"Israel is allowed to defend itself!'

 is a joke. 

Those who preface anything they have to say about Israel's actions know it and employ it as a joke. And do not flinch from their own absurdity. It has become very satisfying and emotionally-rewarding, to defend Palestinians these days. It makes it possible, in a convoluted way, to defend terrorism as well as suggest that victims of terror can really not defend themselves against that. And when those victims are Jews, it is even more gratifying because Jews are supposed to know how to die and are expected to do so elegantly, with grace, like saints.

Jews who do not act like saints provoke a great anger from decent people. Jews who insist that to kill is better than to be killed are presented by good people as murderous. The Holocaust, whether you acknowledge it or not, set up the standard for Jewish moral choices. Jews who do not conform to this standard are then not good Jews and not good people.

How else to interpret a right for self-defense that cannot be practiced? 

  

Here is a fairy-tale to help those who cannot understand ...

And an addendum:

Some people make the case that Israel's right to defend itself is vitiated by the fact that Israel imposed a blockade on Gaza. 

Random example of such a case (made by someone with an advance legal training):  

The civilians-protecting-the-weapons argument is just a cop-out diverting attention from the blockade of Gaza that Israel (and Egypt) imposed after Hamas was voted to power in 2007. Israel's motivation was more or less explicitly to punish the people for voting the wrong way. Launching a massive ground attack while closing the border is certainly a memorable lesson to anybody who is watching.

Anna was raped by her former husband after she moved out of their home years ago. He used to stalk her, corner her and violate her repeatedly. Because they were not formally divorced, the police was reluctant to arrest him on the grounds that it was just a "domestic quarrel". Finally, Anna decided to go to court and ask for a restraining order for her rapist husband. The court acknowledged her right to defend herself and granted her this legal request.

So her rapist husband became ingenious and creative in continuing to harass her in any way he could, threatening her, kidnapping her son, every once in a while infiltrating into her home. In one of those stealthy visits he killed her dog, on another he destroyed her furniture. And, growing bolder, he entered her home while she was sleeping and proceeded to rape and beat her. Anna managed to ward him off long enough to reach for a gun and shoot him dead.

The police took her in for questioning, undecided as to how to treat this case. But her neighbors and friends, condemned her. Of course, they said with a smirk, she had a right to defend herself but ... did she have to kill him? What was he doing, after all? Insisting on his rights as a husband. She took that restraining order against him. She shouldn't have. It made him angry, miserable. What about his rights? She should have been more attentive to his needs rather than act in this selfish way. But of course, she had a right to defend herself. Except she didn't, really. It was her fault for punishing him in the first place.