Anarchism is unrelated to pacifism. Anarchy is a means while pacifism a goal. Democracy, likewise, works just as well in pacifist Switzerland as it did in militant Ancient Rome.

Anarchy can be highly repressive, as it is in communes, and arguably in Rousseau’s Utopia. The only example of a large-scale anarchist movement, Nestor Makhno’s, was militant, with little concern for liberal human rights.

Even the most liberal anarchic society would have to fight initially against government resistance.

Anarchist communities might infringe on the private ownership of the land they take. Near-anarchic wild-west towns were founded on land expropriated from the exterminated peoples. In light of anarchist theory, there is nothing wrong with Jewish pioneers taking the land from the Arab inhabitants. Anarchy is an intra-societal policy. It only works among the consenting people and does not preclude repression of opponents.

The litmus test of any action’s compliance with anarchism is whether it could be carried out absent of government. On many occasions, tribes with no governmental structure have cleared land for themselves. Left to themselves and armed reasonably, Jewish pioneers would take over the West Bank just like stateless Jews did in 1947.

Indeed, an argument can be constructed that Palestinian Arabs rely on governmental support to resist the Jews. Their terrorism was made possible by the support of several Arab governments, and since the Oslo accords –has been abetted by the EU’s quasi-governmental groups. Unlike Jews before 1948, Palestinian Arabs rely almost exclusively on governmental funding rather than private money, which fact condemns their struggle as anarchic enterprise.