred to as the Democratic Front, or al-Jabha al-Dīmūqrāṭiyya. It is a member organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Alliance of Palestinian Forces and the Democratic Alliance List.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">International reactions to the 2014 Gaza War</span>

Reactions to the 2014 Gaza War came from around the world.

From July 8 to August 26, 2014, another conflict between Israel and Gaza escalated and led to the outbreak of a war between Israel and Gaza. Between 2,127 and 2,168 Gazans were killed, including 578 children. The Gaza Health Ministry reported more than 70% of the victims were civilians whilst Israel reported that 55% of the dead were civilians. On the Israeli side 66 soldiers and 5 Israeli civilians, including one child, were killed. These violent outbreaks led to various speeches regarding the Gaza Conflict in front of the United Nations, given by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas and members of the Human Right Watch and Representatives of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories, which has continued since 1967 and is the longest military occupation in modern history, has become illegal under international law. This illegality encompasses the West Bank, including Israeli-annexed East Jerusalem, as well as the blockaded Gaza Strip, which remains to be considered occupied under international law despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement. Israel's policies and practices in the occupied West Bank, including the construction and expansion of Israeli settlements, have amounted to de facto annexation that is illegal under international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">ICJ case on Israel's occupation of the Palestinian territories</span> International Court of Justice proceeding

Legal Consequences arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, was a proceeding before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the highest legal body of the United Nations (UN), stemming from a resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in December 2022 requesting the Court to render an advisory opinion relating to the legality of the Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21</span> UN General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21

United Nations General Assembly Resolution ES-10/21 is a resolution of the tenth emergency special session of the United Nations General Assembly relating to the Israel–Hamas war.

The Gaza war sparked a major diplomatic crisis, with many countries around the world reacting strongly to the conflict that affected the momentum of regional relations. At least nine countries took the drastic step of recalling their ambassadors or cutting diplomatic ties with Israel. The conflict has also resulted in a renewed focus on a two-state solution to the ongoing conflict.

The Palestinians' right to resist is a significant issue deeply rooted in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, particularly in relation to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. This right, recognized under international law, is based on the principle of self-determination for all peoples under foreign and colonial rule.

References

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.