A Law Case NOT Related to Israel-Palestine
Law Question: Do they have right to defend themselves?
A group of thieves break into a large house, tie the home owners in a room, kill some of family members. Then act like they own the house. Then slowly and systematically bring their families of women and children to live in that house.
One day, some of the home owners manage to untie themselves and aim to attack the thieves. Somehow they kill some thieves and some of their family members, take a few as captives to use against the thieves for negotiation.
The thieves use this as an excuse to start killing the home owners, including the captives. When asked why they are killing the whole family, including women and children and babies, they say their family was attacked by the home owners in the house they stole from them. Therefore, they have right to defend themselves against the homeowners. The thieves even take this case to court.
Question #1:
Do you think any court will decide that the thieves have the right to defend themselves in a house they stole against the homeowners?
Killing of non-combatant innocent civilians is absolutely wrong, even if they are family members of the thieves. That being said, civilian homeowners being killed by the thieves in their own house is completely different from the civilian thieves/occupiers being killed in a house they stole, illegally occupied and illegally settled.
If you don't want your family members to get hurt, don't take them to a house you stole and illegally claimed to own.
What do you say about this law case? Do you think the thieves have the right to defend themselves in a house they stole and illegally settled against the attackers who are the homeowners? Do you think they have right to kill the homeowner family members if the attackers use them as human shield, including women and children?
Question #2
In this scenario, do you condemn the homeowners for carrying out such an atrocity against the thieves and their family members while they are doing nothing but enjoying, singing and dancing in the house they stole while the homewners and their family members are suffering oppression, hunger etc. being tied in a small dark room?
I do condemn their killings of non-combatant and innocent family members of the thieves. They were just having fun in the house they stole, singing and dancing and enjoying all the goods that belonged to the homeowners.
Even if the homeowners were tied in a dark room by the thieves, being mocked by their family members, suffering torture, oppression, hunger and more, the whole world “should know” that this “doesn’t give” the homeowners right to untie themselves and attack the thieves and their family members. So, shouldn’t we condemn those attacking homeowners for doing so? Can anyone help me answer this question please?
NOTE
This example has nothing to do with the occupied lands of Palestine, according to international law, by the occupier and apartheid state of Israel, according to various human rights organizations.
It may appear that
- the thieves in the example represent Israeli Government and IDF,
- family members of the thieves represent Jewish/Zionist settlers that are illegally settling in the occupied lands of Palestine,
- the large house represents Palestine,
- the dark room where the homeowners are tied represents Gaza and the West Bank, and
- the homeowners represent all the Palestinians, including Muslims, Christians, and Jews.
- One can even claim that the attack of the homeowners represents the October 7 attack and the attackers represent Hamas.
However, I assure you that it has nothing to do with all that. All the similarities are just mere coincidences. It is just an interesting law case example for law experts. So, don’t hesitate giving a humane response.
This was first published as a response to Barrack Obama’s Thoughts on Israel and Gaza and then published as a separate article with some edits.
