#WTH The problem with Israel's "right to defend itself"

What Biden and Harris are *really* saying

The right to self-defense is a tricky issue, as we have seen repeatedly in the litigation of stand-your-ground laws in the United States. Can you shoot an intruder? What about a trespasser? What if he doesn’t have a weapon and you do? What if he has a weapon, but doesn’t brandish it?

Similarly, sovereign states have profound disagreements about the question of pre-emption and self-defense. The United Nations Charter piously affirms every nation’s “inherent right of collective or individual self-defense”, but doesn’t actually make clear what self-defense looks like. We in Washington went through this over Iraq, and in a variety of different political rows during the W Bush administration. Do we need to wait for al Qaeda to kill 3000 Americans before we obliterate them? Should Israel have waited for Iraq or Syria (and now Iran) to have nuclear weapons and use them before taking them out? Is there in fact a right to “anticipatory self-defense”?

I begin this way because I hope to underscore just how vague and malleable the words “self-defense” really are. And Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and their foreign policy amanuenses and lawyers are counting on that malleability as a key pillar of Biden-Harris foreign policy. Check out their proclamations.

Here’s Kamala’s BIG SPEECH at the DNC with her signature “saying something while saying nothing” approach:

“Let me be clear, I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself, and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself, because the people of Israel must never again face the horror that a terrorist organization called Hamas caused on Oct. 7, including unspeakable sexual violence and the massacre of young people at a music festival."

And here’s Joe Biden:

“My expectation and hope is that this will be closing down sooner than later, but Israel has a right to defend itself when you have thousands of rockets flying into your territory.”

Here’s SecState Tony Blinken:

“I reiterated and made clear our support for Israel’s right to defend itself, indeed its obligation to defend itself.” 

Got it? Israel has a “right” to defend itself. But we need to go to the foreigners to understand what that “right” really means. Australia’s Foreign Minister Penny Wong, a reliable woman of the far left:

“We recognise Israel’s right to defend itself, but how it does so matters.”

Gotcha Penny. And who’s the decider there? Not Israel, that’s for sure. Let’s parse this out together: Israel has a “right” to self-defense, and America will always “support” that “right.” So:

• Does Israel need to be hit first to respond?

• Can Israel respond only against the individual perpetrators, or is a permitted part of it’s “right” the takedown of the organization that sponsored the perpetrators?

• Can Israel also act against those who harbor, arm and train forces that attack them as part of its “right” to “self-defense,” or is this a tit for tat, you launch a missile, I take out your missile launcher sort of thing?

• Can Israel respond to state sponsors of terrorism against Israel? Is hitting Iran part of Israel’s “right” to “self-defense?” Lebanon? Yemen? Qatar? Or does Israel need to wait to be attacked from that territory to “defend” itself?

• To what extent must an Israeli response be “proportionate?” If Hezbollah kills 12 children in a rocket attack on Majdal Shams, is a proportionate response the murder of 12 Hezbollah children? Or just the person who launched the rocket? Or perhaps the person who gave the order?

Think about the answers to those questions, then consider who will be answering them in the two respective presidential options before us. Donald Trump, who has criticized the “look” of the ongoing war in Gaza — whatever that means — is seen as a reliable supporter of Israel, with a firm commitment to curb Iran and its proxies in the Middle East. The Biden-Harris administration has slow rolled weaponry to both Ukraine and Israel, all in service of a completely unsubstantiated fear of “escalation.” Kamala assures us that she is committed to Israel’s “right to self-defense.” But we have no damn idea what the hell she means by that.

Perhaps we can be guided by the Keir Starmer far left Labour government in the UK. Here’s Britain’s new Foreign Minister David Lammy explaining why London is cutting off certain weapons exports to Israel:

"We recognise, of course, Israel's need to defend itself against security threats, but we are deeply worried by the methods that Israel's employed, and by reports of civilian casualties and the destruction of civilian infrastructure particularly."

Aaaah. So you, David Lammy, will decide where Israel’s “right to defend itself” ends, and act accordingly. Consider Lammy’s statement a preview of what a Harris administration can be expected do, all the while proclaiming its commitment to Israel’s “right to self defense.”