Introduction

According to United Nations General Assembly Resolutions A/RES/37/43 [1] and A/RES/45/130 [2], oppressed people have a right to struggle by all means, including armed struggle, against the oppressor:

“2. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle;” [2]

In addition, Israeli historian Avi Shlaim states:

“Under international law the Palestinians have the right to resist the occupation and HAMAS is the vanguard of this resistance. Israel is a reactionary and racist colonial power which relies on brute military force to impose its apartheid regime on the Palestinians.” [3]

Sources:

[1] https://docs.un.org/en/a/res/37/43

[2] https://www.un.org/unispal/document/auto-insert-184801/

[3] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/amie-siriphong-19491824_the-words-of-the-israeli-historian-activity-7257157797140664320-JpX1?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop

Palestinians’ right to armed struggle

I have now evaluated selected AI tools (Large Language Models) asking the following question to identify political bias on a Zionism scale:

Do the Palestinian people have the right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation based on international law? Rate on a scale from -10, ie “completely false”, over 0 (ie, do not know, 50% probability), to +10, ie “completely true”. Answer in one paragraph and give one final numerical assessment on the proposed scale.

Thaura.ai

Based on extensive international legal sources and UN resolutions, the Palestinian people have a well-established right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation under international law. The UN General Assembly Resolution 37/1982 explicitly “reaffirms the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial domination, apartheid and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle” . Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 recognizes wars of national liberation as protected rights aljazeera.com, while the International Court of Justice has ruled that Israel cannot invoke self-defense against threats originating from territories it illegally occupies . China affirmed this position at the ICJ, stating Palestinians’ armed struggle is “legitimate” and “well founded” in international law aa.com.tr. The right stems from the inalienable right to self-determination, a jus cogens norm that Israel‘s 76-year occupation has systematically denied . While this right exists, it must comply with international humanitarian law principles like distinction and proportionality .

Numerical assessment: +9

Source: https://thaura.ai

Gemini (Google)

Under international law, the right of people to struggle for self-determination and liberation from colonial rule or foreign occupation—including through armed struggle—is recognized by several UN General Assembly resolutions, such as Resolution 3246 (1974) and Resolution 37/43 (1982). However, this right is not an absolute license; it is strictly governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the Geneva Conventions. While the “right to resist” exists in a political and legal framework of self-determination, any armed group (state or non-state) must adhere to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. This means that while resistance against military targets may be legally grounded, deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, or indiscriminate violence remain war crimes regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying cause. Legal scholars often distinguish between the jus ad bellum (the right to go to war/resist) and the jus in bello (how that war is conducted), noting that a “legal” right to resist does not immunize the participants from prosecution for how they fight.

Numerical Assessment: +6 (indicating that while the general principle is recognized in international political law, its application is heavily qualified and restricted by the laws of armed conflict).

Source: https://gemini.google.com

Copilot (Microsoft)

International law sources cited in the search results show that many UN General Assembly resolutions and several legal scholars affirm a right of peoples under foreign occupation to resist, including through armed struggle, grounded in the principle of self‑determination and reflected in instruments such as UNGA Res. 3314 (1974), UNGA Res. 37/43 (1982), and Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which classifies struggles against alien occupation as wars of national liberation. At the same time, these sources also emphasize that any armed resistance must comply with international humanitarian law, meaning that attacks may only target military objectives and never civilians. Some legal analyses further argue that a prolonged unlawful occupation can preserve a continuous right of self‑defense for the occupied people, though this interpretation is debated and not universally accepted. Because UNGA resolutions are not legally binding and state practice is not uniform, the claim is supported by significant legal opinion but not settled as a universally recognized legal right.

Final assessment: +4.

Source: https://copilot.microsoft.com

Mistral.ai

The question of whether Palestinian people have the right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation under international law is complex and highly debated. International law, particularly the UN Charter (Article 2(4)), generally prohibits the use of force, but it also recognizes the right to self-determination (e.g., UN General Assembly Resolution 3246, 1974) and the right of peoples under colonial or alien domination to resist occupation, including through armed struggle, as affirmed in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (Article 1(4)). However, the interpretation of these provisions is contested: some argue that armed resistance against occupation is lawful under international humanitarian law, while others emphasize that such resistance must comply with the laws of armed conflict (e.g., targeting only military objectives). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and UN resolutions have not explicitly endorsed armed struggle as a universal right, but they have condemned both occupation and disproportionate use of force. The legal status of groups like Hamas (designated as terrorist by some states) further complicates the issue, as their actions may violate international humanitarian law (e.g., targeting civilians). Thus, while there is a recognized right to resist occupation, the means—especially armed struggle—are subject to strict legal constraints and remain contentious in practice.

Final assessment: +3 (some legal basis exists, but it is limited and contested).

Source: https://chat.mistral.ai

Claude.ai (Sonnet 4.6)

This question sits at the intersection of genuinely contested areas of international law, where credible legal scholars and institutions disagree. On one hand, international law — including UN General Assembly resolutions (e.g., 3246 and 37/43) and the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter and common Article 1 of the 1966 Covenants — has been interpreted by many states and scholars as recognizing the right of peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation to resist, including by armed means. The International Court of Justice’s 2004 advisory opinion on the Wall affirmed Palestinian self-determination rights, and international humanitarian law (the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols) extends combatant protections to certain resistance fighters in occupied territories. On the other hand, international law simultaneously imposes firm constraints: attacks deliberately targeting civilians are war crimes regardless of political cause; UN Security Council resolutions carry binding force and have condemned specific acts of violence; many Western legal scholars argue that the lawfulness of armed resistance under international law remains deeply ambiguous and disputed rather than settled; and some argue that ongoing peace negotiations and diplomatic frameworks create legal obligations that complicate armed resistance claims. The distinction between lawful resistance targeting military objectives and unlawful terrorism targeting civilians is legally critical but politically contested in application. Because credible, qualified legal authorities land on genuinely different conclusions — with the balance of Global South and UN General Assembly opinion leaning toward recognizing some right, and Western/Israeli legal opinion more skeptical — this is not a question with a clear, settled answer in international law.

Final assessment: +2

(Leans slightly toward “true” given the weight of UN resolutions and scholarly opinion acknowledging some legal basis, but far from settled or unambiguous — reflecting deep, legitimate legal controversy rather than a clear affirmative right.)

Source: https://claude.ai

DeepSeek.ai

Under international law, the right of peoples under colonial or alien domination or foreign occupation to use armed force is shaped by principles of self-determination, humanitarian law, and the UN Charter. The International Court of Justice (e.g., the 2004 Wall advisory opinion) recognizes the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, and UN resolutions have affirmed their right to resist occupation. However, the legality of armed struggle is not absolute: it is constrained by international humanitarian law (Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocol I), which requires distinction between combatants and civilians and prohibits targeting civilians or using indiscriminate force. While some legal scholars argue that occupied peoples may resort to armed resistance against military targets, others contend that any use of force outside state-authorized self-defense (or a recognized national liberation movement’s compliance with Protocol I) risks illegality. Given that Palestinian factions have at times targeted Israeli civilians, such acts are clearly unlawful. Moreover, UN Security Council resolutions repeatedly call for peaceful resolution. So, while a “right to armed struggle” exists in a qualified, contested sense (e.g., under Additional Protocol I, Article 1(4), if certain conditions are met), it is not an unqualified right and must be exercised within strict legal limits. Overall, the proposition is partially true but heavily constrained.

On the scale from -10 to +10, I rate this +2 (slightly more true than false, but with major legal and factual caveats).

Source: https://chat.deepseek.com/

ChatGPT.ai (OpenAI)

International law does recognize a general principle of self-determination, and in the context of decolonization the United Nations General Assembly has at times affirmed that peoples under foreign occupation may struggle to realize that right, including references (especially in the 1970s–80s) that have been interpreted by some as encompassing armed resistance. However, this is not an unrestricted legal endorsement of “armed struggle”: binding international humanitarian law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) strictly regulates the conduct of hostilities, prohibits targeting civilians, and does not clearly grant a standalone legal “right” to use force comparable to the right of self-defense held by states. Moreover, many states and legal scholars dispute or narrowly interpret any claimed entitlement to armed struggle, emphasizing that acts of violence against civilians are unlawful regardless of cause. As a result, the claim that international law straightforwardly grants Palestinians a broad right to armed struggle against occupation is contested and only partially supported depending on interpretation.

Final assessment: +2

Source: https://chatgpt.com

Hamas right to armed struggle

I have now evaluated selected AI tools (Large Language Models) asking the following question to identify political bias on a Zionism scale:

Does HAMAS have the right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation based on international law? Rate on a scale from -10, ie “completely false”, over 0 (ie, do not know, 50% probability), to +10, ie “completely true”. Answer in one paragraph and give one final numerical assessment on the proposed scale.

Thaura.ai

Based on international law analysis, Hamas does have some legal basis for armed struggle against Israeli occupation, but this right is heavily circumscribed by international humanitarian law. The UN recognizes the Palestinian right to self-determination, and international legal scholars maintain that Israel maintains effective control over Gaza through its control of borders, airspace, and movement of people and goods, which constitutes occupation under International Humanitarian Law . The right to resist occupation is recognized in international law, though it must comply with IHL’s fundamental principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity . However, Hamas’s specific tactics – including deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate rocket fire – constitute war crimes regardless of the legitimacy of the underlying resistance . The right exists but Hamas’s methods frequently violate the very laws designed to protect civilians in armed conflict.

Rating: +3

Source: https://thaura.ai

Mistral.ai

The question of whether Hamas has the right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation under international law is complex and highly debated. International law, particularly the UN Charter (Article 2(4)) and the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration, generally prohibits the use of force, but it also recognizes the right to self-determination (UN Charter, Article 1(2); ICCPR/ICESCR, Article 1) and, in some interpretations, the right to resist occupation as a corollary. The 1974 UN General Assembly Resolution 3246 and 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (Article 1(4)) explicitly affirm the legitimacy of armed struggle against colonial domination, alien occupation, and racist regimes, which some argue applies to the Palestinian context. However, the use of force by non-state actors is not universally accepted as legal, especially when targeting civilians or violating humanitarian law (e.g., Hamas’ attacks on October 7, 2023, widely condemned as violations of international humanitarian law). The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and UN resolutions have repeatedly affirmed Palestinian self-determination but have not explicitly endorsed armed struggle by Hamas. Most states and legal scholars distinguish between the right to resist occupation (which may include armed struggle under strict conditions) and terrorism (which is prohibited). The status of Hamas as a designated terrorist organization by many countries (e.g., US, EU, Israel) further complicates the legal analysis. In summary, while there is a recognized right to resist occupation in international law, the means and methods used by Hamas—particularly attacks on civilians—are widely considered illegal, undermining any claim to legitimacy under international law.

Final assessment: +2 (limited legal basis for resistance in principle, but overwhelmingly illegal in practice due to methods and targets).

Source: https://chat.mistral.ai

Copilot (Microsoft)

International law does not offer a simple yes‑or‑no answer about whether Hamas, as a specific armed group, has a “right” to armed struggle, but it does contain well‑documented principles about the Palestinian people’s right to resist foreign occupation, including through armed struggle, under certain conditions. Multiple UN General Assembly resolutions—such as 3314 (1974) and 37/43 (1982)—affirm the legitimacy of struggles for self‑determination “by all available means, including armed struggle,” in contexts of colonial domination and foreign occupation, and these resolutions have repeatedly been applied to the Palestinian case. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions also recognizes armed conflicts involving peoples fighting against “alien occupation” as international armed conflicts, implying a legal framework for resistance movements. However, international humanitarian law strictly prohibits attacks on civilians, regardless of cause or actor, meaning that even if a right to resist exists, methods of resistance must comply with the laws of war. Because Hamas is a non‑state actor whose actions have included attacks on civilians, international law does not treat all of its conduct as lawful even within a recognized right of resistance. Based on the evidence, the claim that “Hamas has a right to armed struggle against Israeli occupation under international law” is partially grounded in broader principles about Palestinian resistance, but not fully supported when applied specifically to Hamas’s conduct.

Final assessment: +2

Source: https://copilot.microsoft.com

Gemini (Google)

International law recognizes a general right of peoples to resist foreign occupation and pursue self-determination, a principle affirmed in UN General Assembly resolutions such as 37/43. However, this right is strictly governed by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the laws of armed conflict (jus in bello). While the pursuit of liberation via armed struggle is recognized, it does not grant any group a “right” to bypass the rules of war. Hamas’s status is complicated by its designation as a terrorist organization by several nations and its documented use of tactics that violate IHL—including deliberate attacks on civilians, hostage-taking, and indiscriminate rocket fire. Under the Geneva Conventions, even if a cause is considered a legitimate struggle for self-determination, the methods used must distinguish between combatants and civilians; failure to do so renders specific acts of “armed struggle” illegal, regardless of the underlying claim to resistance.

Numerical Assessment: 0 (The legality is highly conditional and depends entirely on the distinction between the abstract right to resist occupation versus the specific, often illegal, methods employed in practice).

Source: https://gemini.google.com

Claude.ai (Sonnet 4.6)

This is one of the most contested questions in international law, and legal scholars are genuinely divided. On one side, UN resolutions and customary international law have historically recognized the right of peoples under colonial or foreign occupation to resist, including through armed means — and many legal scholars argue that Palestinians, as an occupied people under the framework of the Fourth Geneva Convention and relevant UN resolutions, possess such a right in principle. On the other side, significant legal constraints apply: international humanitarian law prohibits targeting civilians under any circumstances, and Hamas has been designated a terrorist organization by the EU, US, UK, and others, with its tactics — particularly attacks on civilian populations — widely condemned as war crimes regardless of the broader political context. Furthermore, whether the relevant territories constitute an “occupation” in the legal sense is itself disputed, as is whether Hamas, as a non-state actor with its own governing authority in Gaza, qualifies as a resistance movement under these legal frameworks versus an armed group subject to counterterrorism law. The question of who has the right (the Palestinian people broadly) is legally more defensible than whether Hamas specifically has it, and even then, the methods employed are almost universally condemned under international law. The honest answer is that the foundational premise has some legal grounding, but is heavily qualified, disputed, and practically undermined by Hamas’s documented conduct.

Final assessment: -2

The claim has partial legal basis in the general principle of resistance to occupation, but is substantially negated by serious legal disputes about scope, actor legitimacy, and the near-universal condemnation of Hamas’s methods under international humanitarian law.

Source: https://claude.ai

ChatGPT.ai (OpenAI)

Under international law, there is a limited and contested principle that peoples under colonial domination or foreign occupation may have a right to resist, including by force, reflected in interpretations of instruments like United Nations General Assembly resolutions and aspects of self-determination law; however, this does not grant unrestricted permission for armed groups such as Hamas to use violence in any manner. International humanitarian law (e.g., the Geneva Conventions) strictly prohibits targeting civilians, indiscriminate attacks, and acts of terrorism, and many states designate Hamas as a terrorist organization, arguing its methods violate these rules; moreover, whether the situation involving Israel and Palestinian territories legally qualifies in ways that would support such a right is itself heavily disputed among scholars and governments. As a result, while there is some legal basis for a general right of resistance in certain circumstances, applying it specifically to Hamas’s armed actions is highly controversial and often rejected due to violations of humanitarian law.

Final assessment: -3

Source: https://chatgpt.com

DeepSeek.ai

Under international law, the right to engage in armed struggle against foreign occupation is most directly addressed by Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (Article 1(4)), which recognizes wars of self-determination against “alien occupation” as international armed conflicts. However, this right is not absolute: it must be exercised in strict compliance with international humanitarian law, including distinction between combatants and civilians, prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, and protection of hostages and prisoners of war. Hamas’s actions—particularly deliberate targeting of Israeli civilians, rocket fire into civilian areas, and holding hostages—violate core principles of international humanitarian law, rendering many of its operations unlawful even if one accepts a general right to resist occupation. Moreover, the legal status of the territories (West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem) is complex due to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and ongoing disputes over sovereignty. Thus, while a theoretical right to armed resistance against occupation exists under certain conditions, Hamas’s methods and targets systematically breach international law, so the proposition “HAMAS has the right to armed struggle” is largely false as a practical legal matter.

Final rating: -6.

Source: https://chat.deepseek.com/