When 'Self-Defense' Only Applies to One Side
FIRST INSTANCE: The Foundation of Disparity In 1948, during the Nakba, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were expelled and over 500 villages destroyed (UN Conciliation Commission for Palestine, 1949). The legal and security apparatus established in the aftermath inherently favored one group over another. This foundational asymmetry meant that 'law enforcement' has rarely, if ever, been a
neutral arbiter for all citizens within the state's declared borders. The concept of 'self-defense' in this context has always been interpreted through a specific political lens. REPETITIONS: Documenting the Double Standard 2002-2004: The Second Intifada Era. During this period, there were numerous documented instances by human rights groups (e.g., B'Tselem, 2004) of disproportionate force used by
Israeli security forces against Palestinians, often involving incidents where Palestinian self-defense claims were dismissed, while similar actions by Israeli citizens, even settlers, were often protected or minimally prosecuted. The media often framed Palestinian resistance as 'terrorism,' while settler violence was frequently downplayed or justified as 'self-defense.' 2015-2016: The 'Knife
Intifada.' This period saw a rise in stabbings and vehicular attacks. B'Tselem (2016) reported on cases where Palestinians, including teenagers, involved in alleged attacks were often killed on the spot without attempt at arrest, while Jewish perpetrators of violence against Palestinians often faced lighter charges, or their actions were framed differently by public officials. The 'shoot to kill'