User:Vice regent/sandbox

The Palestinians' right to resist is a contentious 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.

The right to resist under international law does not, however, include violence against Israeli civilians.

Given the UNGA resolutions and the fact that API has been ratified by most countries, scholars argue that majority of countries in the world consider armed struggle against an occupying power to be legitimate. Nevertheless, the Palestinian right to armed resistance has been contested by some.

Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions
Palestinians have a recognized right under international law to resist Israeli occupation under Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. 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. "Alien occupation" refers to territory conquered by a state, but not yet annexed and was inhabited by a different ethnic group.

While most countries have ratified API, Israel has not. Some scholars agree that regardless of Israel's non-ratification, API has attained status as customary international law. Whether Article 1(4) has the status of customary international law is disputed: Clayton Swisher argues it has, but Yoram Dinstein says it has not.

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." 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. In this view, Palestinians who resist don't have protected prisoner of war status.

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 movement s" who meet certain criteria.

United Nations
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. Israel retaliated by attacking Fatah camps in Jordan, killing large numbers of people, many of them bystanders.

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". 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. France further said Palestinians raids into Israel were the "almost inevitable consequence of military occupation".

UNSC on non-Palestinian cases
Various UNSC resolutions are believed to have implications for the Palestinian right to armed resistance.

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. The UNSC condemned Portuguese reprisal attacks into Zambia (UNSC Res 268), Senegal (UNSC Res 273), and Guinea (UNSC Res 290). 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. 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.

Declaration on Friendly Relations (UNGA, 1970)
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. 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." 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. Thus, not only does it make Palestinian armed resistance legitimate, but it also legitimizes material support they may receive from third-party governments. 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.

This right is affirmed in the context of the right of self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule. The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has expressly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli military occupation, including through armed struggle. General Assembly resolution A/RES/38/17 (22/11/1983) stated that it "Reaffirms ''the 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". ''

Ben Saul argues that armed resistance here is only legitimized if a people's right to self-determination has been forcibly denied. Jan Hessbruegge argues that the definition of "forcible denial of self-determination" is narrow, but does apply to Israel's occupation of Palestinians. Jeremie Bracka agrees that Israel has denied Palestinian self-determination. 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. 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).

Palestinian right of self-determination
The Palestinians right to self-determination is widely recognized, and has been deemed "unassailable". It has been confirmed by numerous UN resolutions. Many scholars opine that Palestinians may resort to armed resistance to achieve their right to self-determination. The legitimacy of armed resistance for the struggle of self-determination can be seen in the international treaties and UNGA resolutions (see sections above). 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. The UNGA recognized PLO as a representative of Palestinians in a 1974 resolution, and even the UNSC invited it for discussions relating to Palestine/Israel. 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).

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

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. Immediately after 1967, some Palestinian leaders demanded autonomy in the occupied territories, but Israel rejected that. 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. 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.

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". Clayton Swisher points out that few Palestinians view the Israeli courts as fair.

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.

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. 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.

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. Thus, Palestinians maintain their right to armed resistance to achieve self-determination, according to Falk. 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.

Marco Longobardo agrees that PLO's renunciation of armed resistance indicates peaceful means to end the occupation are preferred. 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. 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.

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

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. Shahd Hammouri cited that report to argue in favor of the Palestinian right to resist, in spite of the Oslo Accords.

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 and attacks on Palestinian civilians.

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 belong to non-self governing peoples, the latter only belongs to states. However, not all scholars agree with this view.

Since 2007, the Gaza Strip has been under an Israeli naval and air blockade, which is regarded as an act of war. The blockade has had devastating effects on availability of food and medicine in Gaza Strip, resulting in deaths. In addition, Birzeit University professor Yousef Shandi argues that both the blockade and the attacks by Israel on the Gaza Strip meet the UNGA definition of the crime of aggression.

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. 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. The founder of Hamas, Ahmed Yassin, differentiated between Palestinian armed struggle against Israel's occupation vs armed struggle against Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.

Palestinian professor Yousef Shandi quotes the Nuremberg trials, which upheld the right of self-defense of people against an enemy that "unrightfully" occupies territories. 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. 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.

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. Shahd Hammouri argues the wording leaves open the possibility of individuals and collectives organizing self-defense in response to aggression.

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. 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. If Palestine does exist as a state, then Israel's occupation constitutes an armed attack against such a state.

Francis Boyle argues that 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.

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

Implication for Israeli right to self-defense
Some scholars argue that a hypothetical situation in which both sides are justified in using force against the other is logically unfeasible. Another scholar argues that there can be no self-defense against legitimate self-defense. Thus upholding Palestinian right to self-defense negates Israel's right to the same; in corollary, Israel's right to self-defense implies deeming Palestinian resistance to be illegal. 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.

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. 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).

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. 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. Sharon Weill and Valentina Azarova write that until Israel ends its occupation, it cannot invoke Article 51 right to self-defense.

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.

Some Israelis dispute whether Israel still occupies Gaza in light of the 2005 disengagement. 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).

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. David Thompson states Palestinian militants must only attack occupying Israeli forces and refrain from attacking Israeli civilians. Richard Falk, and Francis Boyle, both 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".

"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. Shahd Hammouri, for example, emphasizes that the right to resist, like the right to self-defense, must adhere to international humanitarian law. Hammouri prefers the phrasing "Palestinian people have the right of resistance by all means consistent with the principles of the UN Charter." 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."

Palestinian diplomatic activities
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). By contrast Israel has refused to apply the Geneva Conventions to occupied Palestinian territories.

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. 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. In 2005, Hamas renounced the use of suicide bombings.

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.

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. In 2001, Amira Hass wrote that many Israelis don't 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".

Valentina Capurri writes that the Palestinian right to armed resistance is treat by skepticism by two groups. The first are those who don't 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).

Move to Palestinian political violence
Some Palestinians have argued in favor of such attacks based on the principle of military necessity, arguing Israeli civilians are reserve soldiers and therefore combatants, and that Israel itself targets Palestinian civilians. Scholars have rejected all three arguments.

Military necessity
Some Palestinians have argued they are facing an enemy that possess tanks, missiles, fighter jets, and have no means of fighting back except through attacks which harm civilians (suicide bombings, rocket attacks etc). They argue they do not have alternative means. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal argued that if Hamas possessed advanced technology, it would guide its rockets to only strike military targets.

Scholars reject these arguments. Richard Falk interprets international law as containing "no extenuating circumstances" that would allow for indiscriminate attacks or attacks that kills civilians. He acknowledges that currently Palestinians seemingly don't have other military means, but says "Palestinian ingenuity" can find a way to attack only military targets.

Jermie Bracka notes that Protocol I, the very document cited to justify wars of national liberation, also prohibits attacks on civilians.

Combatant status of Israeli civilians
Leaders of PIJ and Hamas have asserted that Jewish Israelis, both men and women, are conscripted into the IDF, and are military reservists, hence are legitimate targets. Palestinian militants accuse IDF soldiers of "hid[ing] in the uniform of a civilian". Ahmed Yassin further asserted Israelis who wear the IDF uniform can also be attacked while they are wearing civilian clothes. PIJ argues that because Israeli settlers carry guns, they are combatants even if they don't wear a uniform.

Scholars of international law reject the above arguments. IHL makes clear that soldiers may only be attacked while on "active duty". Otherwise, reserve soldiers in civilian clothes are considered civilians, until they become formally incorporated into the regular armed forces, which is signified by them wearing a military uniform and/or insignia. Scholars also argue that even if Israeli settlers are armed, they remain civilians, as civilians may carry military weapons for self-protection.