UN Official Says Israel Has No Right to Self-Defense
United Nations Official Argues Israel Does Not Have Right to Self-Defense Against Hamas
A U.N. official argued on Saturday that Israel does not possess the right to defend itself against Hamas under international law.
Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur for the Palestinian territories at the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, made the case that the concept of “self-defense” has a limited interpretation according to Article 51 of the U.N. charter. She contended that this definition does not grant Israel the right to defend itself against Hamas since the threat originates from an armed group within “occupied territory” rather than from “another state.” Consequently, Albanese stated that “Israel’s actions in Gaza cannot be considered self-defense under international law.”
“Under Art 51, the use of force in #SelfDefense is permissible solely to repel an armed attack by another State,” Albanese said. “Threats from armed groups from within occupied territory give a state the RIGHT TO PROTECT ITSELF, but not to wage war against the state from which the armed group emanates.”
Albanese has also characterized Israel’s actions in Gaza as “criminal.”
“The attacks are clearly indiscriminate, disproportionate, and violate the principle of precaution,” she expressed in an interview with the Guardian published on Tuesday. “One cannot bomb hospitals hosting hundreds of patients and sheltering thousands of refugees. Sorry, we need to look for another solution, and not to bomb hospitals. Absolutely not. This is criminal.”
The day after Hamas’s attack on October 7, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,400 Israelis, mostly civilians, Albanese expressed her horror at the narrative that primarily blamed Hamas for the attack. She also condemned Israel’s “militarized settler colonial occupation” and the violence inflicted upon “defenseless Palestinians.”
The Office of the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights did not provide a comment in response to the request.
Albanese is not the only U.N. official to make controversial remarks regarding Israel’s conflict with Hamas. Secretary General Antonio Guterres faced criticism from members of the Israeli government last month for suggesting that Hamas’s attacks on Israel on October 7 did not occur in isolation, and that Palestinians have endured “56 years of suffocating occupation.”
How does the ongoing debate surrounding Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas contribute to the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Y another state,” Albanese explained. “The threat from Hamas arises from within the occupied territory, and therefore Israel’s military actions against Hamas cannot be justified as self-defense.”
This argument comes in response to the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas, which resulted in the loss of many innocent lives and extensive damage on both sides. The conflict began when Hamas launched rockets into Israel, prompting a military response from the Israeli Defense Forces. Israel justified its actions as self-defense, citing the need to protect its citizens from rocket attacks.
However, Albanese’s assertion challenges this justification and raises important questions about the applicability of self-defense in such circumstances. She argues that Israel’s status as an occupying power in the Palestinian territories, including Gaza, restricts its right to self-defense to situations involving attacks from other states only.
Albanese further noted that Israel’s insistence on its right to self-defense in the context of the Palestinian territories could be seen as a perpetuation of the occupation and an obstacle to peace. She emphasized the need for a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through political negotiations and international cooperation.
It is important to note that Albanese’s opinion does not reflect the official stance of the United Nations as a whole. The United Nations has historically recognized Israel’s right to self-defense. However, her argument adds to the ongoing debate surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and raises important legal and moral questions that deserve attention.
Supporters of Israel argue that the country has a legitimate right to defend itself against terrorist attacks by Hamas, which has been designated as a terrorist organization by many countries. They contend that Israel has a responsibility to protect its citizens and ensure their security, especially in the face of indiscriminate rocket attacks.
On the other hand, critics argue that Israel’s military actions often result in disproportionate force and civilian casualties, leading to violations of human rights and international law. They argue that the focus should be on addressing the root causes of the conflict, including the occupation and the blockade on Gaza, rather than relying solely on a military response.
The debate over Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas is complex and multifaceted. It involves legal, political, and moral considerations that can vary depending on one’s perspective. Ultimately, finding a sustainable and just solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict requires an inclusive and comprehensive approach that takes into account the rights and aspirations of both Israelis and Palestinians.
In the meantime, the debate surrounding the interpretation of self-defense in international law continues. The arguments put forth by Francesca Albanese highlight the need for further discussion and clarity on this issue, as it has significant implications for conflicts around the world.
Regardless of one’s stance on the matter, it is clear that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a complex and deeply rooted issue that cannot be resolved through military force alone. It requires a commitment to dialogue, compromise, and respect for international law in order to achieve a just and lasting peace in the region.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
Now loading...