11 Ways International Law Supports Israel

Frank Herbert, the author of Dune, satirized the way barbarians use international law against its authors with the brilliant quote, “When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles.”

Barbarians couldn’t care less about international laws, or any other laws, but they’re more than happy to use the laws of civilized people as a cudgel against them.

The fancy term for it is “lawfare.”

However, since they are barbarians, they don’t bother understanding the law. Instead, they shout “war crime!” and “genocide!” at everything they don’t like.

This shit often works because there are plenty of shit eaters in the West who don’t care about civilization either and are more than eager to join the barbarians. For them, everything they don’t find aesthetically pleasing is a war crime and genocide simply means killing they don’t approve of.

Nevertheless, Western civilization did’t fall yet. The laws weren’t forgotten yet. There are still people capable of reason in the West.

So today I’m going to list 11 ways in which international law actually supports Israel’s position, regardless of how loud the barbarians shriek to the contrary.

1. The 1948 Declaration of Independence Is Legal

Israel was established via UN General Assembly Resolution 181. Declaring statehood in accordance with an internationally recognized partition process is entirely consistent with the right of self-determination under international law. One could argue Israel is the most legitimate country in the world because it’s the only country that was created after the majority of the world’s nations voted in favor of its creation.

2. The Right of Self-Defense

Article 51 of the UN Charter explicitly preserves a state’s “inherent right” to self-defense if attacked. It makes no exceptions for “resistance” or any other buzzword Israel’s enemies currently use. Claiming you’re resisting occupation doesn’t excuse you from international law, especially when you’re “resisting” occupation by attacking civilian targets in a neighboring state the way Hezbollah does in the service of Iran.

3. The Legal Status of the West Bank Is Disputed

The standard claim is that the West Bank is “occupied Palestinian territory” under the Fourth Geneva Convention. However, since Jordan’s annexation was never legally recognized and because there was no prior sovereign State of Palestine (it was a British Mandate), the territory’s status is sui generis (i.e., a unique situation) — not “occupied.”

4. Security Barriers are Legal

The 2004 ICJ Advisory Opinion on the separation barrier is widely cited against Israel, but it was advisory, not binding. Israel’s Supreme Court reviewed the barrier’s route under humanitarian law principles and ordered modifications, demonstrating engagement with legal norms rather than rejection of them. Certainly, similar projects such as Morocco’s wall in Western Sahara or Britain’s Belfast’s Peace Walls never garnered much scrutiny despite being very similar.

5. The Legal Goal of the Mandate was a Jewish State

The 1920 San Remo Conference, a binding act of international law at the time, allocated the Mandate for Palestine specifically to facilitate a Jewish national home. These rights were never formally extinguished and carry forward under Article 80 of the UN Charter (”the Palestine clause”).

6. Resolution 242 Does Not Require Full Withdrawal

The 1967 Resolution 242 calls for withdrawal “from territories,” not “from all territories.” This deliberate omission, confirmed by its drafters, is intentional. It is understood Israel need not return to every inch of the pre-1967 lines, especially after almost 60 years of changing circumstances.

7. The Right to Blockade a Hostile Entity

Under the laws of naval warfare, a blockade of a hostile party is legal provided it is declared, effective, and does not deprive the civilian population of essential objects. Israel’s blockade of Gaza has legal grounding given Hamas’s declared state of war. It’s worth noting Egypt and even the Palestinian Authority have officially supported and participated in the blockade following the Hamas takeover of Gaza.

8. Targeted Killings Are Legal

Israel’s policy of targeted killings of terrorist commanders is perfectly legal. Under International Humanitarian Law, combatants and direct participants in hostilities are lawful targets. The U.S. adopted the same legal framework after 9/11.

9. Hamas is Responsible For Civilian Casualties in Gaza

Under IHL’s principle of distinction, parties must not use civilian locations for military purposes. When Hamas (or Hezbollah, the Houthis, IRGC, etc…) embeds military infrastructure in hospitals, schools, and residential areas, the legal responsibility for resulting civilian casualties shifts substantially to Hamas.

10. Israel Is Not Obligated to Supply an Enemy

There is no rule in international law requiring a state to supply electricity, fuel, or goods to a territory controlled by an organization that has declared war on it. The legal obligation is humanitarian access and even that obligation is modified when the recipient party is a belligerent. The idea Israelis must supply food to the people shooting at them, while they’re shooting at them, has no basis in international law, only the fancy of Israel’s enemies.

11. Massacres, Hostages, and The Laws of War

Hamas’s mass hostage-taking and other atrocities on October 7 constitutes a war crime under the Rome Statute and Geneva Conventions. This creates an international legal context in which Israel’s military response is not an isolated act of aggression but a response to documented, codified criminality. Under international law, proportionality and necessity are not assessed in a vacuum. They are assessed in context. The context in this case is a documented, large-scale, ongoing war crime. A state whose civilians are being held hostage by an organization that has declared permanent war on it is in a fundamentally different legal position than an aggressor launching unprovoked strikes.

---

As stated earlier, buzzwords such as “occupation,” “resistance,” “freedom fighters,” and whatever else makes wannabe revolutionaries feel warm inside, don’t suddenly make criminal behavior legal. Sexual violence, fighting without uniform, attacking civilians, and so forth are all crimes, regardless of one’s alleged motivation.

Even though they’re often abused, international laws are actual laws, not vibes.

---

If you enjoyed this article, please consider dropping a tip into my digital jar.