Ah, I see - you meant what I personally would do.

Theoretically speaking, no, I definitely wouldn't kill anyone, men or women or children, who have simply taken a part of my house. I believe that violence, especially killing, is never justified except in self-defence and defence of others, and even then you shouldn't use any more violence than strictly necessary to remove the danger.

Practically speaking, and now looking into the actual situation rather than my simplified analogy, who can predict what they are and aren't capable of doing if they're enraged enough? Maybe if someone's excesses caused the death of a family member, I'd be angry enough to seek my own revenge. Fortunately I've never been in such a situation, so I haven't had the chance to find out.

A terrorist, according to Dictionary.com, is "a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism". Terrorism is "the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes". Well, that... applies not just to guerrilla fighters and suicide bombers, but also to every act of war undertaken by every legitimate government.

But you wouldn't call, say, George Bush a terrorist for initiating the war in Iraq, unless you highly disagree with this decision and decided to use that word to highlight your disapproval. i.e. the word "terrorist" is selectively applied to use of violence in situations where you wouldn't accept that type of violence. That's why I say that whether or not someone is a terrorist is up for debate - "terrorist" doesn't define a person's actions or motives as much as it defines the speaker's attitude towards the person being defined.

I disagree that something must be either right or wrong though. Every "something" can be broken down into constituent parts, and you can think that some parts are right while others are wrong. For example, say you ask a supporter of the death penalty, "Do you approve of the death penalty?" If pressed, he will give the one word answer, "Yes." But he'll likely also say that certain methods of execution are wrong, or that it would be wrong to mandate the death penalty for certain crimes.

You can also think that some things are more right (or more wrong) than others. e.g. If disaster strikes in your country and some people's homes are destroyed, and you donate a dollar for their cause, that's the right thing to do. But if you go to the disaster area and volunteer your time to help rebuild their homes, that's even more right.

And then where there are multiple factors influencing a person's decision, you can't really decide on the morality of the decision unless you're deeply familiar with the circumstances. Is it wrong to kill someone? Of course. What if that someone is a seriously ill patient? Good question... do you have their consent? Was the consent freely given in a clear state of mind? Is it a terminal illness? It can be hard to decide even when you're faced with a specific case and you have the facts in hand, let alone when you're making a generic statement like "euthanasia is right/wrong".

And where you're trying to assess the relative rightness/wrongness of multiple parties in a conflict, sometimes you just find it very hard to give a one word answer. If two children are fighting to play on the same PS3, which one is right and which one wrong?

If I had to express my opinion in one sentence, I'd say that violence in the Middle East is wrong. Violence initiated by either side, violence against anybody, violence for whatever cause - wrong. But when I go into the details, it gets a lot murkier, because there were a lot of factors involved in the violence, and various people entered the conflict for different reasons and used differing levels/types of violence. And when you account for the fact that the Israel side also has good reasons for taking part in the conflict, a blanket statement becomes virtually impossible.

My initial example of people setting up a tent in your home was an extremely simplistic analogy, intended to show only that the Arabs also had grievances, not to be a highly accurate representation of the actual situation. So I have to say, I cannot give a simple yes or no answer to your question without heavily misrepresenting my opinion. The shortest answer I can give is what I had given earlier - that the violence they have displayed is largely excessive and counterproductive, but I have some sympathy for their grievances and goals.