<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-top-anchor"></div>
<div id="gmail-toolbar" class="gmail-toolbar-container">
</div><div class="gmail-container" lang="en-EN" dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail-header gmail-reader-header gmail-reader-show-element">
<a class="gmail-domain gmail-reader-domain" href="https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/october-7-and-the-palestinian-revolution">english.almayadeen.net</a>
<div class="gmail-domain-border"></div>
<h1 class="gmail-reader-title">October 7 and the Palestinian Revolution</h1>
<div class="gmail-credits gmail-reader-credits">Tim Anderson</div>
<div class="gmail-meta-data">
<div class="gmail-reader-estimated-time">October 3, 2024<br></div>
</div>
</div>
<hr>
<div class="gmail-content">
<div class="gmail-moz-reader-content gmail-reader-show-element"><div id="gmail-readability-page-1" class="gmail-page"><p>The
mythology over Palestine is not just a result of intense propaganda; it
also draws on the failure of the Anglo-Americans to recognise
international law over decolonisation and the right of colonised people
to resist. But this failure is buried by double speak.</p><img src="cid:ii_m1syatqp0" alt="102a9b7a-550b-49dd-8f28-3de9538897e0.jpg" width="421" height="358"><br><div><ul id="gmail-content-slick-0"><div aria-hidden="false"><li>
The international community which respects decolonisation
and post-colonial norms should assist in commemorating this remarkable
milestone of Palestinian liberation. (Al Mayadeen English; Illustrated
by Mahdi Rtail)
</li></div></ul>
<p>Late last year, a senior Syrian general told me that before 7 October
2023, the Israeli regime stood on two legs: its military and its
international sponsors. After 7 October, its military was destroyed and
it was left standing on the one leg of its international sponsors. Of
course, in the Western media, this remarkable military achievement has
been converted into a horror story - a 'barbaric attack involving
indiscriminate murder and rape'. These two versions cannot both be true,
so the matter deserves closer investigation. For the Israelis and their
Western sponsors, October 7 was shocking, but affirmed their view of
all Palestinian Resistance as inhuman terrorism. For the Resistance,
however, the breakout began with some limited aims but went on to become
the final stage of the Palestinian Revolution, a decolonizing struggle
which will end the genocidal, apartheid regime.</p>
<p>The mythology over Palestine is not just a result of intense
propaganda; it also draws on the failure of the Anglo-Americans to
recognise international law over decolonisation and the right of
colonised people to resist. But this failure is buried by double speak.
Washington was quick to provide military support to the entirely fake
“revolutions” in Libya and Syria, yet was horrified by the actual and
ongoing revolutions in Yemen and Palestine, doing all it could to
suppress them.</p>
<p>Since Gaza’s October 7 insurrection represents the start of a much
greater process it should be commemorated as an important milestone of
Palestinian liberation. Like the Easter 1916 uprising in Ireland, the
October 7 attacks were unexpected but rapidly suppressed, causing great
sacrifice on the Resistance side, and followed by horrific reprisals
against civilians. However, like the Irish uprising, it stirred
conscience and catalyzed a wider war of liberation. For these reasons,
the entire anti-colonial world should see the day as one which belongs
to the Resistance, not a bastardised distortion, created to serve the
mythology of the colonisers. We should name and remember those who gave
their lives for this event, which broke a long slumber anaesthetized by
the Oslo Accords. The differences with the history of the Irish uprising
simply point to the need for more authentic histories of this
remarkable insurrection. This essay is an opening gambit, from an
outsider.</p>
<p>One advantage such histories today have is the body of agreed
post-colonial norms, which did not exist back in 1916. When we study
this, in particular the development of the right to resist, we will find
much reason to oppose normalization with the Anglo-American denial of
that right, and a need to reject illegitimate and partisan labels such
as ‘terrorism’, which serve only to cover the monstrous crimes of the
colonisers and their sponsors.</p>
<h2>1. The Uprising</h2>
<p>The Gaza operation was called <span><a href="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20231009-haniyeh-outlines-context-and-objectives-of-hamas-operation-al-aqsa-flood/">Al Aqsa Flood</a></span>
(AAF) - an allusion to successive Israeli invasions of the al-Aqsa
Mosque in al-Quds (Jerusalem) – aimed “to liberate our land, our holy
sites, our Al-Aqsa mosque [and] our prisoners”. It was conceived months
before the 7 October breakout, but that attack came to define the
operation. More specifically, AAF aimed to destroy the Gaza garrison and
take Israeli prisoners, to be used in a prisoner exchange. Led by the
Hamas' military wing, al-Qassam, it comprised <span><a href="https://english.ahram.org.eg/News/509763.aspx">a coalition of several Palestinian Resistance groups</a></span>, (notably the PIJ’s al-Quds Brigades and Fatah’s al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades) most of which remained <span><a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/analysis/is-the-gaza-resistance-diminishing">active in armed attacks on Israeli forces</a></span> well into 2024.</p>
<p>In the early hours of October 7, 2023, the Hamas-led coalition
launched thousands of rockets into southern occupied Palestine, as cover
for a <span>ground operation involving hundreds of fighters</span> who
breached the barriers, using bulldozers, motorboats, motorcycles and at
last one motorised hang glider. The Palestinian fighters <span>entered at least three military bases</span>,
at the Beit Hanoon border, the Zikim base, and the Gaza division
headquarters at Reim. They attacked the military with light weapons and
took prisoners from amongst Israeli military and civilians.</p>
<p>The Israelis began bombing the border areas at about 10 am, including what was later revealed as <span><a href="https://counter-hegemonic-studies.site/hannibal-israel/">quite indiscriminate bombing</a></span>,
to halt the incursion and hostage taking. That response was immediately
followed by a large scale bombing of the Gaza Strip, allegedly to
suppress the armed groups but with the openly stated aim of punishing
the entire Gaza population. It was an assault <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/oct/16/the-language-being-used-to-describe-palestinians-is-genocidal">very quickly characterised as genocidal</a></span> – even in some parts of the Western media.</p>
<p>What of the casualties on October 7? There seem to be no available
public records of the Palestinian casualties that day and, on the
Israeli side, we have to rely on Israeli sources. That is a problem, as
the Israeli regime is <span><a href="https://imeu.org/article/fact-sheet-israels-history-of-spreading-disinformation">notoriously mendacious</a></span>
and censorial. It spreads misinformation for self-serving ends,
especially linked to its “security” operations. On the other hand, when
we see contradictions of the official story from Israeli sources, these
instances may have the credibility of ‘admissions against interest’. But
we should also notice one thing about those termed ‘civilians’ in the
Israeli context: virtually all adult Israelis are members of the
military reserve and <span><a href="https://acleddata.com/2024/06/10/civilians-or-soldiers-settler-violence-in-the-west-bank/">many settler colonists are heavily armed</a></span>. Some of these <span><a href="https://acleddata.com/2024/06/10/civilians-or-soldiers-settler-violence-in-the-west-bank/">settler-soldiers are even subject to personal sanctions</a></span> by "Israel’s" key sponsor, the USA, for their extreme violence.</p>
<p>With those caveats in mind, Israeli sources have said that <span><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/authorities-name-44-soldiers-30-police-officers-killed-in-hamas-attack/">between 360</a></span> and <span><a href="https://aoav.org.uk/2023/an-analysis-of-the-7th-of-october-2023-casualties-in-israel-as-a-result-of-the-hamas-attack/">441 security forces</a></span>
(soldiers and police) were killed on October 7, with at least 346 more
during the subsequent Israeli rampage in the Gaza Strip. By those same
sources, <span><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/authorities-name-44-soldiers-30-police-officers-killed-in-hamas-attack/">between 700 and 800 civilians were killed</a></span>,
with another 251 “civilians and soldiers” taken prisoner. The
Resistance wanted to exchange these POWs (“hostages”) for the many
thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons. Altogether 1,139
Israelis were said to have been killed.</p>
<p>When compared to the Israeli assault on Gaza, the operation seems
extraordinarily well-targeted and the “civilian” casualties very low.
Such a blow against the Israeli military had not been seen since the
1973 war. <span><a href="https://www.ochaopt.org/data/casualties">Prior to 2023, the death toll</a></span>
from what is called the “Israeli-Gaza conflict” had been several
thousand Palestinians, mostly civilians, and a few dozen Israelis,
mostly military.</p>
<p>However the October 7 picture was beaten up by the Israeli regime, military and first responders, who claimed they had seen “<span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFtE9HMtiOc">40 beheaded babies</a></span>”, mass rape and the random slaughter of young people at a music festival.</p>
<p>These three fabricated myths have been debunked by independent evidence including Israeli admissions.</p>
<ul><li>Beheaded babies – many media channels <span><a href="https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20240405-le-monde-debunks-israel-claims-that-hamas-decapitated-40-babies/">debunked the claims that Hamas beheaded Israeli babies</a></span>, but <span><a href="https://theintercept.com/2023/12/14/israel-biden-beheaded-babies-false/">President Joe Biden kept repeating the lie</a></span> that he had seen photos of these babies while <em>The Times</em> used the headline <span><a href="https://www.thetimes.com/article/israel-releases-pictures-of-mutilated-baby-920tmqflk">"Israel releases pictures of mutilated babies"</a></span>,
with (initially) photos of Palestinian babies as “proof” of Palestinian
“atrocities”. At the same time there were documented cases, well into
2024, of <span><a href="https://imemc.org/article/american-doctor-israeli-snipers-deliberately-targeted-palestinian-children-in-gaza/">Israeli soldiers deliberately sniping children</a></span>. The White House <span>was forced to “walk back” Biden’s dishonest or demented claim</span> that he had seen pictures of beheaded children.</li><li>Mass rape – despite <span><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-67629181">these claims, repeated by the <em>BBC</em></a></span> <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/18/evidence-points-to-systematic-use-of-rape-by-hamas-in-7-october-attacks">and <em>The Guardia</em>n</a></span>, the Israeli regime <span><a href="https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/watch-debunking-israels-mass-rape-propaganda">did not claim to have identified any specific rape victims, nor did they produce any videos or forensic evidence</a></span> corroborating the claims – they relied instead on some military and first responder claims. <em>The Times of Israel</em> expressed annoyance that <span><a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/%E2%80%A2%09https:/www.timesofisrael.com/how-2-debunked-accounts-from-zaka-workers-fueled-global-skepticism-of-oct-7-rape/">“debunked accounts” from Zaka first responders</a></span> had “fueled skepticism” over the overall story of Hamas “mass rape”.</li><li>Yet <span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8qJ6Ig40M8">the rape and murder of Palestinian women by Israeli soldiers in Gaza</a></span>, and the <span><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/30/idf-charges-reservist-with-aggravated-abuse-of-palestinian-prisoners">Israeli rape of male Palestinian prisoners</a></span> (which led to some charges) did come to light, but these rapes were then <span>justified in parts of the Israeli media</span>.</li><li>Civilian slaughter at the music festival was a claim made against
Hamas fighters, who did indeed kill and capture some such adult
“civilians”. Yet the Israeli military, under the <span><a href="https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2024-07-07/ty-article-magazine/.premium/idf-ordered-hannibal-directive-on-october-7-to-prevent-hamas-taking-soldiers-captive/00000190-89a2-d776-a3b1-fdbe45520000">Hannibal directive</a></span>
(which directs the use of indiscriminate force to prevent soldiers
being taken into captivity) attacked all three army facilities
infiltrated by the Palestinian Resistance, while <span><a href="https://thecradle.co/articles-id/18526">Israeli aircraft destroyed 70 fleeing vehicles</a></span> and <span><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-officer-recounts-ordering-tank-fire-on-beeri-home-during-hostage-standoff-on-oct-7/">Israeli tanks fired on kibbutz Be’eri</a></span>. An Israeli <span><a href="https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/idf-officer-recounts-ordering-tank-fire-on-beeri-home-during-hostage-standoff-on-oct-7/">tank commander admitted</a></span> he had fired on the kibbutz, during the “hostage standoff”. <a href="https://thegrayzone.com/2023/10/27/israels-military-shelled-burning-tanks-helicopters/">Many outlets concluded</a><span> that the Israeli military were responsible</span>
for much of the killing of Israeli citizens (and some Israeli soldiers)
on 7 October. These deaths were said to be due to “friendly fire” under
the ‘Hannibal Directive’.</li></ul>
<p>In sum, allegations of child murder, rape and slaughter of civilians
were quickly established as crimes committed by Israeli forces, but
mostly debunked as claims against the Palestinian Resistance. The net
impact of the Hamas led insurrection was then success in destroying much
of the Gaza garrison, plus demoralising the entire military and
intelligence apparatus and taking more than 200 prisoners.</p>
<p>However, despite an initial prisoner exchange of women and children
in late 2023, the prospects of a wider prisoner exchange were undermined
by Israeli refusal to halt their offensive in the Gaza Strip. Yet that
offensive was marked by <span><a href="https://press.un.org/en/2023/gashc4390.doc.htm">massive civilian slaughter</a></span> and failure to contain Resistance attacks. A widespread consensus emerged <span><a href="https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/2024-09-17/ty-article-opinion/.premium/the-israeli-army-failed-to-destroy-hamas-it-certainly-cant-defeat-hezbollah/00000191-fc1d-d9b4-a5b1-fdfdc3570000">amongst even Israeli military</a></span> and pro-"Israel" sources that <span><a href="https://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/can-hamas-be-defeated">Hamas (and its allies) could not be defeated</a></span>.</p>
<p>Given the extraordinary surprise impact of the events of October 7,
which so audaciously disarmed the famous Israeli intelligence, <span><a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2024/01/21/hamas-attack-october-7-conspiracy-israel/">a theory emerged amongst skeptics</a></span> that, the regime (and Netanyahu in particular) having shown <span><a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/benjamin-netanyahu-hamas-qatar-money-war-israel-gaza-palestine/">some favoritism towards Hamas</a></span>
in the past (to incite divisions between Islamists and secular
Palestinians) might have been behind the whole thing. That is, that the
October 7 attacks were part of a false flag operation. Now while it is
true that Muslim Brotherhood linked groups (not least those sponsored by
Qatar, which hosts a huge US air base) have <span><a href="https://literaryreview.co.uk/my-enemys-enemy">a history of collaboration</a></span>, Hamas had long since mended its bridges with the other Resistance groups and <span><a href="https://www.voanews.com/a/hamas-resumes-ties-with-syria-in-damascus-visit-/6797583.html">all the regional Axis of Resistance states</a></span>. The group’s <span><a href="https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full">revised 2017 charter</a></span>
is studiously non-sectarian. Given this, and given the extraordinary
damage done to the Israeli military, the weight of evidence proves
October 7 to have been a brilliant military operation and not a false
flag.</p>
<p>Behind the Israeli civilian reprisals in Gaza – a <span><a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/ABFBA250CF47B328C76852572B74DCBF/S0960777319000390a.pdf/paramilitary-violence-and-fascism-imaginaries-and-practices-of-squadrismo-19191925.pdf">classic fascist tactic</a></span>,
to punish civilians for the partisan attacks – lies a deep
contradiction between international law on the right to resist and the
colonial, exceptionalist views of the sponsors of the Israeli regime.<strong> </strong></p>
<h2><span>2. The Right to Resist </span></h2>
<p><span>Recognition of the right of a people (and not just a state) to
self-determination in the 1960s gave immediate implicit recognition to
the right to resist denial of that self-determination. Since then,
international law has made that right increasingly explicit. Yet
national law systems remain divided, with the right to resist usually
well recognised by post-colonial and post-fascist states but, on the
other hand, rejected by absolutist states (like Great Britain) and the
central hegemonic power (the USA) and many of its satellites, which
apply that right in a very selective way. This uneven national
recognition of international law on the right to resist forms a central
dilemma for self-determination struggles in the post-colonial world.</span></p>
<p><span>The Syrian-American academic and diplomat Fayez Sayegh, in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/2201473X.2012.10648833">his 1965 essay</a>
‘Zionist Colonialism in Palestine’, argued Arab nationalist rights and
the implicit right to resistance from the UN Charter, calling the period
“from 1917 to 1948 the period of Arab resistance par excellence”,
adding that the Palestinian people took the initiative in 1964, by
forming the PLO, and observing that “rights undefended are rights
surrendered”. Certainly, the incorporation of the self-determination
provisions of the Declaration on Decolonization into the twin covenants
on human rights (the ICCPR and ICESCR of 1966) strengthened this
implicit recognition. </span></p>
<p><span>In 1966, the UNGA <a href="https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/317152/pdf">branded apartheid “a crime against humanity”</a> (Res 2202 A (XXI), 16 December 1966), in 1982 the UNGA also affirmed (Res 37/43) “<a href="https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/40572?ln=en&v=pdf">the right to self-determination and independence</a>
by peoples under colonial and foreign domination” – particularly those
of South Africa, Namibia and occupied Palestine - to self-determination,
and “reaffirm[ed] the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for
independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from
colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available
means, including armed struggle.” </span></p>
<p><span>This 1982 resolution also considered “the denial of the
inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination,
sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine and the repeated acts
of aggression by Israel against the peoples of the region [as] a serious
threat to international peace and security”. In 1984 <a href="https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/71588?ln=ar&v=pdf">the Security Council broadly endorsed</a> these UNGA determinations “commending the massive united resistance of the oppressed people of South Africa.”</span></p>
<p><span>Nevertheless, Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress
(ANC) – leading agents of the South African armed struggle against
apartheid, from the early 1960s – <a href="https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRPT-110hrpt620/html/CRPT-110hrpt620-pt1.htm">remained on US “terrorist” lists until 2008</a>,
14 years after Mandela had been elected President of post-apartheid
South Africa and nine years after he had retired from political life.
The US government collaborated with and invested in the apartheid regime
all through the cold war, seeing it as a bulwark against communism,
until <a href="https://geneva.usmission.gov/2013/12/17/pressure-to-end-apartheid-began-at-grass-roots-in-u-s/">grass roots pressure led to it passing an Anti-Apartheid Act</a>
in 1986, “which imposed economic sanctions against South Africa until
the government agreed to release Mandela and all political prisoners and
entered into “good-faith negotiations” with the black majority”.
Washington came very late to the anti-apartheid struggle.</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Similarly the government of the United Kingdom, which collaborated with the South African Apartheid regime until the end, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/07075332.2023.2250804">declared Mandela and the ANC as ‘terrorists’</a> as late as 1987, the year before Mandela was released from prison. Both Britain and the USA <a href="https://museumofbritishcolonialism.org/2022-2-14-the-1980s-apartheid-debate-in-britain-colonial-legacies-anti-colonial-solidarities-2kh6n/">vetoed a motion for sanctions</a>
against the apartheid regime in 1986. That is to say, Britain and the
US were seriously out of step with the international community on
apartheid in South Africa, and those who resisted it from within.
Consistent with their abstention over the <a href="https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/declaration-granting-independence-colonial-countries-and-peoples">1960 declaration on decolonization</a>
– and its lead principle of self-determination – Britain and the USA
rarely showed respect for the right to resist colonisation, occupation
and apartheid.</span></p>
<p><span>Yet under international law, the right to resist has been repeatedly affirmed, including by UNGA <a href="http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/instree/GAres3314.html">Res 3314 of 1974 (on the Definition of Aggression</a>)
which affirmed “the right of these peoples [deprived of the right to
self-determination, freedom and independence and subject to foreign
occupation] to struggle to that end and to seek and receive support, in
accordance with the principles of the Charter”; and by <a href="https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977">the 1977 Additional Protocol</a>
of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, which affirmed the explicit rights of
resistance for occupied peoples. Other relevant sources of law are the
UNGA Res 2105 of 1965 (on African anti-colonial struggles), Res 2625 of
1970 (reflecting customary law on the right to resist denial of
self-determination) and <a href="https://www.icj-cij.org/case/131">the ICJ ruling of 2004</a> (on the Israeli wall, where the ICJ rejected claims of “self-defence” by an illegal occupation entity). Further, <a href="https://www.palestine-studies.org/en/node/1653405">since 1988 when Palestine self-declared and was recognised as a nation</a>
at the UN, the right to national self-defence against foreign
aggression (i.e. from the Israelis) was afforded by Article 51 of the UN
Charter. </span><span> </span></p>
<p>Regardless, most former colonial regimes fail to recognise the right
of ‘non state actors’ to resist foreign aggression, occupation and
apartheid, despite this right being well embedded in international law
and even <span><a href="https://www.americanbarfoundation.org/resources/when-to-overthrow-your-government-the-right-to-resist-in-the-worlds-constitutions/">reflected in about 20% of world constitutions</a></span>.
This has been explained as the tendency for absolutism in state rule,
as in the British case, a view reflected by British theorists <span><a href="https://carneades.pomona.edu/2010-SPP/nts-0301.shtml">such as Hobbes</a></span>.
However, Britain long had an interest in delegitimizing rebellion in
its many colonies, especially in Ireland. The USA, on the other hand,
built its republic from an anti-colonial revolution, but never
consistently applied its themes of liberty due to its history of
slavery, internal colonisation and the constant acquisition of foreign
territories. Washington was thus distinct from the European imperial
powers by <span><a href="https://www.ppesydney.net/content/uploads/2022/12/3_Anderson.pdf">building its hegemonic world on obvious double standards</a></span>. As the South American anti-colonial liberator <span><a href="https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/history_books/8/">Simon Bolivar said two centuries ago</a></span> (in 1829) “the United States appears destined by providence to plague the Americas with misery in the name of liberty”.</p>
<p>On the other hand, many countries with post-colonial and post-fascist
histories, indeed the majority of UN members by the 1960s, recognised
resistance to denial of self-determination as fundamental. That helps
explain the clarity of international law on the matter. <span>The right to resist under international law is subject to the general rules of humanitarian law, such as <a href="https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236">the principles of distinction between combatants and civilians</a>, proportionality, and some other matters. </span>Yet,
there is no moral equivalence between the violence of the colonised and
the coloniser; the character and scale are different for important
historical reasons. Nevertheless, Western commentato<span>rs, burdened by their own state’s traditions but faced with hard facts of colonial criminality, often <a href="https://english.almayadeen.net/articles/opinion/palestine--the-cowardly-refuge-in--moral-equivalence">take cowardly refuge in claims of 'moral equivalence'</a>, arguing for example that the Palestinian Resistance is as bad as the brutal Israeli military; the</span> ‘both sides’ story.</p>
<p><span>The Palestinian right to resist is perhaps the most stark
example of the dilemma of social rights in the post-colonial era. Many
papers have set out the principles as regards resistance to the
occupation of the territories illegally annexed by the Israelis in 1967
(mainly the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, but also some parts of Lebanon
and the Syrian Golan), to the system of apartheid applied by "Israel",
and more broadly to the Israeli aggression against the Palestinian
nation. <a href="https://law4palestine.org/do-palestinians-have-the-right-to-resist-and-what-are-the-limits-short-article/">One paper states</a>:
“As long as the illegal occupation persists, it constitutes, according
to international responsibility rules, a continuous wrongful act, thus
preserving the continuous right to self-defense for the occupied
state/people”. The proviso added is that “self-defense by Palestinians
can only be exercised after assessing the principles of necessity,
proportionality, and immanency”.</span></p>
<p><span>Similarly, US lawyer Stanley Cohen wrote that “the term “armed
struggle” in the right to resist was implied without precise definition
in that resolution, and many other early ones that upheld the right of
indigenous persons to evict an occupier”. He undermines the importance
of struggle for rights, quoting Frederick Douglass, former slave and
emancipation activist in North America: </span></p>
<p><span> “If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who
profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want
crops without ploughing up the ground …This struggle may be a moral
one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical;
but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It
never did and it never will.”.</span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>The Canadian group CJPME <a href="https://www.cjpme.org/fs_236">documents UN recognition of the right to resist</a>,
within regulated limits, while noting that the Canadian state (like the
rest of the Anglo-American world) fails to recognise this right.
Canada, a sponsor of the Israeli regime, even opposes non-violent
Palestinian groups, such as the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement,
“and has consistently blocked any serious measures to hold Israel
accountable for violations of international law”, including NGO efforts
to seek redress at the International Criminal Court. </span></p>
<p><span>The entire Anglo-American bloc and some other sponsors of the
Israeli regime like Germany and France, have banned all Palestinian
Resistance groups, quite at odds with international law and the UN
system. Yet none of the groups banned as “terrorist” by "Israel" and its
sponsors (Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, the PFLP, etc) are banned
by the UN Security Council. Instead, the United Nations Security Council
Consolidated List includes the pseudo-Islamic terrorist groups ISIS and
Jabhat al Nusra and their offshoots, which worked mainly in support of
recent US proxy wars across Libya, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. None
of the Palestinian or regional Resistance groups like Hezbollah appear
on the UNSC list. The one exception to this rule is <a href="https://counter-hegemonic-studies.site/yemen-w/">Yemen’s Ansar Allah, which was sanctioned (under false pretexts) by the UNSC</a> since 2015. </span><span> </span></p>
<p><span>Western refusals to respect the right to resist have grave consequences for public debate. <em>The New York Times (NYT)</em>,
for example – with a voice amplified by its reputation in the key
online search engine Google and the ubiquitous online encyclopaedia
Wikipedia – is notoriously and <a href="https://www.972mag.com/new-york-times-israel-palestine/">deeply biased against the Palestinians</a>. The <em>NYT</em>
regularly calls Israel a “democracy” (albeit “in jeopardy”) and
Palestinian Resistance groups “terrorists”. This remains the case even
when Resistance groups target the Israeli military and the latter
targets Palestinian civilians. The Wikipedia logic is that readers
should trust “reputable” secondary sources like the <em>NYT</em> and not
have regard to primary sources (i.e. original research). By this logic,
the world is kept ignorant and rights under international law are
betrayed.</span><span> </span></p>
<h2>3. Concluding remarks</h2>
<p>Properly understood, October 7 was an audacious insurrectionary
initiative by Palestinian Resistance factions, led by Hamas, which was
more successful than expected, as it shattered Israeli morale and drew
in substantial <span><a href="https://english.almanar.com.lb/2202466">Regional Resistance support from Lebanon</a></span>, Iran, Yemen and Iraq. It thus surpassed the initial aim of destroying the Gaza garrison.</p>
<p>The prisoner exchange objective was mostly unsuccessful because of
the military impact made the Israeli regime unwilling to negotiate a
ceasefire. What began as a blow to the occupation enemy became a
beginning of the final stage of the Palestinian Revolution: a
decolonizing operation which cannot revert to the occupation status quo.</p>
<p>The international community which respects decolonisation and
post-colonial norms should assist in commemorating this remarkable
milestone of Palestinian liberation, most likely marking a start of the
final phase of a decolonizing Revolution. Palestinian and sympathetic
voices should rewrite the histories of October 7, seizing the icon from
the hands of the colonists.</p>
<p>The operation was vilified by Western regimes and their media with
false claims of terrorism aimed at civilians. This was a smokescreen
aimed at hiding Israeli crimes against the civilian population of Gaza,
including large scale child murder. If “Hamas” atrocities were
emphasised enough, it was thought that might even justify the subsequent
civilian reprisals in Gaza. That was certainly <span><a href="https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/history-contradicts-claims-that-hamas-october-7-attacks-unprovoked">a popular view amongst Western corporate media editors</a></span>.
In fact, much evidence shows the claims of inhuman terrorism applied
far more convincingly to the operations of the subsequent Israeli
invasion of the Gaza Strip, now <span><a href="https://opiniojuris.org/2024/04/05/the-icjs-findings-on-plausible-genocide-in-gaza-and-its-implications-for-the-international-criminal-court/#:~:text=Israel),%20the%20International%20Court%20of%20Justice%20(ICJ)%20found%20that">branded by the ICJ as ‘plausible’ acts of genocide</a></span>. Even <span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUX3PoGI25c">Pope Francis complained</a></span> of the Israeli “terrorism” in Gaza.</p>
<p>There is a great need to oppose ‘normalised denial’ of the right to
resist, which helps raise the status of the genocidal Israeli regime to
that of a “democracy” while all resistance groups as branded as
“terrorists”. Sponsors of the Zionist regime cannot be allowed to bury
the post-colonial achievements of international law.</p>
<p>Further, the persistent ‘divide and rule’ operations by Washington
and its collaborators must be met by greater coordination and
integration of resistance groups and states. As I <span><a href="https://wsps.ut.ac.ir/article_77940.html">argued in Iran</a></span>
a few years ago, in addition to security benefits, there will be
strategic and economic benefits for all members of a West Asian
Alliance, a bloc which will not only shield the region, but also add
leverage capacity.</p></div></div></div>
</div>
<div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>