Recurring claim

"Israel has a right to defend itself."

Their strongest version

States are entitled to protect their citizens from attack; October 7 was a massacre of civilians and no state would ignore it.

The response

Agree with the premise to reclaim the conversation: yes — and self-defense under law has limits: distinction, proportionality, precaution. A right to defend is not a right to do anything. The same law that gives Israel the right to respond gives Palestinian civilians the right not to be collectively punished for it. And note what the phrase is usually deployed to end: any discussion of the occupied, who have no army, no state, and — per the ICJ's July 2024 opinion — live under an occupation the court found unlawful in its entirety. Ask the mirror question: what are Palestinians entitled to when armed settlers enter their village at dawn?

Don’t

Never respond by denying October 7's atrocities or the grief behind the argument — engage the strongest version. Don't say 'Israel has no right to exist' in reply; that switches the topic from conduct to existence and loses the audience.
Open in the Sanad app →