The Lack Of Explicit International Law OKing Attacks On Jews Anywhere Is Just A Technicality

By Mohammed El-Kurd, activist

Jerusalem, December 14 – People under foreign occupation have a right to resist that occupation, and, as pro-Palestinian apologists have long argued, that right extends to “by any means,” a phrase that my people have always interpreted to include attacks on any any and all Jews, who to us are symbols of that hated occupation. The fact that international legal scholars, sources, or authorities have not endorsed that interpretation means little, because we all know they agree in spirit even if the letter fails to reflect that sensibility.

Thus, when a Palestinian attempts to slash the throat of a passing Jew in Jerusalem, and of course when he then turns his attention to nearby law enforcement personnel, he exercises his fully legitimate right under international law by whatever means necessary. The very presence of that Jew in the Islamic holy city of Al Quds defiles the place, and such a situation demands redress that can only be accomplished through bloodshed. It means nothing that any given Jew might or might not bear direct responsibility for bringing the city under the control of those who should be under the Islamic boot, and not free from it, though that plays an important role. Rather, he is a Jew, and Jews, collectively, constitute the occupier, and therefore constitute legitimate targets. I’m sure it’s in the Geneva Conventions somewhere, but if it’s not, that’s a mere technicality.

My fellow activists/journalists follow a similar line of reasoning when it comes to the Sheikh Jarrah eviction issue. With any other demographic, we would leave it as the landlord-vs.-occupant legal case that it clearly is, but we’re talking about Jews here, Jewish landlords at that, and we all know what evil incarnate that represents. The involvement of Jews immediately justifies casting the dispute in terms of pious indigenous Palestinian families, including my own (my last name means “the Kurd,” in case you hadn’t noticed), as victims of a rapacious, bloodthirsty invader. That part belongs in a Security Council resolution, probably. Well, it out to be.

We don’t actually need this sensibility to be codified in any way, of course. Whether or not international law supports our position has no practical bearing on our behavior: we and our supporters will at first deny a Palestinian attacked anyone; then, in the face of evidence, we will shift to justifying that of course it happened, because occupation justifies everything, no matter how atrocious. It’s just nice every now and then to adduce some shred of legality.

Please support our work through Patreon.