When the coloniser calls resistance terrorism

(This is why these fascists seek to brand any resistance from at home as 'far left political terrorism' as they simultaneously attempt to destroy any and all institutions who monitor and uphold international law.)

from MEMO

Throughout history, almost every national liberation struggle has been labelled “terrorism” by the powers exercising colonial rule or foreign occupation. This strategy is nothing new.

The British Empire branded IRA fighters in Ireland and EOKA guerrillas in Cyprus as terrorists. France portrayed Algeria’s National Liberation Front (FLN) as a criminal organisation. The same happened to the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the People’s Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the South West Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) in Namibia, and even Nelson Mandela’s African National Congress (ANC).

History, however, vindicated these movements and condemned the colonial regimes that sought to perpetuate their domination.

This pattern reveals a constant: those who occupy a territory seek to strip the occupied people of any legitimacy to resist.

This narrative, however, encounters clear limits within international law itself.

From the United Nations Charter to Resolution 1514 (XV) on decolonisation and Resolution 2625 (XXV), which reaffirms the principle of peoples’ self-determination, the understanding has been consolidated that peoples subjected to colonial domination, foreign occupation or racist regimes have the right to struggle for their liberation.

Several subsequent resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly recognised the legitimacy of national liberation movements and acknowledged that such resistance may take the form of armed struggle, provided that it remains subject to the rules of international humanitarian law.

This is precisely why the international community has never automatically equated national liberation movements with terrorist organisations. 

However, it does not eliminate the political and legal right of a people to resist occupation. Confusing these two dimensions serves only the interests of occupying powers, because it transforms a conflict of a political and legal nature into a mere policing matter.

The history of the so-called “State of Israel” itself exposes this contradiction...

read more here