On February 22, 2024, China’s Ambassador to The Hague, Zhang Jun, uttered the unexpected.
His testimony, like that of a number of others, was meant to help the International Court of Justice (ICJ) formulate a critical and long-overdue legal opinion on the legal consequences of Israel’s occupation of Palestine.
Zhang articulated the Chinese position, which, unlike the American envoy’s testimony, was entirely aligned with international and humanitarian laws.
But he delved into a tabooed subject – one that even Palestine’s closest allies in the Middle East and Global South dared not touch: the right to use armed struggle.
“Palestinian people’s use of force to resist foreign oppression and complete the establishment of an independent state is an inalienable right,” the Chinese Ambassador said, insisting that “the struggle waged by peoples for their liberation, right to self-determination, including armed struggle against colonialism, occupation, aggression, domination against foreign forces should not be considered terror acts”.
Expectedly, Zhang’s comments didn’t reverberate much further: neither governments nor intellectuals, including many on the left, used his remarks as an opportunity to explore the matter further. It’s far more convenient to assign Palestinians the role of the victim or the villain. A resisting Palestinian – one with agency and control over his own fate – is always a dangerous territory.
Zhang’s remarks, however, were situated entirely within international law. Thus, we couldn’t miss the opportunity to discuss the topic in a recent interview we conducted with Professor Richard Falk, a leading scholar in international law and former UN Special Rapporteur for Palestine.
Falk is not merely a legal expert, however accomplished he has been in the field. He is also a profound intellectual and an astute student of history. Though he speaks with great care, he does not hesitate or mince words. His ideas may appear ‘radical’, but only if the term is understood within the limiting intellectual confines of mainstream media and academia.
Falk does not speak ‘common sense’, according to the Gramscian principle, but ‘good sense’ – perfectly rational discourse, though often inconsistent with mainstream thinking.
We asked Prof. Falk specifically about the Palestinian people’s right to defend themselves, and, specifically, about armed struggle and its consistency (or lack thereof) with international law.
“Yes, I think that’s a correct understanding of international law – one that the West, by and large, doesn’t want to hear about,” Falk said in response to the February 24 comments by Zhang.
Falk elaborated: “The right of resistance was affirmed during the decolonisation process in the 1980s and 1990s, and this included the right to armed resistance. However, this resistance is subject to compliance with international laws of war.”
Even the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law”.
Israel does not comply with international laws of war – for example, the entire situation in Gaza is one of the most flagrant violations of Israel’s complete disregard, not only for the laws of war, but for the entire apparatus of international and humanitarian laws.