Bernie Sander's claimed at a rally that Israel "has the right to self-defense" But this is not true. And is one of the pernicious and oft-repeated falsehoods. Here is why it's false 👇
https://x.com/PhilipProudfoot/status/1912147831449661802
Bernie Sander's claimed at a rally that Israel "has the right to self-defense" But this is not true. And is one of the pernicious and oft-repeated falsehoods. Here is why it's false 
"Rights" are produced by law and no such "right to self-defense" exists in international law in relation to occupied Palestine.
Israel is an occupying state and thus it carries legal obligations to protect, not to attack, the population it occupies. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly demands that an occupier safeguard civilian rights. Accordingly, Israel cannot resort to anything more than police powers to "defend itself" - it certainly cannot invoke the "right to self-defense."
Article 51 of the UN Charter allows nations to defend themselves against aggression from external sovereign states—not from populations under their control. Occupied territories do not constitute separate sovereign entities, removing any legal basis for Israel to claim self-defence.
In fact, what international law does recognise is the legitimacy of resistance against occupation (conducted within the limits of IHL, of course). UN Resolution 3314 explicitly endorses the right of populations to resist occupation as distinct from aggression. It explictly affirms the right of peoples to self-determination, freedom, and independence, even through armed struggle, if they are under foreign or colonial rule.
ICJ made this even clearer in a 2004 ruling, firmly rejecting Israel’s argument that its security measures in occupied Palestine were justified as acts of "self-defence." Occupation is temporary, imposing duties, not rights, upon the occupier.
"Rights" are produced by law and no such "right to self-defense" exists in international law in relation to occupied Palestine.
Israel is an occupying state and thus it carries legal obligations to protect, not to attack, the population it occupies. The Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly demands that an occupier safeguard civilian rights. Accordingly, Israel cannot resort to anything more than police powers to "defend itself" - it certainly cannot invoke the "right to self-defense."
Article 51 of the UN Charter allows nations to defend themselves against aggression from external sovereign states—not from populations under their control. Occupied territories do not constitute separate sovereign entities, removing any legal basis for Israel to claim self-defence.
In fact, what international law does recognise is the legitimacy of resistance against occupation (conducted within the limits of IHL, of course). UN Resolution 3314 explicitly endorses the right of populations to resist occupation as distinct from aggression. It explictly affirms the right of peoples to self-determination, freedom, and independence, even through armed struggle, if they are under foreign or colonial rule.
ICJ made this even clearer in a 2004 ruling, firmly rejecting Israel’s argument that its security measures in occupied Palestine were justified as acts of "self-defence." Occupation is temporary, imposing duties, not rights, upon the occupier.
posted by Satish Sharma at
05:10
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home