The Illusion of Self-Defense: Why Framing the Gaza Conflict Through the Lens of “But Hamas” Obscures International Law and Historical Reality
The current conflict in Gaza has ignited a global debate, often framed by the question of Israel‘s “right to defend itself.” While the instinct to protect citizens is universal, applying this principle to the Israeli-Palestinian context is a profound misapplication of international law and a risky distortion of historical reality. The persistent invocation of “But Hamas” – as seen in statements from figures like Senator Bernie Sanders – isn’t simply victim-blaming; it actively denies Palestinians rights enshrined in international law while together granting Israel privileges it doesn’t possess under the same framework. This framing risks legitimizing ongoing atrocities and perpetuating a cycle of violence rooted in decades of occupation and dispossession.
The Legal Impasse: Occupation Nullifies Claims of Self-Defense
Under international law, a state’s right to self-defense, as outlined in Article 51 of the united Nations Charter, is predicated on being the victim of an external aggression. This principle is fundamentally compromised when the state claiming self-defense is simultaneously the occupying power. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) explicitly addressed this in its 2004 advisory opinion concerning Israel’s apartheid wall in the occupied West Bank.The ICJ affirmed that Article 51 does not apply to Israel in relation to alleged threats emanating from the occupied Palestinian territories.
This isn’t a novel interpretation.Israel has maintained continuous, extensive control over Gaza’s borders, airspace, and territorial waters since 1967. This control extends to regulating the movement of people and goods, effectively dictating the conditions of life for the Palestinian population. To claim a right to self-defense against a population it fundamentally controls is a legal contradiction. It’s akin to a jailer claiming self-defense against an inmate attempting to escape a prison the jailer built and maintains.
The Right to Resist: Acknowledging Palestinian Agency
The legal landscape isn’t solely focused on Israel’s limitations. International law also recognizes the right of peoples under occupation to resist that occupation. UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 unequivocally affirmed “the legitimacy of the struggle for independence,territorial integrity,national unity,and liberation from foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means,including armed struggle.”
This doesn’t provide a blanket justification for all actions taken in the name of resistance. Like all forms of conflict, Palestinian resistance must adhere to the principles of international humanitarian law, specifically the distinction between combatants and civilians. Targeting civilians is unequivocally unacceptable and constitutes a war crime. Though, the existence of legitimate resistance cannot be used as a pretext for collective punishment or genocide. To suggest or else is to deny Palestinians the essential right to seek liberation from a prolonged and oppressive occupation.
Beyond October 7th: A Century of Dispossession and a Project of Ethnic Cleansing
The framing of the current crisis as beginning on october 7, 2023, is a deliberate erasure of history. The events of that day, while horrific and deserving of condemnation, are not the root cause of the conflict. They are a desperate, albeit unacceptable, response to decades of systemic oppression and a long-term project aimed at establishing a Jewish state at the expense of the Palestinian people.
The seeds of this conflict were sown in the late 19th century with the rise of Zionism and the subsequent influx of settlers into Palestine. The 1948 Nakba (“catastrophe”) – the forced expulsion of over 750,000 Palestinians from their homes and the destruction of over 500 villages - remains a defining moment in Palestinian history. This wasn’t a spontaneous event; it was a deliberate campaign of ethnic cleansing.
Over the subsequent decades, Israeli governments have consistently pursued policies designed to expand territorial control and diminish Palestinian rights. Plans for further ethnic cleansing and the realization of a “greater Israel” – a vision encompassing territory far beyond the internationally recognized borders – have been repeatedly documented. The ongoing blockade of Gaza, the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, and the discriminatory legal system imposed on palestinians are all manifestations of this ongoing project. October 7th was not a rupture with the past; it was a tragic escalation of a conflict rooted in a century of dispossession.
The Dangerous Logic of Conditional Existence
To preface condemnation of the devastation in Gaza with “But hamas” is profoundly dangerous. It implies that Palestinian lives are conditional – that their right to exist free from genocide is contingent upon their “perfect behavior,” their complete pacifism, or their acquiescence to their own oppression. This logic is chillingly familiar.
Consider the historical parallels: Did the resistance of the Herero and Nama peoples to German colonization in Namibia justify their genocide? Did the armed struggle of Native Americans against European settlers legitimize
