Jump to navigation
THE ELECTRONIC INTIFADA
Why is the UN telling Palestinians to protect their occupiers?
Ali Abunimah Rights and Accountability 4 April 2016
A Palestinian holding a sign denouncing "security coordination" between
Israeli occupation forces and the Palestinian Authority takes part in a Land
Day protest near Ofer prison in the occupied West Bank on 30 March.
Hamza Shalash APA images
Last week, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said it
was "extremely concerned" about the apparent extrajudicial execution of a
Palestinian youth by an Israeli soldier.
But the statement left me wondering why the UN body also expects
Palestinians to protect the army that is occupying them and helping Israeli
settlers steal their land.
Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif and Ramzi al-Qasrawi, both 21, were shot dead after
allegedly stabbing a soldier, who was lightly injured, in the West Bank city
of Hebron on the morning of 24 March.
A video filmed by a human rights worker showed an Israeli soldier, later
identified as Elor Azarya, aiming his rifle and shooting al-Sharif in the
head as he was lying on the ground injured and incapacitated.
With depressing predictability, Israeli leaders and the general public have
rallied around Azarya, many hailing him as a hero.
Azarya, who is facing charges of manslaughter - downgraded from murder - has
been ordered freed on bail.
Unanswered questions
Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, called for a "prompt, thorough,
transparent and independent investigation" into the slaying of al-Sharif and
other killings in similar circumstances.
"A major concern is that such cases appear not to have been systematically
subjected to criminal investigations," Colville stated.
So far, so good. But here's the part that had me confused: "We urge the
Palestinian authorities to take all feasible measures to prevent attacks on
Israelis, which are reprehensible."
Colville added that the Israeli "security forces are entitled to defend
themselves and others from these types of attacks," but urged them "to
ensure all members of their security forces fully comply with their
obligation to use force with restraint."
Recall that the two youths in Hebron had allegedly attacked an armed
occupation soldier deployed in their city to protect settlers who are there
in violation of international law.
Indeed, most of the attacks or alleged attacks by Palestinians since an
increase in confrontations began last October have targeted occupation
forces at checkpoints and near settlements in the West Bank.
As even senior Israeli military officers have acknowledged, the
predominantly young Palestinians involved aim to "attack symbols of the
Israeli occupation," as the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reported.
We can all agree that attacks targeting civilians, regardless of who may be
the perpetrator or the victim, are indeed reprehensible.
But the UN statement contains no such qualification; it condemns all armed
actions by Palestinians regardless of the circumstances.
The right to resist
So I wrote to Colville to ask for clarification. In particular, I wanted to
know:
Does the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights consider attacks on armed
occupation forces by persons living under foreign, belligerent military
occupation to be reprehensible? If so, what is the legal basis for such a
position?
What is the basis for demanding that persons living under military
occupation act as a protection force for their occupiers?
Do "Palestinian authorities" also have a responsibility to protect the
settlers, or only to ensure the safety and security of the Israeli army?
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights apparently recognizes that armed,
belligerent occupation forces are "entitled to defend themselves" against
the people they occupy.
Does it similarly recognize that the Palestinian population living under a
military occupation about which the international community has done
precisely nothing except issue toothless statements for almost 50 years are
similarly entitled to resist and defend themselves against said occupation?
Colville did not respond to my questions, so I am left to conclude that the
UN's highest human rights official makes no distinction between attacks on
civilians and resistance against armed occupation forces, while supporting
the right of the occupation forces to use violence against those they
occupy.
This view defies a broad international consensus that occupied and colonized
peoples do indeed have a right to resist.
No one seriously questions the right of French, Belgian and Dutch citizens
to have engaged in armed resistance against German occupation, or of
Indonesians and Algerians to have resisted Dutch or French occupation.
This consensus has been expressed in numerous UN General Assembly
resolutions, including resolution 3246 of 29 November 1974 which "strongly
condemns" all governments which do not recognize "the right to
self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign
domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the
Palestinian people."
The same resolution "[r]eaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for
liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all
available means, including armed struggle."
The right and duty to resist occupation is even enshrined in the
constitution of Sweden, which declares that "Any public body in occupied
territory shall act in the manner that best serves the defense effort and
resistance activities."
Palestinian collaboration
It is, of course, much harder to make the case internationally that
Palestinians - just like other occupied peoples through history - have a
right to resist, when their best known face works night and day to help
Israel crush all resistance.
Last Thursday, Haaretz reported that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud
Abbas is "insisting on continuing security cooperation with Israel."
Abbas told Israeli television that he wanted Israel to halt its raids inside
Palestinian city centers so that the PA could do the job on Israel's behalf.
"Try me for a week - if I don't meet my responsibilities, then come back,"
Abbas told the Israeli current affairs program Uvda.
"Give me responsibility for the Palestinian territories, and test me. if
Israel has specific intelligence information, give it to me and I'll handle
it. If I don't handle it, he [Netanyahu] can come and do it," Abbas said.
Abbas has previously gone on record calling his role as Israel's occupation
enforcer "sacred."
His surrogates have also previously reassured Israel that the PA is doing
all it can to prevent a "third intifada."
This assistance to Israel involves, among other activities, PA complicity in
the torture of Palestinian prisoners and suppressing protests against the
occupation.
But it is widely viewed by Palestinians, including some inside Abbas' own
Fatah faction, as a reprehensible form of collaboration.
The case for BDS
It is up to Palestinians to debate and decide the best forms of resistance,
and in the current situation one of the most powerful means of standing up
to Israel is the nonviolent, civil society-led boycott, divestment and
sanctions (BDS) movement.
Israel sees BDS as such a major threat to its dominance and impunity that it
is now making outright threats against individual activists.
There is a difference between choosing the appropriate tactics for how to
protest and resist, on the one hand, and negating the right to resist and
even collaborating with the occupation, on the other.
Palestinians may choose not to use armed struggle, just as Nelson Mandela
adopted and then suspended armed struggle in South Africa when he and his
comrades thought the conditions were appropriate. But they never gave up the
right.
As the history of South Africa also shows, the path away from violence is
always easier when there are effective alternatives.
So those, like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who apparently
find all Palestinian, though not Israeli, violence reprehensible, should be
the first in line to promote nonviolent strategies like BDS.
But no one, not Abbas nor any UN official, is entitled to strip Palestinians
of their fundamental right to resistance and self-defense.
Jump to navigation
https://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=3728http
s://npo.networkforgood.org/Donate/Donate.aspx?npoSubscriptionId=3728Get
Updates
/
The Electronic Intifada
You are here
//blog/blog/rights-and-accountability
Why is the UN telling Palestinians to protect their occupiers?
Ali Abunimah Rights and Accountability 4 April 2016
&
A Palestinian holding a sign denouncing "security coordination" between
Israeli occupation forces and the Palestinian Authority takes part in a Land
Day protest near Ofer prison in the occupied West Bank on 30 March.
Hamza Shalash APA images
Last week, the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights said it
was "extremely concerned" about the apparent extrajudicial execution of a
Palestinian youth by an Israeli soldier.
But the statement left me wondering why the UN body also expects
Palestinians to protect the army that is occupying them and helping Israeli
settlers steal their land.
Abd al-Fattah al-Sharif and Ramzi al-Qasrawi, both 21, were shot dead after
allegedly stabbing a soldier, who was lightly injured, in the West Bank city
of Hebron on the morning of 24 March.
A video filmed by a human rights worker showed an Israeli soldier, later
identified as Elor Azarya, aiming his rifle and shooting al-Sharif in the
head as he was lying on the ground injured and incapacitated.
With depressing predictability, Israeli leaders and the general public have
rallied around Azarya, many hailing him as a hero.
Azarya, who is facing charges of manslaughter - downgraded from murder - has
been ordered freed on bail.
Unanswered questions
Rupert Colville, the spokesperson for the UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Prince Zeid Ra'ad Al Hussein, called for a "prompt, thorough,
transparent and independent investigation" into the slaying of al-Sharif and
other killings in similar circumstances.
"A major concern is that such cases appear not to have been systematically
subjected to criminal investigations," Colville stated.
So far, so good. But here's the part that had me confused: "We urge the
Palestinian authorities to take all feasible measures to prevent attacks on
Israelis, which are reprehensible."
Colville added that the Israeli "security forces are entitled to defend
themselves and others from these types of attacks," but urged them "to
ensure all members of their security forces fully comply with their
obligation to use force with restraint."
Recall that the two youths in Hebron had allegedly attacked an armed
occupation soldier deployed in their city to protect settlers who are there
in violation of international law.
Indeed, most of the attacks or alleged attacks by Palestinians since an
increase in confrontations began last October have targeted occupation
forces at checkpoints and near settlements in the West Bank.
As even senior Israeli military officers have acknowledged, the
predominantly young Palestinians involved aim to "attack symbols of the
Israeli occupation," as the Tel Aviv newspaper Haaretz reported.
We can all agree that attacks targeting civilians, regardless of who may be
the perpetrator or the victim, are indeed reprehensible.
But the UN statement contains no such qualification; it condemns all armed
actions by Palestinians regardless of the circumstances.
The right to resist
So I wrote to Colville to ask for clarification. In particular, I wanted to
know:
Does the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights consider attacks on armed
occupation forces by persons living under foreign, belligerent military
occupation to be reprehensible? If so, what is the legal basis for such a
position?
What is the basis for demanding that persons living under military
occupation act as a protection force for their occupiers?
Do "Palestinian authorities" also have a responsibility to protect the
settlers, or only to ensure the safety and security of the Israeli army?
The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights apparently recognizes that armed,
belligerent occupation forces are "entitled to defend themselves" against
the people they occupy.
Does it similarly recognize that the Palestinian population living under a
military occupation about which the international community has done
precisely nothing except issue toothless statements for almost 50 years are
similarly entitled to resist and defend themselves against said occupation?
Colville did not respond to my questions, so I am left to conclude that the
UN's highest human rights official makes no distinction between attacks on
civilians and resistance against armed occupation forces, while supporting
the right of the occupation forces to use violence against those they
occupy.
This view defies a broad international consensus that occupied and colonized
peoples do indeed have a right to resist.
No one seriously questions the right of French, Belgian and Dutch citizens
to have engaged in armed resistance against German occupation, or of
Indonesians and Algerians to have resisted Dutch or French occupation.
This consensus has been expressed in numerous UN General Assembly
resolutions, including resolution 3246 of 29 November 1974 which "strongly
condemns" all governments which do not recognize "the right to
self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign
domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the
Palestinian people."
The same resolution "[r]eaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples' struggle for
liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all
available means, including armed struggle."
The right and duty to resist occupation is even enshrined in the
constitution of Sweden, which declares that "Any public body in occupied
territory shall act in the manner that best serves the defense effort and
resistance activities."
Palestinian collaboration
It is, of course, much harder to make the case internationally that
Palestinians - just like other occupied peoples through history - have a
right to resist, when their best known face works night and day to help
Israel crush all resistance.
Last Thursday, Haaretz reported that Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud
Abbas is "insisting on continuing security cooperation with Israel."
Abbas told Israeli television that he wanted Israel to halt its raids inside
Palestinian city centers so that the PA could do the job on Israel's behalf.
"Try me for a week - if I don't meet my responsibilities, then come back,"
Abbas told the Israeli current affairs program Uvda.
"Give me responsibility for the Palestinian territories, and test me. if
Israel has specific intelligence information, give it to me and I'll handle
it. If I don't handle it, he [Netanyahu] can come and do it," Abbas said.
Abbas has previously gone on record calling his role as Israel's occupation
enforcer "sacred."
His surrogates have also previously reassured Israel that the PA is doing
all it can to prevent a "third intifada."
This assistance to Israel involves, among other activities, PA complicity in
the torture of Palestinian prisoners and suppressing protests against the
occupation.
But it is widely viewed by Palestinians, including some inside Abbas' own
Fatah faction, as a reprehensible form of collaboration.
The case for BDS
It is up to Palestinians to debate and decide the best forms of resistance,
and in the current situation one of the most powerful means of standing up
to Israel is the nonviolent, civil society-led boycott, divestment and
sanctions (BDS) movement.
Israel sees BDS as such a major threat to its dominance and impunity that it
is now making outright threats against individual activists.
There is a difference between choosing the appropriate tactics for how to
protest and resist, on the one hand, and negating the right to resist and
even collaborating with the occupation, on the other.
Palestinians may choose not to use armed struggle, just as Nelson Mandela
adopted and then suspended armed struggle in South Africa when he and his
comrades thought the conditions were appropriate. But they never gave up the
right.
As the history of South Africa also shows, the path away from violence is
always easier when there are effective alternatives.
So those, like the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who apparently
find all Palestinian, though not Israeli, violence reprehensible, should be
the first in line to promote nonviolent strategies like BDS.
But no one, not Abbas nor any UN official, is entitled to strip Palestinians
of their fundamental right to resistance and self-defense.
