Palestinian right of armed resistance

{{Short description|Concept in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict}} {{pp-extended|small=yes}}

Many scholars have argued that [[Palestinians]] have the right to resist under [[international law]], including armed resistance. This right to resist is in a {{lang|la|[[jus ad bellum]]}} sense only; the conduct of such resistance ({{lang|la|[[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]].<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" />

It is agreed that, under international law, [[Palestinian self-determination|Palestinians have the right to self-determination]].<ref name="Bowen-2021" /> Many scholars support Palestinians' right to use armed struggle in pursuit of self-determination. Such a right is supported by the [[Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions]], [[Declaration on Friendly Relations]],<ref name="Murphy-1983" /> as well as several resolutions of the [[United Nations Security Council]] and [[United Nations General Assembly|General Assembly]].{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}}{{failed verification |date=May 2026 |reason=No mention of any General Assembly resolutions in the cited page range.}} 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.<ref name="Farer" /> 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.<ref name="Table" /> Some scholars argue Palestinians also have the right to self-defense,<ref name="Brookings" /> 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.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=121-122}}

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, while civilians must be spared. The [[State of Palestine]] has ratified and is a party to the [[Geneva Conventions]].

== Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions == {{Main|Protocol I}}

[[Protocol I]] of the [[Geneva Conventions]] is frequently cited to justify Palestinians' right under [[international law]] to [[Right to resist|resist]] Israeli occupation.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Cohen |first=Stanley L |date=2017-07-20 |title=Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/20/palestinians-have-a-legal-right-to-armed-struggle |access-date=2024-06-20 |work=[[Al Jazeera]] |quote=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.}}</ref><ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" /><ref name=":0" /> Additional Protocol I (API) of the Geneva Conventions says in Article 1(4): {{Blockquote|text=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 [[Decolonization|decolonisation]], the [[Israeli-occupied territories|Israeli occupation of Palestinians]] and the racist [[apartheid South Africa]].<ref name=":0">{{Cite book |last1=Chinkin |first1=Christine |title=International law and new wars |last2=Kaldor |first2=Mary |date=2017 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |isbn=978-1-107-17121-3 |edition=First published |location=[[Cambridge]] |pages=236}}</ref> "Alien occupation" refers to territory conquered by a state, but not yet annexed and was inhabited by a different ethnic group.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a">{{cite book |last1=Hessbruegge |first1=Jan Arno |title=Human rights and personal self-defense in international law |date=2017 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=9780190655020 |edition=First |location=[[New York, NY]] |pages=316–317, 320–321}}</ref>

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2016-05-20 |title=Customary international humanitarian law {{!}} International Committee of the Red Cross |url=https://www.icrc.org/en/document/customary-international-humanitarian-law-0 |access-date=2024-09-12 |website=www.icrc.org |language=en}}</ref> Whether Article 1(4) has the status of customary international law is disputed:<ref name="Orakhelashvili-2015">{{Cite journal |last=Orakhelashvili |first=Alexander |date=2015-07-03 |title=Undesired, Yet omnipresent: Jus ad Bellum in its relation to other areas of international law |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/20531702.2015.1090219 |journal=Journal on the Use of Force and International Law |language=en |volume=2 |issue=2 |pages=238–256 |doi=10.1080/20531702.2015.1090219 |issn=2053-1702|url-access=subscription }}</ref> Clayton Swisher argues it has,<ref name="Swisher-2004" /> but Yoram Dinstein says it has not.<ref name="Orakhelashvili-2015" />

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."<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" /> [[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.{{Sfn|Sabel|2022|p=326}} In this view, Palestinians who resist don't have protected [[prisoner of war]] status.{{Sfn|Sabel|2022|p=327}}

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.{{Sfn|Francis|2014|p=42-43}}

== Declaration on Friendly Relations == {{Main|United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625}} 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.<ref>{{Cite book |title=International law: a contemporary perspective |date=1985 |publisher=Westview Press |isbn=978-0-86531-252-4 |editor-last=Falk |editor-first=Richard A. |series=Studies on a just world order |location=Boulder |pages=414–416 |editor-last2=Kratochwil |editor-first2=Friedrich V. |editor-last3=Mendlovitz |editor-first3=Saul H.}}</ref> The relevant paragraph of that Declaration states, {{Blockquote|text=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.|source=[[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.{{Sfn|Falk|2002|p=27}} Thus, not only does it make Palestinian armed resistance legitimate, but it also legitimizes material support they may receive from third-party governments.{{Sfn|Falk|2002|p=27}} Likewise, in 1983 [[John F. Murphy (law professor)|John F. Murphy]] said the Declaration of Friendly Relations indicated that most UNGA members deemed it permissible to supply arms to Palestinians.<ref name="Murphy-1983">{{Cite book |last=Murphy |first=John F. |title=The United Nations and the control of international violence: a legal and political analysis |date=1983 |publisher=Univ. Press |isbn=978-0-7190-0942-6 |location=Manchester |pages=145}}</ref>

This right is affirmed in the context of the right of self-determination of all peoples under foreign and colonial rule.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The right to resist in occupied Palestine: denial and suppression | openDemocracy |url=https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/north-africa-west-asia/right-to-resist-in-occupied-palestine-denial-and-suppression/}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Guarnieri |first=Mya |date=December 22, 2011 |title=Palestinian right to fight occupation not only moral, but legal as well |url=https://www.972mag.com/on-the-palestinians-legal-right-to-fight-the-occupation/ |website=+972 Magazine}}</ref> The [[United Nations General Assembly]] (UNGA) has expressly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli military occupation, including through armed struggle.<ref name="CJPME - English">{{Cite web |title=Palestinians and the Right to Resist |url=https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236 |website=CJPME - English}}</ref><ref name="Cohen">{{Cite web |last=Cohen |first=Stanley L. |title=Palestinians have a legal right to armed struggle |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2017/7/20/palestinians-have-a-legal-right-to-armed-struggle |website=Al Jazeera}}</ref> 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".<ref name="Question of Palestine">{{Cite web |title=Right of peoples to self-determination - GA resolution |url=https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184195/ |access-date=2024-01-02 |website=Question of Palestine |language=en-US}}</ref>''

Ben Saul argues that armed resistance here is only legitimized if a people's right to self-determination has been forcibly denied.<ref>{{cite web |last1=Saul |first1=Ben |title=Defending 'Terrorism': Justifications and Excuses for Terrorism in International Criminal Law |url=http://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/2006/7.html |website=Australian Year Book of International Law |quote=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}}</ref> Jan Hessbruegge argues that the definition of "forcible denial of self-determination" is narrow, but does apply to Israel's occupation of Palestinians.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" /> Jeremie Bracka agrees that Israel has denied Palestinian self-determination.{{sfn|Bracka|2022|p=80}} 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.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Cassese |first1=Antonio |title=Self-Determination of Peoples: A Legal Reappraisal |date=1995 |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |pages=151}}</ref> 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).<ref>{{cite book |last1=Murphy |first1=Shannonbrooke |title=The challenge of human rights: past, present and future |date=2012 |publisher=Edward Elgar |location=Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA |isbn=9780857939005 |pages=106–7}}</ref>

== Palestinian right of self-determination == The Palestinians' right to self-determination is widely recognized.<ref name="Bowen-2021"/> It has been confirmed by numerous UN resolutions.<ref name="Bowen-2021">{{cite book |last1=Bowen |first1=Stephen |title=Human Rights, Self-Determination and Political Change in the Occupied Palestinian Territories |date=2021 |publisher=[[Brill Publishers|Brill]] |pages=125–127}}</ref> Many scholars opine that Palestinians may resort to armed resistance to achieve their right to self-determination.<ref name="Table">{{Cite web |last=Table |first=Al Jazeera Round |title=Forum: How can Palestinians legally fight occupation? |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/25/forum-how-can-palestinians-legally-fight-occupation |access-date=2024-06-20 |website=[[Al Jazeera]] |language=en}}</ref> The legitimacy of armed resistance for the struggle of self-determination can be seen in the international treaties and UNGA resolutions (see sections above).{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=155-156|ps="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."}} 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.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=156-157}} 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.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=155}} 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).{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=156-157}}

Traditional ''[[jus ad bellum]]'' concerns conflict between states, but the struggle for self-determination can confer similar legitimacy to armed resistance movements.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=155-156|ps="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."}}

=== 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.<ref name="Farer" /> Immediately after 1967, some Palestinian leaders demanded autonomy in the occupied territories, but Israel rejected that.<ref name="Farer" /> 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.<ref name="Farer" /> 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.<ref name="Farer" />

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.<ref name="Salama-2023">{{Cite news |last=Salama |first=Ayman |date=2023-10-24 |title=The Palestinian right to resist |url=https://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/50/1203/510908/AlAhram-Weekly/World/The-Palestinian-right-to-resist.aspx |work=[[Al-Ahram]]}}</ref> He points out that Palestinians have recognized Israel's 1967 borders, and the [[2002 Arab Peace Initiative]] was spurned by Israel.<ref name="Salama-2023" />

[[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".<ref name="Swisher-2004" /> [[Clayton Swisher]] points out that few Palestinians view the Israeli courts as fair.<ref name="Swisher-2004" />

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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-11-01 |title=Perspectives From Palestine: 'Palestinians Have the Right to Resist Israel's Occupation' |url=https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/11/perspectives-from-palestine-palestinians-have-the-right-to-resist-israels-occupation/ |access-date=2024-07-25 |website=www.jurist.org |language=en-US}}</ref>

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 [[Cyprus Emergency|armed resistance in Cyprus]] and [[Mau Mau rebellion|in Kenya]] did the British finally allow those countries to gain independence.{{Sfn|Sabel|2022|p=325}}

==== Oslo Accords ==== {{see also|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.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Malanczuk |first1=Peter |title=Some Basic Aspects of the Agreements Between Israel and the PLO from the Perspective of International Law |journal=European Journal of International Law |date=1 January 1996 |volume=7 |issue=4 |pages=492–493 |doi=10.1093/ejil/7.4.485}}</ref> 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 is [[derogability|non-derogable]] as it is 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.<ref name="Swisher-2004">{{cite book |last1=Swisher |first1=Clayton E. |title=The truth about Camp David: the untold story about the collapse of the Middle East peace process |date=2004 |publisher=Nation Books |location=New York |isbn=9781560256236 |pages=142–143}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Falk-2000">{{Cite web |last=Falk |first=Richard |date=2000-12-13 |title=International Law and the al-Aqsa Intifada |url=https://merip.org/2000/12/international-law-and-the-al-aqsa-intifada/ |access-date=2024-07-03 |website=MERIP |language=en-US}}</ref> Thus, Palestinians maintain their right to armed resistance to achieve self-determination, according to Falk.<ref name="Falk-2000" /> In 2015, again he argued that Israel was using the peace process as cover for expanding [[International law and Israeli settlements|illegal settlements]] and [[Israel and apartheid|imposing apartheid on Palestinians]], leaving Palestinians with resistance as the only way left to achieve self-determination.<ref name="Table" />

Marco Longobardo agrees that PLO's renunciation of armed resistance indicates peaceful means to end the occupation are preferred.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=158-159}} 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.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=158-159}} 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.<ref>{{Cite web |date=2017-12-03 |title=Hamas threatens new 'intifada' over US moves on Jerusalem |url=https://www.france24.com/en/20171203-jerusalem-israel-hamas-trump-palestinian |access-date=2024-07-01 |website=France 24 |language=en}}</ref>{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=158-159}}

[[Tom Farer]] argued that the "renewal" of violent resistance (in the [[Second Intifada]]) was due to continued Israeli occupation and justified in international law.<ref name="Farer">{{Cite book |last=Farer |first=Tom |title=Confronting Global Terrorism and American Neo-Conservatism |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |pages=188}}</ref> He points out the 33 years of occupation had passed by then and that Palestinians had attempted various non-violent forms of resistance.<ref name="Farer" />

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.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Albanese |first=Francesca |date=21 September 2022 |title=Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 (A/77/356) |url=https://documents.un.org/doc/undoc/gen/n22/598/03/pdf/n2259803.pdf?token=bbVoW0BY5bZxaj5gl7&fe=true |pages=19–20}}</ref> Shahd Hammouri cited that report to argue in favor of the Palestinian right to resist, in spite of the Oslo Accords.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hammouri |first=Shahd |date=2023 |title=The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal |url=https://www.cpcml.ca/publications2023/231000-Palestinians%20Have%20the%20Right%20to%20Resistance%20by%20All%20Means%20Available.pdf}}</ref>

== Palestinian right to self-defense == {{see also|Self-defence in international law}} 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.<ref name="Brookings">{{Cite web |title=Palestine's Right to Defend Itself |url=https://www.brookings.edu/articles/palestines-right-to-defend-itself/ |access-date=28 August 2024 |website=Brookings}}</ref><ref name="Table" /> 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.{{Sfn|Bishara|2024|p=11}} 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.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" /> 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.<ref name="Ohlin-2016">{{Citation |last=Ohlin |first=Jens David |title=The Right to Exist and the Right to Resist |date=2016-03-31 |work=The Theory of Self-Determination |pages=81–83, 93 |editor-last=Tesón |editor-first=Fernando R. |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781316340639%23CT-bp-5/type/book_part |access-date=2024-07-11 |edition=1 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |doi=10.1017/cbo9781316340639.005 |isbn=978-1-316-34063-9|url-access=subscription }}</ref> However, not all scholars agree with this view.<ref name="Ohlin-2016" />

=== 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.{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=395-396}} Marco Longobardo argues the blockade can be construed as an act of war,{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=197}} and Yousef Shandi agrees that the blockade meets the [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)|UNGA definition]] of the [[crime of aggression]].{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=395-396}}

==== Attacks on civilians ==== [[Birzeit University]] professor Yousef Shandi argues that attacks by Israel on the Gaza Strip, including civilians, meet the [[United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3314 (XXIX)|UNGA definition]] of the [[crime of aggression]].{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=395-396}}

[[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.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Engeland |first1=Anisseh van |url=https://www.worldcat.org/title/191697312 |title=From terrorism to politics |last2=Rudolph |first2=Rachael M. |date=2008 |publisher=Ashgate |isbn=978-0-7546-4990-8 |series=Ethics and global politics |location=Aldershot, England; Burlington, VT |pages=104, 106–107 |oclc=191697312}}</ref> 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.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Sen |first=Somdeep |title=Decolonizing Palestine: Hamas between the anticolonial and the postcolonial |date=2020 |publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-1-5017-5273-5 |location=Ithaca [New York] |pages=62–63, 71–72}}</ref> The founder of Hamas, [[Ahmed Yassin]], differentiated between Palestinian armed struggle against Israel's occupation vs armed struggle against Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Usher |first=Graham |title=Dispatches from Palestine: the rise and fall of the Oslo peace process |date=1999 |publisher=Pluto Press |isbn=978-0-7453-1337-5 |series=Middle East issues |location=London |pages=168}}</ref>

==== 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.{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=401}} 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.<ref name="Dinstein-2009">{{Cite book |last=Dinstein |first=Yoram |title=The International Law of Belligerent Occupation |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2009 |pages=94–95}}</ref> 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.<ref name="Dinstein-2009" />{{Sfn|Sabel|2022|p=326}}

[[John B. Quigley]] echoed the argument of R. Y. Jennings, that it is a legal for a state to try to forcibly recapture its own territory that was occupied by an act of aggression.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=195}} For example, in 1973, UNSC did not condemn Egypt and Syria for starting a war to retake the Sinai Peninsula and Golan Heights, which Israel took from them in 1967.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=195}}

=== 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, {{Blockquote|text=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.<ref name="Milanovic-2023">{{Cite web |last=Milanovic |first=Marko |date=2023-11-14 |title=Does Israel Have the Right to Defend Itself? |url=https://www.ejiltalk.org/does-israel-have-the-right-to-defend-itself/ |access-date=2024-07-10 |website=EJIL: Talk! |language=English}}</ref>{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=121-122}} Shahd Hammouri argues the wording "collective or individual" leaves open the possibility of individuals and collectives organizing self-defense in response to aggression.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hammouri |first=Shahd |date=2023 |title=The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal |url=https://law4palestine.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/The-Palestinian-People-have-the-right-to-resistance-by-all-means-available-at-their-disposal.-Written-by-Dr.-Shahd-Hammouri.pdf |website=Law for Palestine}}</ref>

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.<ref name="Milanovic-2023" /> 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.<ref name="Milanovic-2023" /> If Palestine does exist as a state, then [[Israeli occupation of the West Bank|Israel's occupation]] constitutes an armed attack against such a state.<ref name="Milanovic-2023" />

[[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 with French resistance to Nazi occupation.<ref name="Boyle-2003">{{Cite book |last=Boyle |first=Francis A. |author-link=Francis Boyle |title=Palestine, Palestinians, and international law |date=2003 |publisher=Clarity Press |isbn=978-0-932863-37-9 |location=Atlanta, Ga |pages=63–65}}</ref>

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.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=121-122}} Even countries which have condemned Israeli attacks and recognized Palestinian statehood have not yet affirmed the Palestinian right to self-defense.{{Sfn|Longobardo|2018|p=121-122}}

==== Self-defense from oppression ==== Jan Arno Hessbruegge writes that international law does not give non-state groups a right to self-defense—not even from genocide.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017b">{{Cite book |last=Hessbruegge |first=Jan Arno |url=http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190655020.001.0001/acprof-9780190655020 |title=Human Rights and Personal Self-Defense in International Law |date=2017-02-17 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-065502-0 |pages=326–330 |doi=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190655020.003.0007}}</ref> For example, during the [[Rwandan genocide|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).<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017b" /> 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.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017b" /> Hessbruegge concedes that many writers, nevertheless, do believe a right to resist against a government that commits international crimes or oppression.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017b" />

== Implication for Israeli right to self-defense{{anchor|Israeli right to self-defense}}== Scholars argue that if Palestinians have the right to self-defense then Israel does not;{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=400}} in corollary, in a situation where Israel has the right to self-defense implies deeming Palestinian resistance to be illegal.<ref name="Azarova-2016" /> This is because a hypothetical situation in which both sides are justified in using force against the other is logically unfeasible.<ref name="Azarova-2016">{{Cite book |last1=Azarova |first1=Valentina |title=Armed conflict in 2014 |last2=Weill |first2=Sharon |date=2016 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0-19-876606-3 |editor-last=Bellal |editor-first=Annyssa |series=The war report |location=Oxford |pages=370–372}}</ref> This can be restated as: there can be no self-defense against legitimate self-defense.{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|p=400}} [[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.<ref name="Neumann-2005"/> Israeli professor David Heyd disagrees and gives the example of the [[Gaza 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 [[Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip|Israel's invasion]] was an act of self-defense, Hamas still had the right to defend Palestinian civilians from Israeli violence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Heyd |first=David |date=2024-11-26 |title=Can Two Opposing Narratives Be Equally Valid? Reflections on Zreik's Reflections on the War in Gaza |url=https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/auk-2024-2014/html |journal=Analyse & Kritik |language=en |volume=46 |issue=2 |pages=319–341 |doi=10.1515/auk-2024-2014 |issn=0171-5860 |quote=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).|url-access=subscription }}</ref>

Sharon Weill and Valentina Azarova argue that so long as Israel is occupying the Palestinian territories, it may not invoke [[Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter#Article 51: Self-defence|Article 51]] right to self-defence.<ref name="Azarova-2016" /> 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).<ref name="Azarova-2016" />

As for what Israel ''should'' do in response to these attacks, [[Michael Neumann]] writes that self-defense is only allowed if there are no alternatives, but an occupying power, by definition, can always withdraw.<ref name="Neumann-2005">{{cite book |last1=Neumann |first1=Michael |author1-link=Michael Neumann |title=The Case Against Israel |date=2005 |pages=101, 208}}</ref> 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.{{Sfn|Shandi|2010|pp=395-397, 403-404}} Sharon Weill and Valentina Azarova write that until Israel ends its occupation, it cannot invoke Article 51 right to self-defense.<ref name="Azarova-2016" />

=== Legality of Israeli occupation === {{Main|Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine}} 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 [[Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine|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.<ref name="Hessbruegge-2017a" />

The Israeli government disputed whether Israel still occupied Gaza after its 2005 disengagement.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Dagres |first=Holly |date=31 October 2023 |title=Israel claims it is no longer occupying the Gaza Strip. What does international law say? |url=https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/gaza-israel-occupied-international-law/ |access-date=22 September 2024 |website=Atlantic Council |language=en-US}}</ref> Even if one agrees the Gaza Strip was not occupied, the West Bank has remained occupied, since Israel retains direct control over Area C, and the IDF is capable of reasserting control over Areas A and B.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Cuyckens |first=Hanne |title=Revisiting the law of occupation |date=2018 |publisher=Brill |isbn=978-90-04-35397-8 |series=Nova et vetera iuris gentium |location=Leiden Boston |pages=46}}</ref>

== Russia–Ukraine analogy == [[Nathan J. Robinson]] compares [[Palestinian political violence]] against the [[Israeli occupation]] to the [[2023 Ukrainian counteroffensive|Ukrainian counteroffensives]] against the Russian occupation.<ref name="Robinson-2023">{{Cite news |last=Robinson |first=Nathan J. |date=2023-07-05 |title=If You Support Ukrainian Resistance to Occupation, You Must Also Support Palestinian Resistance to Occupation |url=https://www.currentaffairs.org/news/2023/07/if-you-support-ukrainian-resistance-to-occupation-you-must-also-support-palestinian-resistance-to-occupation |access-date=2024-07-25 |work=Current Affairs |language=en |issn=2471-2647}}</ref> Robinson further compares [[Palestinian rocket attacks]] into Israeli territory to [[Attacks in Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine|Ukrainian attacks that crossed into Russian territory]].<ref name="Robinson-2023" /> 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.<ref name="Robinson-2023" /> (Robinson emphasizes that right to resist does not justify violence against civilians.<ref name="Robinson-2023" />)

The comparison of Israel–Palestine to Russia–Ukraine is also made by an editorial in ''[[The New Humanitarian]]'',<ref>{{Cite news |title=Media coverage of Israel and Gaza is rife with deadly double standards |url=https://www.thenewhumanitarian.org/editorial/2023/10/23/media-coverage-israel-and-gaza-double-standards}}</ref> and by [[Moustafa Bayoumi]],<ref>{{Cite news |last=Bayoumi |first=Moustafa |date=2023-10-11 |title=The double standard with Israel and Palestine leaves us in moral darkness |url=https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/11/israel-palestine-war-biden-zelenskiy |access-date=2024-07-25 |work=The Guardian |language=en-GB |issn=0261-3077}}</ref> [[Raji Sourani]],<ref>{{Cite web |title=Speakers Highlight Need for Preserving International Law, Ensuring Accountability, as Conference of Civil Society Organizations Working on Palestine Opens {{!}} Meetings Coverage and Press Releases |url=https://press.un.org/en/2024/gapal1464.doc.htm |access-date=2024-07-25 |website=press.un.org}}</ref> [[Nour Odeh]],<ref name="Hatuqa-2024">{{Cite web |last=Hatuqa |first=Dalia |date=2024-07-30 |title=The View From Ramallah |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/10/12/hamas-israel-pa-palestinians-west-bank-abbas-ramallah/ |access-date=2024-07-25 |website=Foreign Policy |language=en-US}}</ref> [[Mustafa Barghouti]],<ref name="Hatuqa-2024" /> and [[Shawan Jabarin]].<ref name="Hatuqa-2024" />

== 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.<ref name="Thompson-2003">{{Cite journal |last=Thompson |first=David J |date=January 2003 |title=Climbing the Iron Wall: Palestine and Self-determination |url=http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10383441.2003.10854522 |journal=Griffith Law Review |language=en |volume=12 |issue=2 |pages=288–309 |doi=10.1080/10383441.2003.10854522 |issn=1038-3441|url-access=subscription }}</ref> David Thompson states Palestinian militants must only attack occupying Israeli forces and refrain from attacking Israeli civilians.<ref name="Thompson-2003" /> [[Richard Falk]],{{Sfn|Falk|2002|p=27}} [[Azmi Bishara]],{{Sfn|Bishara|2024|p=20}} and [[Francis Boyle]],<ref name="Boyle-2003" /> 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".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Muravchik |first=Joshua |title=Making David into Goliath |publisher=[[Encounter Books]] |pages=75–76}}</ref>

=== "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.<ref name="Hammouri-2023">{{Cite web |last=Hammouri |first=Shahd |date=2023-10-08 |title=The Palestinian People have the right to resistance by all means available at their disposal |url=https://law4palestine.org/the-palestinian-people-have-the-right-to-resistance-by-all-means-available-at-their-disposal-dr-shahd-hammouri/ |access-date=2024-07-11 |website=Law for Palestine |language=en-US}}</ref> Azmi Bishara emphasizes that "any means" mean any means consistent with the UN Charter and other laws of war.{{Sfn|Bishara|2024|p=19}} Shahd Hammouri, for example, emphasizes that the right to resist, like the right to self-defense, must adhere to [[international humanitarian law]].<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hammouri |first=Shahd |title=How international law is used to cover up Israeli settler-colonialism |url=https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/12/10/how-international-law-is-used-to-cover-up-israeli-settler-colonialism |access-date=2024-07-11 |website=Al Jazeera |language=en}}</ref><ref name="Hammouri-2023" /> Hammouri prefers the phrasing "Palestinian people have the right of resistance by all means ''consistent with the principles of the UN Charter''."<ref name="Hammouri-2023" /> 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."<ref>{{Cite web |title=Palestine question/Inalienable rights of the Palestinian people: Self-determination, independence, sovereignty, return - GA resolution |url=https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-177305/ |access-date=2024-07-11 |website=Question of Palestine |language=en-US}}</ref>

=== 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".<ref name="Weston-1991"/> Yasser Arafat later clarified that this was a reference to rejecting "anti-civilian terrorism".<ref name="Weston-1991">{{cite journal |last1=Weston |first1=Burns H. |title=Relevance of International Law to Palestinian Rights in the West Bank and Gaza: In Legal Defense of the Intifada |journal=[[Harvard International Law Journal]] |date=1991 |volume=32 |issue=1|page=130}}</ref>

In 1989, one year after declaring independence, the Palestinian state ratified the [[Geneva Conventions]], recognizing its obligations for warfare under [[International humanitarian law|International Humanitarian Law]] (e.g. not targeting civilians).<ref name="Boyle-2003" /> Israel has also ratified the Geneva Conventions, but has consistently maintained that it is not ''de jure'' bound to apply the entirety of the Geneva Conventions to the occupied territories. It has, however, agreed to voluntarily abide by the ''de facto'' "humanitarian provisions" of the Conventions.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Imseis |first=Ardi |date=Winter 2003 |title=On the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Occupied Palestinian Territory |url=https://law.queensu.ca/sites/lawwww/files/files/Professors/On%20the%20GCIV%20and%20the%20OPT.pdf |journal=Harvard International Law Journal |volume=44 |issue=1 |publisher=Harvard Law School |pages=65-138 |access-date=26 May 2026 |quote=Although Israel has never recognized the ''de jure'' applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention to the OPT, it has always claimed to abide by its 'humanitarian' provisions ''de facto''. This position was first outlined in Yehuda Blum, The Missing Reversioner: Reºections on the Status of Judea and Samaria, 3 Isr. L. Rev. 279, 293–94 (1968), and Meir Shamgar, The Observance of International Law in the Administered Terri- tories, 1 Isr. Y.B. Hum. Rts. 262, 265–66 (1971).}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Meron |first=Theodor |date=10 May 2017 |title=The West Bank and International Humanitarian Law on the Eve of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the Six-Day War |url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/west-bank-and-international-humanitarian-law-on-the-eve-of-the-fiftieth-anniversary-of-the-sixday-war/E1D4F9F5B3C43C943D9C3F31EABF79B3 |journal=American Journal of International Law |pages=357-375 |doi=10.1017/ajil.2017.10 |quote=Brieﬂy, the Blum-Shamgar thesis is that conquered territory becomes occupied territory only when it belongs to a legitimate sovereign that has been ousted. As the proponents of this theory dispute the status of Jordan as such a sovereign of the West Bank, the assumption of the concurrent existence of an ousted legitimate sovereign and a belligerent occupant is, in their view, refuted, making the Convention inapplicable ''de jure''. Neither are the reversionary rights of the ousted sovereign relevant. In these circumstances, the government of Israel, inspired by the Blum-Shamgar thesis, has simply decided, in the absence of an international obligation to do so, to act ''de facto'' in accordance with the humanitarian provisions of the Convention.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Dikker Hupkes |first=Sander |date=2008 |title=What Constitutes Occupation? Israel as the occupying power in the Gaza Strip after the Disengagement |url=https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/access/item%3A2866540/view |publisher=Jongbloed |location=The Hague, Netherlands |isbn=978-9070062453 |page=59 |quote=Israel has stated that it is applying the 'humanitarian provisions' of the convention in the OPT on a ''de facto basis''. It is noteworthy that this statement has led the Israeli Supreme Court to assume that certain provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention are applicable [to] the OPT. However, Israel has not provided any clarification as to what these humanitarian provisions are.}}</ref><ref name="Boyle-2003" /><ref>{{Cite web |title=The Obligations of Israel and the Palestinian Authority under International Law |date=April 2001 |url=https://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/israel/hebron6-04.htm |access-date=2024-07-11 |website=www.hrw.org |quote=Israeli governments have commonly taken the position that Israel is not bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention dealing with the responsibilities of occupying powers, because Jordanian and Egyptian control over the West Bank and Gaza prior to Israel's occupation in 1967 had been seen by the world community as illegitimate. Therefore, Israel argues, 'these territories were not, prior to the occupation, under the sovereignty of any state, and could not, therefore, be considered "occupied territory" once Israel seized control.' Instead, Israel takes the position that it will voluntarily abide by the 'humanitarian provisions' of the Fourth Geneva Convention. [...] 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.}}</ref>

In 2001, Hamas tried to persuade foreign ministers attending the [[Organisation of Islamic Cooperation|Organization of the Islamic Conference]] (OIC) to issue a statement in support for its suicide bombings.{{Sfn|Falk|2002|p=27}} 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.<ref>{{Cite news |last=MacFarquhar |first=Neil |date=2001-12-11 |title=Hamas Seeks Muslim Support for Suicide Raids |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/11/world/hamas-seeks-muslim-support-for-suicide-raids.html |access-date=2024-07-05 |work=The New York Times |language=en-US |issn=0362-4331}}</ref> In 2005, Hamas renounced the use of suicide bombings against civilians.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Erlich |first=Reese |author-link=Reese Erlich |title=Conversations with terrorists |publisher=[[Polipoint Press]] |year=2010 |pages=29}}</ref>

== Skepticism == Many supporters of Palestinians have lamented international law not being more assertive on the rights of [[Stateless nation|stateless peoples]]. Yousef Munayyer argues that international law was "crafted by states, and largely for states" and ignored the needs of the stateless.<ref name="Table" />

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.{{Sfn|Sabel|2022|p=326}} 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".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Rubenberg |first=Cheryl |title=The Palestinians: in search of a just peace |date=2003 |publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers |isbn=978-1-58826-200-4 |location=Boulder, Colo |pages=335}}</ref>

Valentina Capurri writes that the Palestinian right to armed resistance is treated with 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 that Palestinians can only legitimately resist through non-violent means (e.g. many in the [[BDS movement]]).<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Capurri |first=Valentina |year=2017 |title="Don't ask me to be nonviolent unless you have demanded the same from my oppressor": Armed Resistance and the Right to Self-defence |journal=Annual Review of Interdisciplinary Justice Research |volume=6 |pages=277}}</ref>

== 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) === {{Main|United Nations Security Council Resolution 248|United Nations Security Council Resolution 256}}

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.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} Israel retaliated by attacking Fatah camps in Jordan, killing large numbers of people, many of them bystanders.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}}

Twice in 1968, the UNSC condemned Israeli retaliations against Fatah: [[United Nations Security Council Resolution 248|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".{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} 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.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} France further said Palestinians raids into Israel were the "almost inevitable consequence of military occupation".{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}}

=== 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.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} The UNSC condemned Portuguese reprisal attacks into Zambia ([[United Nations Security Council Resolution 268|UNSC Res 268]]), Senegal (UNSC Res 273), and Guinea (UNSC Res 290).{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} 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.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}} 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.{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=189-191}}

=== UNGA resolutions === The 1971 UNGA resolution 2787 states,<ref>{{Cite web |publisher=UN General Assembly (26th Sess.: 1971)|date=1972 |title=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. |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/201110 |language=en}}</ref>{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=194}}

{{Blockquote|text=Confirms the legality of the peoples' struggle 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,<ref>{{Cite web |title=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|url=https://documents.un.org/doc/resolution/gen/nr0/376/71/pdf/nr037671.pdf}}</ref>{{Sfn|Quigley|2005|p=194}} {{Blockquote|text=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,<ref name="CJPME - English" /><ref name="Cohen" /><ref>{{Cite web |publisher=UN General Assembly (37th Sess.: 1982–1983)|date=1983-01-27 |title=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. |url=https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/40572 |language=en}}</ref> {{Blockquote|text=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 "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".<ref name="Question of Palestine" />

== See also ==

* [[Palestinian self-determination]] * [[Palestinian right of return]]

== Notes == {{reflist}}

== References ==

* {{Cite journal |last=Bishara |first=Azmi |year=2024 |title=Gaza - غزّة: Moral Matters in Hard Times |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/48775002 |journal=Al-Muntaqa: New Perspectives on Arab Studies |publisher=[[Doha Institute]] |volume=7 |issue=1|pages=8–29 |jstor=48775002 }} * {{Cite book |last=Bracka |first=Jeremie |title=Transitional Justice for Israel/Palestine |publisher=[[Springer International Publishing]] |year=2022}} * {{cite journal |last1=Falk |first1=Richard |author1-link=Richard Falk |date=2002 |title=Azmi Bishara, the Right of Resistance, and the Palestinian Ordeal |journal=Journal of Palestine Studies |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=19–33 |doi=10.1525/jps.2002.31.2.19}} * {{cite journal |last1=Francis |first1=Sahar |date=2014 |title=Status of Palestinian Prisoners in International Humanitarian Law |journal=Journal of Palestine Studies |volume=43 |issue=4 |pages=39–48 |doi=10.1525/jps.2014.43.4.39}} * {{cite journal |last1=Jamshidi |first1=Maryam |date=2024 |title=Genocide and Resistance in Palestine under Law's Shadow |journal=[[Journal of Genocide Research]] |pages=1–35 |doi=10.1080/14623528.2024.2348377 |doi-access=free}} * {{Cite book |last=Longobardo |first=Marco |title=The Use of Armed Force in Occupied Territory |publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]] |year=2018 |isbn=9781108562027}} * {{cite journal |last1=Moughrabi |first1=Fouad |date=1992 |title=Israeli Control and Palestinian Resistance |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766693 |journal=Social Justice |volume=19 |issue=3 (49) |pages=46–62 |issn=1043-1578 |jstor=29766693}} * {{Cite book |last=Norman |first=Julie |title=The Palestinian Prisoners Movement: Resistance and Disobedience |publisher=[[Taylor & Francis]] |year=2021 |isbn=9781000410914}} * {{cite book |last1=Quigley |first1=John |title=The Case for Palestine: An International Law Perspective |date=2005 |publisher=[[Duke University Press]] |isbn=9780822386766}} * {{cite book |last1=Sabel |first1=Robbie |title=International law and the Arab-Israeli conflict |date=2022 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=9781108762670 |location=Cambridge, United Kingdom; New York, NY}} * {{Cite journal |last=Shandi |first=Yousef |year=2010 |title=Israel's Claim of the" Legitimate Right of Self Defence" regarding the Gaza Strip in Light of International Law: A Palestinian Lawyer's Position |journal=Journal of East Asia and International Law |volume=3|issue=2 |page=7 |doi=10.14330/jeail.2010.3.2.07 |doi-access=free }}

[[Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict legal issues]] [[Category:International law]] [[Category:Human rights in Palestine]] [[Category:Resistance movements]] [[Category:Just war theory]]