Buddhists do defend themselves. Its actually traditionally so if one examines the histories of Thailand, Burma, Buthan India and Tibet. Ashoka Maharaja was one of the greatest of Buddhist kings in India, yet he created his kingdom through conquest.
It is just the liberal , Western interpretation of Buddhism that dictates that Buddhism does not countenance the activity of destroying. In fact Buddhism has many protective principles that vindicate the use of destruction in order to preserve a Buddhist nation or community.The ancient Tibetan Buddhist warrior, Gesar of Ling is a prime example.
Islam has been a constant historical enemy of Buddhism.In Sri Lanka, Buddhists have been protecting themselves against Muslims for hundreds of years, and they will continue to do so.
The idea of a burgeoning Buddhist “ non violence” is only modern wool gatering of Western liberals who redefine Buddhist history as appropriately non violent, although non violence is an essential part of the path of practice of the Buddha-dharma, this is a matter of personal choice of every Buddhist, not a matter of an imaginary , imposed liberal Buddhist catechism.
Just like the liberal, Western interpretation of Christianity!
They would have us think Jesus said to 'spread the other cheek.'
Now, you know why liberals promote homosexuality and appeasement of tyrants.