Sunday, October 30, 2011

Is "Armed Resistance" Covered by International Law?

I also must note, that while I, personally, and the ISM as an organization, recognize the Palestinian right to use armed struggle to resist occupation (even if we don’t engage in or actively support it), we strongly believe that armed resistance MUST adhere to international law.

That was Huwaida Arraf, cofounder of the International Solidarity Movement (and thanks to ChallahHuAkbar suspended at present).


As noted:

Any discussion about the right of resistance must begin by recognizing the extent to which government is already the aggressor. As Locke wrote, “There is only one thing which gathers people for sedition, and that is oppression.”

If you but realize that

a. the Arab countries and the local leadership of the Arabs of the former Mandate of Palestine refused to accept the UN Partition recommendationof 1947, after subverting by a campaign of terror since 1920 the right of the Jews to reconstitute their national home;

b. that they initiated a war of aggression in late 1947;

c. that they sponsored the fedayeen terror campaign of 1949-1956;

d. that they sponsored the PLO in 1964 and its terror campaign;

e. that they refused any territorial compromise, including the disengagement;

f. that their terror was directed almost exclusively at civilians in an indiscriminate manner;

g. and much more,

then you can only come to the conclusion, given Israel's attempt to negotiated a peaceful resolution of the conflict, that there is no right of resistance in this case but the the duty to desist from violence and sit at the negotiations table.

And as for "rights", read this:

Aljamal: Why do you believe that one-state solution is the best one to the conflict?

Arraf: I actually do not advocate the one-state solution. This doesn’t mean that I support the two-state solution either. Rather, I take a “rights-based approach.” This means that I focus on the rights that we’re struggling to achieve and don’t spend time arguing about one state or two. In reality, I don’t care if it’s 10 states or no states, as long as the rights of Palestinians and all people are respected and implemented. This includes the right of our refugees to return and to compensation for their losses, the right to complete equality under the law, and other rights currently denied to Palestinians. As a political solution, one state would likely achieve this best. However, if two states were proposed that included the right of all refugees to return to their homes (even if not the exact homes they lived in) inside 48 Palestine, and guaranteed equality for all people, meaning that Israel would NOT be defined as a Jewish state, but a state that represented all her people equally, then that could also work...Israel cannot define itself as a Jewish state, because then it would need to maintain a Jewish majority. This means that it would need to take steps to ensure that Jews remain a majority, including preventing Palestinian families from reuniting, continuing to recruit Jews to bring to Israel while keeping Palestinians out, perhaps some day restricting the number of children Palestinians inside Israel can have!”

What she is promoting is a denial of rights, plain and simple.

^

4 comments:

Nate said...

The right of armed resistance may only be invoked against unlawful occupation. The occupation of the "Palestinian Territories" took place in a lawful war of a self-defense. They have no more right under international law to attack Israeli soldiers than Germans or Japanese to attack Allied forces after World War II ended.

Under UNSC Res. 242, the current occupation is lawful until a peace agreement including a final termination of belligerency by the Palestinians.

Anonymous said...

Keep talking to yourselves, guys.
The world isn't listening . It'll be nice to see Israelis at the ICC.

Nate said...

Are neither Article 51 of the UN Charter (under which Israel fought the 1967 war) nor the UNSC Res 242 (calling for negotiated settlement of disputes in exchange for withdrawal of occupied territories) not a part of international law? Last I checked they were.

You won't ever see Israelis at the ICC. And if you did, they'd have proper defenses under international law you claim they are in violation of.

www.orense-3d.com said...

This won't actually have success, I think so.