Many scholars have argued that Palestinians have the right to resist under international law, including armed resistance. This right to resist is in a sense only; the conduct of such resistance () 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.
It is agreed that, under international law, Palestinians have the right to self-determination. 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, as well as several resolutions of the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly. 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. 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. Some scholars argue Palestinians also have the right to self-defense, 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.
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
Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions is frequently cited to justify Palestinians' right under international law to resist Israeli occupation. Additional Protocol I (API) of the Geneva Conventions says in Article 1(4):
The authors of this article were referring to wars of national liberation that had accompanied decolonisation, 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. 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. 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 movements" who meet certain criteria.
Declaration on Friendly Relations
The Declaration on Friendly Relations is considered the most significant achievement for the right of self-determination, as it was adopted unanimously by the UNGA without any opposition. The relevant paragraph of that Declaration states,
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. 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 the 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.
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. He points out that Palestinians have recognized Israel's 1967 borders, and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative was spurned by Israel.
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 2023, a letter by lawyers in the West Bank argued Palestinians had a right to resist, because the international community had failed the Palestinians.
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 is 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.
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. 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, the naval blockade of Gaza, and Israeli attacks on Palestinian civilians. 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.