British Priest (and Guardian journalist) defends Palestinian terrorism

A Church of England Priest named Giles Fraser penned a column at the Guardian defending the Palestinian right of armed resistance.  

Giles Fraser

Giles Fraser

The column, If we can have a just war, why not just terrorism?‘ (which follows a similar pro-terrorism argument advanced by Guardian associate editor Seumas Milne in a column last week) begins by suggesting that the IDF intentionally targets civilians in Gaza, while benignly characterizing Palestinian acts of ‘retaliation’ against the ‘occupation’.

Or, to put it in terms of today’s news: the Israelis won’t have any definition that would make them terrorists for bombing old people’s homes in Gaza, and West Bank Palestinians won’t have any definition that will make them terrorists for fighting back against occupation with petrol bombs

In addition to the risible suggestion that the IDF targets the homes of innocent elderly Palestinians, such Palestinian ‘resistance’ includes much more than Fraser indicates.  Such acts of “resistance” have included (to cite just a few recent examples) the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teenagers, Palestinian sniper fire at an Israeli civilian vehicle that killed a father of five, and an attempted suicide bombing.

Fraser then introduces us to his Palestinian protagonist:

I am eating aubergines and flatbread with Dr Samah Jabr in a cool Palestinian cafe in Stoke Newington….She is an educated, middle-class Palestinian (in no way a rabble-rouser) but she insists that the word terrorist has become a powerful…political pejorative employed to discredit legitimate resistance to the violence of occupation.

What some would call terrorism, she would call a moral duty. She gives me her paper on the subject. “Why is the word ‘terrorist’ so readily applied to individuals or groups who use homemade bombs, but not to states using nuclear and other internationally proscribed weapons to ensure submission to the oppressor?” she asks. She insists that violent resistance must be used in defence and as a last resort. And that it is important to distinguish between civilian and military targets. “The American media call our search for freedom ‘terrorism’,” she complains, “despite the fact that the right to self-determination by armed struggle is permissible under the UN charter’s article 51, concerning self-defence.”

Though Fraser uncritically cites Jabr’s claim that armed struggle is permissible under the UN charter’s article 51, a review of Article 51 demonstrates that there is no such right:

Here’s what Article 51 of the UN’s charter states:

Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.

The language is quite clear. UN “member states” have the right of self-defense, not armed terrorist groups and illegal militias.  Such a doctrine clearly grants Israel (a UN member state) has the right to respond to rocket fire, while Hamas, as an internationally proscribed terrorist group which indiscriminately attacks civilians, is not granted such a right under Article 51.

Fraser finishes:

I took part in the Moral Maze recently on Radio 4 and was howled at for suggesting that there could be a moral right of resistance to oppression. And the suggestion was made that, as a priest, I ought to take no such line.


It is nonsense to think that being a state grants some sort of blanket immunity from the charge of terrorism – and certainly not from the moral opprobrium we attach to that term. We talk of asymmetric warfare. This is asymmetric morality: one that, in terms of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, loads the dice in favour of the occupation. This is just not right.

It seems that a priest should avoid emboldening a proscribed terror movement by distorting international law to suggest that attacks on civilians may be legally justified, and – even more importantly – refrain from obfuscating the profound moral difference between homicidal antisemitic extremists and the Jews they’re trying to kill. 


Related articles

19 replies »

  1. He was also complaining about Israel ‘spin’ on Twitter, in tones that suggested no other government in the world ever spins anything. Strange fellow.

  2. Poor Giles Fraser who is obviously frustrated that he cannot become one of the ‘worker-priests’ he idolises.
    Cannot become one because a) he would have to convert to Roman Catholicism, (as an Anglican I don’t believe he would be a loss to the Anglican community.) b) he would have to move to South America.

    Still if Giles Fraser wants to ride around North London on a donkey why not?
    Surely he cannot make himself look anymore ridiculous than he does already.

  3. So far as I am aware this ‘just terrorism’ supported by Reverend Fraser is being directed by Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal from the comfort of his plush surroundings in Qatar. Mr Meshaal’s victims will be more non-combatant Gazans amongst whom he has secreted the tunnels and missile launchers. I can see how the naive Giles Fraser has been tempted by his friend ‘Dr Samah Jabr in a cool Palestinian cafe in Stoke Newington’ into writing this irresponsible trash. As a devout Christian his response should have been ‘Get thee behind me Satan’. It seems that he prefers to promote his ‘just terrorism’ from over 2300 miles away. At least Khaled Meshaal is 1300 miles closer so far as we can tell.

  4. There is indeed nothing about the right to self determination by armed struggle in the UN Charter and nothing that would allow the crimes of Hamas whose intent is the removal of a member state of the UN. According to the International Red Cross they are guilty of deliberately siting weapons amongst civilians which is a war crime and firing them at civilians which is another.

  5. Any more on this from Cif?
    (in Hebrew for Hebrew speakers)

    Conclusion of the above.:

    “…..Hamas had apparently been preparing a murderous assault on Israeli civilian targets for the coming Jewish New Year Holiday, Rosh Hashanah, which begins on September 24, according anonymous sources in the Israeli security services, as reported today by the Israeli daily Maariv.

    The Hamas plan consisted of what was to be a surprise attack in which 200 fighters would be dispatched through each of dozens of tunnels dug by Hamas under the border from Gaza to Israel, and seize kibbutzim and other communities while killing and kidnapping Israeli civilians…” (End of conclusion)

  6. If the year were 1945, he wouldn’t say a word about the British Mandate because it wasn’t Jews “occupying” Gaza and the West Bank. And if it was 1099, this hateful moron would have gladly played a role in massacring Jews and Muslims. He probably wishes he could have been part of the Crusades.

  7. The article was terrible, as was his quite bizarre performance on the Moral Maze (particularly in the final summing up part of the programme).

  8. The coming out of the antisemites is ambivalent, on one side it is refreshing that all this lip services get out of order, these hypocrite ceremonies will come to an end, on the other side it shows the mainstreaming and the officially acknowledged and sanctioned level of antisemitism, even touching the government ceiling.
    Therefore the question is open
    Eurabia, Euroislam, ..

    The acceleration

    The twisted story of the first and last report of the EUMC on Antisemitism








    That antisemitic piece of sheet

  9. Good Day !!!!!

    I am Hwa Jurong, a Reputable, Legitimate & an accredited money
    Lender. I loan money out to individuals in need of financial assistance.
    Do you have a bad credit or are you in need of money to pay bills?
    i want to use this medium to inform you that i render reliable beneficiary
    assistance as I’ll be glad to offer you a loan at 2% interest rate to
    reliable individuals.

    Services Rendered include:
    *Home Improvement
    *Inventor Loans
    *Auto Loans
    *Debt Consolidation
    *Horse Loans
    *Line of Credit
    *Second Mortgage
    *Business Loans
    *Personal Loans
    *International Loans.
    Please write back if interested.
    Upon Response, you’ll be mailed a Loan application form to fill. (No social
    security and no credit check, 100% Guaranteed!) I Look forward permitting me to
    be of service to you. You can contact me via e-mail: , ,
    Yours Sincerely,

    Hwa Jurong(MD).