Aletho News

Hamas, democracy, and the right to resist: A case for Palestinian self-determination

By Ranjan Solomon | MEMO | October 15, 2025

In debates about Palestine, one recurrent Western refrain is that “terrorism” and “militant violence” automatically disqualify any actor from legitimacy. Such a position is intellectually dishonest and legally unsound. It erases the foundational principles of international law, sovereignty, and democracy that apply equally to all peoples. The case of Hamas, in this light, is not an aberration but a reflection of the Palestinian right to resist occupation and assert self-determination. No foreign power has the moral or legal right to veto the will of Palestinians—least of all those whose governments have sustained and armed the very occupation that necessitates resistance.

At the heart of the Palestinian claim lies the principle of self-determination. Article 1 of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights affirms that “all peoples have the right of self-determination,” entitling them to freely determine their political status and pursue their development. This is not a privilege conferred by the West, but a right recognised by the United Nations as a cornerstone of international order. UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 of 1974 formally recognized the Palestinian people’s entitlement to self-determination, national independence, and sovereignty. Later resolutions, such as A/RES/79/163, reiterated the same truth: that the Palestinian people have an inalienable right to determine their destiny, including the establishment of their independent state. Resolution 58/292 of 2004 went further, reaffirming that the occupied Palestinian territories remain under belligerent occupation and that sovereignty belongs to the Palestinian people alone. These are not moral pleas; they are binding declarations that impose obligations on the occupier and responsibilities on the international community to refrain from interference.

If the right of self-determination is to mean anything, it necessarily entails a right of resistance when that right is denied. The Declaration on Friendly Relations adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1970 affirms that peoples are entitled to resist “alien subjugation, domination and exploitation.” During the decolonisation era, a series of UN resolutions explicitly recognised the legitimacy of liberation movements “by all available means, including armed struggle.” Resolution 37/43 of 1982 was unambiguous in its affirmation of this principle. Legal scholars have since argued that the right to resist is a remedial one, invoked when peaceful means have been exhausted and when a people face systemic subjugation.

Resistance, however, is bound by legal and moral limits. International humanitarian law requires that any use of force observe the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Civilians can never be legitimate targets. Yet the existence of these limits does not invalidate the right itself. Just as international law holds states accountable for unlawful acts without erasing their right to self-defence, so too can a people’s right to resist coexist with obligations to uphold humanitarian norms. The Palestinian struggle is therefore not illegitimate because it has been armed; rather, the legitimacy of its methods must be judged according to the same standards that govern all conflicts. It is here that Western governments reveal their duplicity—condemning Palestinian violence in isolation while sanitising or excusing the vastly greater violence of occupation.

In democratic terms, Hamas’s legitimacy rests on the 2006 elections, which were universally acknowledged as free and fair. The West welcomed those elections—until it disliked the result. The outcome was not a distortion of democracy but its realisation: a popular mandate granted by Palestinians through ballots, not bullets. When Western powers refused to recognise that verdict and instead imposed sanctions, they exposed the hypocrisy of their professed belief in democratic choice. For Palestinians, democracy is not conditional upon Western approval. It is an expression of sovereignty, and to deny that sovereignty is to deny democracy itself.

Hamas’s identity as both a social and political movement further complicates the caricature of it as merely a “terrorist” entity. It runs schools, hospitals, welfare networks, and charities that fill the void left by an economy strangled by siege and occupation. These are the social arteries through which Palestinian civil life continues to breathe. To call for the annihilation of Hamas is not to target a few militants—it is to assault the fabric of Palestinian society and to insist that only a subservient, pacified population deserves international legitimacy. That notion violates every principle of self-determination enshrined in international law.

Critics contend that non-state actors cannot claim a right of self-defence under Article 51 of the UN Charter, which is reserved for states. Yet this misses the point. The Palestinian right of resistance does not stem from statehood but from the broader doctrine of self-determination and anti-colonial struggle. The UN’s repeated recognition of liberation movements in Africa and Asia as legitimate representatives of colonised peoples demonstrates that this right extends beyond the Westphalian definition of the state. Under occupation, Palestinians are entitled to resist domination in pursuit of freedom, just as Algerians, Namibians, and South Africans once did.

Western governments, however, continue to infantilise the Palestinian body politic, deciding which parties are acceptable and which are not. They fund and arm Israel while criminalising Palestinian solidarity. They speak of peace but sustain the conditions that make peace impossible. Their interference in Palestinian democracy is itself a violation of international law, as the right to self-determination includes the freedom from external coercion. By refusing to recognise Hamas’s electoral mandate or to engage with it politically, they undermine the very democratic norms they claim to defend.

The path forward cannot lie in excluding Hamas or dictating who represents Palestine. True peace will emerge only when the entire spectrum of Palestinian voices—Fatah, Hamas, and civil society alike—participate freely in shaping their future. The West’s role, if any, must be to support the principles of sovereignty and equality, not to manipulate them. To continue defining Palestinian resistance through the prism of Western moral superiority is to perpetuate the colonial logic that birthed the crisis.

Hamas’s right to remain both a social movement and a resistance organisation derives from the Palestinian people’s right to resist occupation and gain self-determination. It is not for “white nations,” as Frantz Fanon said, to decide the legitimacy of the colonised. Until that reality is acknowledged, the language of democracy and peace will remain empty. The moral imperative today is not to demand Palestinian surrender but end the occupation that gives rise to resistance. Law, history, and justice stand with those who struggle for freedom.

October 15, 2025 - Posted by aletho | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism, Timeless or most popular | Hamas, Human rights, Israel, Palestine, Zionism