RAMALLAH, (PIC)
“If there is no struggle, there is no progress, power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” These words by Frederick Douglass, originally spoken in the context of the fight against slavery, resonate strongly in the Palestinian case today, where struggle intersects with law, and competing narratives clash over legitimacy and truth.
Amid what Palestinians describe as unprecedented Israeli aggression across Gaza, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and within 1948 occupied Palestine, the debate over the legitimacy of resistance has re-emerged, not merely as a political question, but as a legal and moral issue that exposes the limits of the international system.
International law and United Nations resolutions affirm a fundamental principle: peoples living under occupation have an inherent right to resist, including through armed struggle. Yet despite the clarity of these legal texts, this right is often absent or distorted in dominant global discourse, particularly within influential political and media circles that tend to reflect the perspective of the occupying power. This gap highlights a deeper contradiction between law and its application.
Legal framework: A right rooted in self-determination
At its core, the right to resist is grounded in the principle of self-determination, one of the foundational pillars of the modern international system.
Over decades, the United Nations General Assembly has repeatedly affirmed the legitimacy of struggles by peoples under colonial or foreign domination. A key milestone came with Resolution 37/43 in 1982, which explicitly recognized “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for liberation by all available means, including armed struggle.” This clear formulation establishes that resistance is not outside the law, but embedded within it.
However, the global system does not suffer from a lack of legal frameworks as much as it suffers from inconsistent enforcement and double standards. While acts of resistance are heavily scrutinized, violations by the occupying power, such as settlement expansion, prolonged blockade, and what many describe as genocide in Gaza since October 2023, are often minimized or overlooked.
According to available data, more than 72,000 Palestinians have been martyred over a 30-month period, yet international efforts to halt the violence have remained largely ineffective. This disparity underscores a structural imbalance in how international law is applied.
Narratives and the politics of perception
Within this context, official Western narratives are often seen as reinforcing Israeli positions, shaping global perceptions through selective framing and omission. These narratives frequently detach acts of resistance from their historical and political context, presenting them as isolated incidents rather than responses to prolonged occupation.
International law, however, emphasizes the importance of contextual understanding. Actions cannot be assessed in isolation from the structural conditions that produce them.
Another key feature of dominant narratives is the selective application of the concept of “self-defense.” While Israel’s actions are frequently justified under this framework, the corresponding right of occupied peoples to resist domination is often ignored, despite its recognition in international legal principles.
The politics of labeling: Resistance vs. terrorism
The use of the term “terrorism” further complicates the debate. Without a universally agreed definition, the term is often employed as a political tool to delegitimize resistance.
In practice, Palestinian actions are labeled differently depending on context, but almost always negatively. Armed resistance is described as “terrorism,” popular protests as “riots,” and even nonviolent actions, such as boycott campaigns, are framed as “incitement.”
This inconsistency suggests that the issue lies less in the nature of the act itself and more in the identity of the actor and their position within global power structures.
Historically, many movements that used armed struggle against colonial rule were later recognized as legitimate liberation movements. This raises critical questions: when is violence considered resistance, and when is it redefined as terrorism?
Resistance as a product of humanitarian and political context
Palestinian resistance cannot be understood outside its broader humanitarian and political context. It emerges not in a vacuum, but within a reality shaped by ongoing violence, prolonged blockade, shrinking political horizons, and accumulated frustration.
In such conditions, resistance often becomes less a matter of choice and more a reflection of imposed circumstances, a means of reclaiming agency and influence over one’s life.
A striking paradox lies in the fact that different forms of resistance, whether peaceful or armed, often provoke similar responses. Peaceful protesters are suppressed, activists are detained, and entire communities face collective punishment.
This suggests that the issue may not be the method of resistance, but its very existence, and, by extension, the existence of Palestinians themselves, both as a people and on their land.
This is evident in ongoing policies of displacement, land confiscation, and violence, particularly in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Since October 2023, more than 8,600 Israeli settler attacks have been recorded, reflecting a pattern where on-the-ground violence intersects with official settlement expansion.
A struggle over meaning and legitimacy
Ultimately, the conflict extends beyond physical realities into the realm of language and interpretation. A central question emerges: who has the authority to define concepts such as “resistance,” “terrorism,” and “self-defense”?
Is it international law, which affirms the right to self-determination? Or is it powerful states that shape narratives in line with their political alliances?
The Palestinian case thus becomes a critical test of the credibility of the international system. While legal frameworks formally recognize the rights of peoples under occupation, political discourse often seeks to limit or reinterpret those rights.
This contradiction raises a fundamental question: if international law affirms the right to resist occupation, why is that right so often denied in practice? Is the problem a lack of legal clarity, or a lack of political will to apply the law consistently and fairly?
