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.
[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.
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-determinationThe 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.
[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.
[19][20] The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has expressly affirmed the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli military occupation, including through armed struggle.
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] Traditional jus ad bellum concerns conflict between states, but the struggle for self-determination can confer similar legitimacy to armed resistance movements.
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] 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".
[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.
[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.
[42] 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.
[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.
[46] 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.
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.
[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] Jan Arno Hessbruegge writes that International Law, regrettably, does not give non-state groups a right to self-defense, not even from genocide.
[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] 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.
[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.
[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".
[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][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.
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".