Palestinians from the same family evacuate young children, women, and the elderly alive and dead from under the rubble of their destroyed home and search for others after an intense Israeli air raid on Gaza City, May 16, 2021. A total of 174 people were killed in the Israeli raids on Gaza, including 47 children and 29 women. (Photo: Momen Faiz/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Colonial Powers Have Long Demanded the 'Right to Self-Defense' Against the People They Have Colonized
The fallacy of the colonial 'right to self-defense.'
The violence convulsing the Middle East has produced heart-rending images and statistics. As I write this, at least 160 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, including at least 41 children--the vast majority Palestinian--have been killed as the Israeli military carries out bombing raids in densely populated Gaza and armed Palestinian groups hurl rockets at Israeli cities. Meanwhile, inter-communal violence has broken out across Israel.
In response, Western governments, led by US President Joe Biden, have been quick to unequivocally condemn Palestinian groups for the rocket barrages, but have been much more circumspect about condemning Israel's attack on Palestinian civilians.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder.
Lukewarm expressions of "dismay" and "grave concern" at Palestinian deaths have been interspersed with declarations of "unwavering support for Israel's security and for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself". They have also included appeals for "moral clarity", implying that the actions of Palestinian groups, though causing a tiny fraction of the death and destruction that Israeli bombardment has wreaked, were nonetheless much more objectionable.
While some progressive politicians--such as US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--have pointed out the hypocrisy of a blanket assertion of the Israeli right to self-defence, even they have balked at outright rejection of Israeli justifications.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder. The history of African colonisation is littered with the corpses and mass graves of those who dared to resist the militarily superior Europeans.
In her book, the British Gulag, historian Caroline Elkins describes a "murderous campaign" by the British in colonial Kenya following the 1950s Mau Mau peasant uprising, including the establishment of concentration camps for 1.5 million Kikuyu civilians and a brutal system of torture camps that may have claimed the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of those suspected to have pledged themselves to the rebellion.
The idea that imperial land grabbers have the right to terrorise, brutalise, torture and murder those whose land they steal under the rubric of "self-defence" flies in the face of UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 of 1982 which recognised "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". That resolution specifically reaffirmed this right in the case of the Palestinian struggle.
Thus, today in Gaza, rather than seeking "moral clarity", the West is using moral obfuscation to justify attacks on a refugee population by a colonial power that has evicted them from their land, blockades them in what is, in essence, an open-air prison, and then claims the right to do so in peace and quiet.
When Western media speaks of a "cycle of escalation", it equates oppression to the resistance to oppression, presenting the violence as a conflict between two sides with equal claims to security and land. It ignores that the Palestinians are engaged in a struggle for national liberation against a decades-long illegal and immoral occupation, and the imposition of a regime of racial and ethnic discrimination which Human Rights Watch, in a report the media pointedly refuses to bring up, says fits the definition of the international crime of apartheid.
In interviews, Israeli spokespeople repeatedly stress the difficulty that Israel's self-declared "most moral army in the world" has in finding and killing what are in essence Palestinian resistance leaders, who, they say, are hiding behind civilians.
The Western press is happy to accept that the leaders of Hamas and other groups are legitimate targets, and with it, the implication that while its tactics may be somewhat unsavoury, Israel is nonetheless waging a legitimate war. Uncritically accepting this framing makes Western media complicit in the delegitimisation of Palestinian resistance to colonial domination and dispossession by the Israeli state.
As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, regurgitating the line that "Israel has a right to defend itself" without including the context of oppression simply excuses and legitimates even more oppression. But she should have gone further. If Western media, politicians and diplomats truly seek moral clarity, it behoves them to reject outright as gaslighting and bothsidesism, the outrageous proposition that colonial states such as Israel have a right to defend themselves from those they oppress.
FINAL DAY! This is urgent.
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission from the outset was simple. To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It’s never been this bad out there. And it’s never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed and doing some of its best and most important work, the threats we face are intensifying. Right now, with just hours left in our Spring Campaign, we're still falling short of our make-or-break goal. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Can you make a gift right now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? There is no backup plan or rainy day fund. There is only you. —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
The violence convulsing the Middle East has produced heart-rending images and statistics. As I write this, at least 160 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, including at least 41 children--the vast majority Palestinian--have been killed as the Israeli military carries out bombing raids in densely populated Gaza and armed Palestinian groups hurl rockets at Israeli cities. Meanwhile, inter-communal violence has broken out across Israel.
In response, Western governments, led by US President Joe Biden, have been quick to unequivocally condemn Palestinian groups for the rocket barrages, but have been much more circumspect about condemning Israel's attack on Palestinian civilians.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder.
Lukewarm expressions of "dismay" and "grave concern" at Palestinian deaths have been interspersed with declarations of "unwavering support for Israel's security and for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself". They have also included appeals for "moral clarity", implying that the actions of Palestinian groups, though causing a tiny fraction of the death and destruction that Israeli bombardment has wreaked, were nonetheless much more objectionable.
While some progressive politicians--such as US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--have pointed out the hypocrisy of a blanket assertion of the Israeli right to self-defence, even they have balked at outright rejection of Israeli justifications.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder. The history of African colonisation is littered with the corpses and mass graves of those who dared to resist the militarily superior Europeans.
In her book, the British Gulag, historian Caroline Elkins describes a "murderous campaign" by the British in colonial Kenya following the 1950s Mau Mau peasant uprising, including the establishment of concentration camps for 1.5 million Kikuyu civilians and a brutal system of torture camps that may have claimed the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of those suspected to have pledged themselves to the rebellion.
The idea that imperial land grabbers have the right to terrorise, brutalise, torture and murder those whose land they steal under the rubric of "self-defence" flies in the face of UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 of 1982 which recognised "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". That resolution specifically reaffirmed this right in the case of the Palestinian struggle.
Thus, today in Gaza, rather than seeking "moral clarity", the West is using moral obfuscation to justify attacks on a refugee population by a colonial power that has evicted them from their land, blockades them in what is, in essence, an open-air prison, and then claims the right to do so in peace and quiet.
When Western media speaks of a "cycle of escalation", it equates oppression to the resistance to oppression, presenting the violence as a conflict between two sides with equal claims to security and land. It ignores that the Palestinians are engaged in a struggle for national liberation against a decades-long illegal and immoral occupation, and the imposition of a regime of racial and ethnic discrimination which Human Rights Watch, in a report the media pointedly refuses to bring up, says fits the definition of the international crime of apartheid.
In interviews, Israeli spokespeople repeatedly stress the difficulty that Israel's self-declared "most moral army in the world" has in finding and killing what are in essence Palestinian resistance leaders, who, they say, are hiding behind civilians.
The Western press is happy to accept that the leaders of Hamas and other groups are legitimate targets, and with it, the implication that while its tactics may be somewhat unsavoury, Israel is nonetheless waging a legitimate war. Uncritically accepting this framing makes Western media complicit in the delegitimisation of Palestinian resistance to colonial domination and dispossession by the Israeli state.
As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, regurgitating the line that "Israel has a right to defend itself" without including the context of oppression simply excuses and legitimates even more oppression. But she should have gone further. If Western media, politicians and diplomats truly seek moral clarity, it behoves them to reject outright as gaslighting and bothsidesism, the outrageous proposition that colonial states such as Israel have a right to defend themselves from those they oppress.
The violence convulsing the Middle East has produced heart-rending images and statistics. As I write this, at least 160 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, including at least 41 children--the vast majority Palestinian--have been killed as the Israeli military carries out bombing raids in densely populated Gaza and armed Palestinian groups hurl rockets at Israeli cities. Meanwhile, inter-communal violence has broken out across Israel.
In response, Western governments, led by US President Joe Biden, have been quick to unequivocally condemn Palestinian groups for the rocket barrages, but have been much more circumspect about condemning Israel's attack on Palestinian civilians.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder.
Lukewarm expressions of "dismay" and "grave concern" at Palestinian deaths have been interspersed with declarations of "unwavering support for Israel's security and for Israel's legitimate right to defend itself". They have also included appeals for "moral clarity", implying that the actions of Palestinian groups, though causing a tiny fraction of the death and destruction that Israeli bombardment has wreaked, were nonetheless much more objectionable.
While some progressive politicians--such as US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez--have pointed out the hypocrisy of a blanket assertion of the Israeli right to self-defence, even they have balked at outright rejection of Israeli justifications.
Colonial occupiers have long claimed a "right" to defend themselves from the resistance of native communities, including by committing mass murder. The history of African colonisation is littered with the corpses and mass graves of those who dared to resist the militarily superior Europeans.
In her book, the British Gulag, historian Caroline Elkins describes a "murderous campaign" by the British in colonial Kenya following the 1950s Mau Mau peasant uprising, including the establishment of concentration camps for 1.5 million Kikuyu civilians and a brutal system of torture camps that may have claimed the lives of tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of those suspected to have pledged themselves to the rebellion.
The idea that imperial land grabbers have the right to terrorise, brutalise, torture and murder those whose land they steal under the rubric of "self-defence" flies in the face of UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43 of 1982 which recognised "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". That resolution specifically reaffirmed this right in the case of the Palestinian struggle.
Thus, today in Gaza, rather than seeking "moral clarity", the West is using moral obfuscation to justify attacks on a refugee population by a colonial power that has evicted them from their land, blockades them in what is, in essence, an open-air prison, and then claims the right to do so in peace and quiet.
When Western media speaks of a "cycle of escalation", it equates oppression to the resistance to oppression, presenting the violence as a conflict between two sides with equal claims to security and land. It ignores that the Palestinians are engaged in a struggle for national liberation against a decades-long illegal and immoral occupation, and the imposition of a regime of racial and ethnic discrimination which Human Rights Watch, in a report the media pointedly refuses to bring up, says fits the definition of the international crime of apartheid.
In interviews, Israeli spokespeople repeatedly stress the difficulty that Israel's self-declared "most moral army in the world" has in finding and killing what are in essence Palestinian resistance leaders, who, they say, are hiding behind civilians.
The Western press is happy to accept that the leaders of Hamas and other groups are legitimate targets, and with it, the implication that while its tactics may be somewhat unsavoury, Israel is nonetheless waging a legitimate war. Uncritically accepting this framing makes Western media complicit in the delegitimisation of Palestinian resistance to colonial domination and dispossession by the Israeli state.
As Ocasio-Cortez pointed out, regurgitating the line that "Israel has a right to defend itself" without including the context of oppression simply excuses and legitimates even more oppression. But she should have gone further. If Western media, politicians and diplomats truly seek moral clarity, it behoves them to reject outright as gaslighting and bothsidesism, the outrageous proposition that colonial states such as Israel have a right to defend themselves from those they oppress.