"Israel has the right to defend itself."

Argument

States possess an internationally recognized right to defend their territory and population. Under customary international law and Article 51 of the UN Charter, a nation can respond to armed aggression to restore security. In situations where rockets are launched from Gaza and terror attacks occur, Israel asserts that military responses aimed at neutralizing threats are a lawful exercise of its sovereign right to self-defense.

Counterpoint

Self-defense is legally bounded by necessity and proportionality. Responses must be directly linked to an imminent threat and avoid excessive civilian harm. When large-scale bombardments hit densely populated areas, resulting in high civilian casualties, widespread destruction of homes, schools, and hospitals, such actions may exceed these bounds. Lawful self-defense cannot serve as a shield for indiscriminate killing, mass displacement, or blockade that fuel a humanitarian crisis.

Under international humanitarian law, occupied communities also retain legal agency, including the right to resist, in the face of oppression, provided their methods comply with the laws of armed conflict. Gaza is widely regarded as an occupied territory under these laws. In this context, when civilians end up targeted by siege tactics or punitive house demolitions, resistance by the occupied is both morally and legally defensible. The occupying power is bound by stricter obligations to protect civilian life and ensure humanitarian aid access. Violation of these duties invalidates broad self-defense claims.

Spin

  • Emotional Frame: Labeling military action as “defense” conjures a moral high ground, obscuring the structural reality of overwhelming force, siege, and civilian suffering. It turns a complex situation into a binary “defender vs. attacker” narrative.
  • Forced Equivalence: The rhetoric often positions Israel’s formal military as an equal adversary to Gaza’s mostly civilian population. In reality, Israel wields overwhelming power, air superiority, ground forces, lawfare, while Palestinians lack a standing army, rendering the comparison misleading.
  • Erasure of Occupation: By focusing only on “rocket attacks,” mainstream narratives sidestep Israel’s long-term control over Palestinian movement, resources, and legal systems. This absence of context conceals the structural dynamics of occupation and settler-colonialism.
  • Selective Legalism: Appeals to international law often cherry-pick Article 51 while ignoring legal obligations concerning proportionality, distinction, and protection of civilians. Enforcement is weak when violations are systemic, as documented by UN agencies and human rights organizations.

Sources