Blood Libel #17 | “Israel has no right to defend itself.”
Anti-Zionist:
Israel has no right to defend itself. It’s the occupier.
Pro-Zionist:
So if terrorists butcher your civilians, fire rockets into your towns, and vow to annihilate you — you have no right to stop them?
(They may say resistance is justified under occupation.)
Occupation doesn’t erase the right to self-defense. Under international law, every sovereign nation has that right — and Israel is no exception.
Israel left Gaza in 2005, down to the last soldier. There was no occupation — but Hamas still attacked.
Israel defends itself against terror, not a people — and it does so with more restraint than almost any country on Earth.
So the real question is: Why do you deny the one Jewish state the rights you’d give any other?
BEYOND THE TALKING POINTS
“Israel has no right to defend itself” is a lie rooted in ideological bias, not legal principle.
Israel’s Right to Self-Defense Is Codified in International Law
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter clearly 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.
Israel is a UN member. That right applies equally to it.
When Hamas launches rockets, digs terror tunnels, or sends militants to butcher civilians in their homes, Israel’s legal and moral right to act is undeniable. Sovereignty does not dissolve in the face of terrorism — it demands a response.
UNSC Resolution 1373 — Binding Law Against Funding Terror
UN Security Council Resolution 1373 (2001), passed after 9/11, obligates all UN member states to prevent and criminalize the financing and harboring of terrorist groups.
“States shall refrain from providing any form of support… to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts.”
In 2014, Danish Ambassador Jesper Vahr said during a panel discussion on relations between Israel and Europe:
Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us
Israelis sometimes ask why Europe applies a different standard to its neighboring countries, such as Syria, Vahr said.
Those are not the standards that you are being judged by. It is not the standards that Israel would want to be judged by
Israel should want to be held to European standards, not Middle Eastern ones, he said.
So I think you have the right to insist that we apply double standards and put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.
The Jerusalem Post’s diplomatic correspondent, Herb Keinon, who moderated the panel, asked Vahr if his statement couldn’t be seen as “patronizing” to the Palestinians.
Vahr responded:
I am not sure it is, particularly given that Israel is the stronger party in the conflict and the Palestinians are the weaker one.
It is “natural,” Vahr said, to engage differently with Israel, a country with whom Europe, including Denmark, has an extensive cooperative relationship with in trade and cultural affairs.
Caroline Glick retorted that they were a “statement of contempt for our intelligence.”calls out Europe’s hypocrisy:
“here is a binding UN Security Council Resolution — Chapter VII — from 2001, 1373, that bars every single UN member nation from funding or otherwise supporting in any way terrorist organizations. And you guys are funneling billions of euros into rebuilding terrorist-controlled Gaza.
So while critics accuse Israel of violating international law, it’s often those critics themselves — especially Western governments and NGOs — who are violating it by funding Hamas-run entities.
Here is the full exchange. It’s worth watching.
Even if one were to accept the premise of “occupation” (despite Israel’s full withdrawal from Gaza in 2005), the Geneva Conventions and UN Charter still preserve a country’s right to defend its civilians.
No legal framework anywhere says that a state under dispute or conflict loses the right to defend itself from terrorist violence, especially when that violence explicitly targets noncombatants.
Double Standards — or Singular Obsession?
Caroline Glick again:
This isn’t a double standard. It’s a singular standard for Israel. Europe’s obsessive need to constantly pick at the Jewish state — while ignoring terror regimes and funding them — is not international law. It’s historical contempt wrapped in legalese.
When other nations like the U.S., France, or Turkey respond to terror attacks, they are defended — even celebrated. When Israel does, it is investigated, demonized, or accused of genocide.
This contradiction isn’t about law — it’s about deep-seated bias.
Israel’s Restraint Is Extraordinary — and Unmatched
Retired British Colonel Richard Kemp, who led forces in Afghanistan, has testified:
No army in the history of warfare has gone to greater lengths than the IDF to avoid civilian casualties.
This restraint is not accidental — it’s systemic. Israel drops leaflets, makes phone calls, and aborts strikes when civilians are spotted — even when doing so risks failure or emboldens terrorists.
The Core Moral Inversion
The fundamental inversion in this blood libel is this: Only Jews are told they have no right to survive if it means using force.
As Glick bluntly puts it:
You’re not looking at our neighbors as human beings. What you’re saying is, they’re objects. The only actors in this region are the people trying to annihilate us — and the only people judged for their actions are the ones trying to stop it.
The accusation that “Israel has no right to defend itself” is not a legal argument. It is a political weapon — wielded with selective morality, double standards, and historical prejudice.
If Jews cannot defend themselves, they are condemned to die. If they do defend themselves, they are condemned for surviving.
That is not justice.
That is antisemitism in moral disguise.