What distinguishes the settlers on the West Bank from the settlers in pre-48 Palestine? Certainly there are differences, but I don’t think they are as clear cut as you suggest.

But I agree that attacks on cafes in Tel Aviv are not useful, at least not in the present circumstances, because they make it easy for Israeli ruling classes to trigger tribal responses among Israeli people, and to justify their rampages to the West as part of the ‘war on terror’. Again, I think this is a question of pragmatic politics, not of ethics.

(1) Settlers as anarchists vs. nationalists. This is a fascinating debate to hold. Among significant portions of the ideological settlement community, which were the ones I implicitly had in mind, the State of Israel is an illegitimate entity because the true Jewish kingdom can be restored only by God. Their allegiance, therefore, is not to a modern nation-state in any meaningful sense, but rather to an abstract theocracy they are working to establish. They use the current state apparatus solely for their own self-serving, extraordinarily violent colonization project. Does primary allegiance to such a theocratic vision, as opposed to the state of Israel, to which they have no real allegiance, yet in which they are citizens, reflect anarchist principles or not? I think its an open question, which I would enjoy discussing. Please note I was emphatically not using anarchist in a purely pejorative manner.

(2) On “terrorism” vs. violent resistance. Point taken. I do want to make clear that I agree wholeheartedly with the right, as a human right, to resist violently your oppression. But in my view the extent of this right is ethically unclear and subject to debate. In particular, I have very serious qualms about extending this right into population centers “inside the Green Line”, as they say. I have this reservation for the precise reason I find it morally reprehensible that Israel attempts to stop rocket fire by destroying Gaza City. The scale is obviously very much more severe in the latter case, but I see the same ethical questions in play.

By contrast, my own opinion is that the right to violent resistance would likely hold with respect not only to military actions against the IDF, but almost certainly against the settlers, who by stealing land and harassing/murdering Palestinians have forfeited their status as civilians. (In case its not clear, these are ethical arguments rather than legal interpretations per se).

These are for me interesting, and important, ethical questions that can and should be debated. When I spoke of terrorist activity, and its benefits to the Israeli establishment, I had in mind not events like the attack on the settler last week, but attacks more like those against the cafes and discoteques of Tel Aviv. It is those types of military actions that would best serve the interests of Israel’s political and military elites at this uncertain time.

on the point of “Nothing would suit Israel’s interests better than the resumption of widespread terrorist activity..” why are militant actions taken by Palestinians considered “terrorist activity”? they are an oppressed people who are living and struggling under seemingly impossible circumstances. non-violent actions is necessary as much as militant actions in the face of an enemy that is more than eager to see their complete decimation.

I’d like to note one thing that irked me: The use of the word Anarchist in regards to settlers is wrong. Settlers are the exact opposite of anarchists, as they are nationalists. Misusing the word, as if “anarchist” was the equivalent of “criminal” is slanderous.