Verklaring van de National Lawyers Guild International Committee d.d. 8 october 2023. “NLG Stands in Solidarity with the People of Palestine in their Struggle Against the Settler Colonial State of Israel”.
.
Met verwijzing naar hun eerdere verklaring uit 2021: “Affirming and protecting the legal right of Palestinians to resist the colonizing power that seeks to annihilate them. International law also upholds the right of self-defense for peoples under colonial and foreign domination and subjugation. «reaffirm[ing] the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.»”
.
Waarin dus besloten: “The General Assembly [of the United Nations]… Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle.”
(UN GA Resolution 45/130, document A/RES/45/130, d.d. 14-12-1990, Importance of the universal realization of the right of peoples to self-determination and of the speedy granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples for the effective guarantee and observance of human rights)
.
Daarentegen kan een BEZETTER nimmer recht op zelf-verdediging opeisen tegen de BEZETTE partij. Simpel. Zie daarvoor: http://www.lirb.nl/…/israel-cannot-claim-the-right-of…/
.
.
Voeg desgewenst aan de verwijzingen in voornoemd stuk verder toe:
Craig Murray, “Richard Medhurst and the Right to Armed Resistance”, Craig Murray’s blog, 20 augustus 2024 (https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2024/08/richard-medhurst-and-the-right-to-armed-resistance/) en gereproduceerd op Alfred de Zayas’ Human Rights Corner (https://dezayasalfred.wordpress.com/2024/08/23/craig-murray-richard-medhurst-and-the-right-to-armed-resistance/).
.
Gewapend verzet van de bezette partij tegen de bezettende partij is dus legitiem. De vlieger gaat óók op voor die partijen die de stichting van de Palestijnse Staat accepteren als legitiem (zoals de VN ook zo had bepaald tegelijkertijd met de stichting van Israel). Want dan geldt artikel 51 van het handvest van de VN wél (terwijl het nu voor Israel juist NIET geldt). Het recht op verzet tegen de bezetter volgt uit het recht op zelf-verdediging en komt neer op het recht van zelf-bevrijding. Dat is mooi uitgelegd door Fayez A. Sayegh in “The Liberation of Palestine”, de epiloog van zijn boek dat gelezen moet worden als een toelichting tot de doelstellingen van de PLO : “The right to national liberation is an extension of the right to national self-defense, which the Charter of the United Nations not only upholds but also declares to be “inherent” and beyond “impairment” by the provisions Of the Charter itself. [Artikel 51] If continued acquisition of the fruits of an attack is tantamount to continuation of the attack itself, the liberation of territories seized by aggression is an extension of the inherent right to resist the original aggression. Liberation and self-defense are two facets of the same inalienable right. The right to national liberation has come to be all but universally recognized. Only die-hard imperial arid colonial regimes still invoke the mythical principle of the inviolability of dominion acquired by past and continuing aggression, in the hope that they might arrest the process of decolonization before the rising tide of national liberation engulfs their anachronistic regimes.” (Fayez A. Sayegh, Zionist Colonialism in Palestine, Palestine Monographs 1, Research Center, Palestine Liberation Organization, Beirut, Lebanon, September 1965, 49).