🤥 Israel has the right to defend itself.

Answer 1

Israel has been internationally recognized as an occupying power since 1967. As such, it DOES not have the right to self-defense as established by international law in its dealings with the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. International law dictates that Israel cannot use more than police powers to maintain its security. There are very exceptional cases where military force is permitted. Even then, military force cannot take the form of warfare nor be used under the guise of self-defense under international law.

Answer 2

Israel cannot have its cake and eat it too. It does not get to displace, control AND oppress Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza then claim it is NOT an occupier. It is internationally recognized that Israel has and continues to occupy the West Bank AND Gaza. Therefore, under international law, Israel absolutely does not have the right to defend itself against a population which it occupies. 

Answer 3

Israel cannot both exercise control over a territory it occupies and militarily attack that territory on the claim that it is “foreign” and poses an “external” threat. By doing so, Israel may be asserting rights that are consistent with colonial domination but are completely incompatible with international law.

Answer 4

Israel cannot treat the West Bank and Gaza as enemy territory under international law. It does have the right to protect its citizens, but it absolutely does not have the right to use overwhelming military force against people under its occupation.

Answer 5

What does it even mean for a settler colony to defend itself against the natives it is colonizing? It boggles the mind that we have people demanding that the colonized and militarily occupied population must guarantee the safety of their oppressors and tormentors. It is akin to a mugger claiming self-defense when their victim fights back against their mugging.

Answer 6

If we were to agree with the premise that Israel does have the right to defend itself (which it does not), it would have to do so lawfully, within the parameters outlined by the Geneva Conventions. It certainly would not be allowed to target the civilian population, carry out collective punishment, and it definitely would not be justified in committing genocide.