The Jordanian State Security Court has issued a 20-year prison sentence with temporary hard labour against four Jordanian citizens, after convicting them of attempting to transfer weapons to the occupied Palestinian territories.
The case dates back to two years with a security operation in July 2023 that resulted in the arrest of around 20 individuals. This was followed by another arrest campaign in March 2024 and the referral of Huthaifa and Ibrahim Jabr, Khaled Al-Majdalawi, and Ahmad Ayesh to the State Security Court, which handed down its verdict. The defence team will appeal the decision within the legally stipulated period.
Several international standards and conventions affirm that the struggle against occupation is not only legitimate but is also an inherent right of peoples, as enshrined in the first common article of both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These provisions assert the right of peoples to self-determination, including the use of appropriate means to end foreign domination.
Moreover, UN General Assembly Resolution 37/43, adopted in 1982, states that “the struggle of peoples under colonial or foreign occupation for their freedom and independence is legitimate and they have the right to use all available means consistent with the Charter of the United Nations”, including armed resistance against occupying forces, provided such actions do not target civilians.
Therefore, attempting to provide logistical or military support to resistance movements operating in territories under occupation, such as the West Bank, should not be treated as a crime under international law. Rather, it is considered support for national liberation movements seeking to reclaim their denied rights. As long as there is no targeting of civilians or violation of the principles of armed conflict, such actions do not constitute crimes under international human rights standards.
Accordingly, the imposition of harsh prison sentences on citizens who attempted to support a resistance facing a recognised occupation highlights a painful contradiction between certain domestic laws, which may criminalise such acts, and international law, which not only removes their criminal character but grants them legal and moral legitimacy.
This case is not solely about the four accused individuals; it also reopens the broader question of reminding the world that the rights of occupied peoples to defend themselves cannot be overridden by domestic legislation, and that true commitment to justice begins with respect for the universal principles of human rights and the right to self-determination.
