A couple of weeks ago, I assigned paper topic #1 in my political philosophy class here at Al Quds University. Here is paper topic #2 in (Facebook) translation. There were two options, and the students were to pick one and write a short paper on it. Oddly, the directions for the assignment don’t seem to have come through in the Facebook translation. Here is what did:
This is what respect in research or the topic II..
1. A plan no uprising for the liberation of Palestine. They should include special paper:
• A description of the goal your year.
• A description of how it will be an attempt to reach the goal.
• is the use of violence? If it does, why and how? What are the boundaries that were placed on the use of violence?
• was machiavelli or Luke useful in planning your uprising? Explain.
The goal as described in a paper that can be long-term one, but he doesn’t have to be realistic: it must be achieved by means of mankind in a specific period of time. I have to assume that the Palestinian side has a weakness, and that the Israelis will use all its advantages to resist any uprising.
2. Write an essay about the theory of John Luke property.
• First, summarized the theory.
• Then explain whether you agree with the general principles of ownership, Luke.
• and then discuss the implementation of the principles of Luke a specific example. What example teach you about the theory of Luke?
Here’s the original:
Pick one of the following topics and write an essay of about 500-750 words (2-3 pages) responding to it. You should submit your paper in class on August 1. You can write your paper either in English or Arabic, at your choice.
- Create a plan for an intifada to liberate Palestine. Your paper should include the following:
- A description of your overall goal.
- A description of how you would try to reach the goal.
- Would you use violence? If so, how and why? What limits would you put on the use of violence?
- Were Machiavelli or Locke helpful in planning your intifada? Explain.
The goal you describe in the paper can be a long-range one, but it has to be realistic: it has to be achievable by human means in a specific amount of time. It must assume that the Palestinian side has weaknesses, and that the Israelis will use all their advantages to resist any intifada.
2. Write an essay on John Locke’s theory of property.
First, summarize the theory.
Then explain whether you agree with Locke’s general principles of property.
Then discuss an application of Locke’s principles to a specific example. What does the example teach you about Locke’s theory?
Yeah, we’re not in Kansas anymore.
I can’t resist mentioning that in his discussion of the State of War, Locke claims that it’s “lawful” to kill those who put us in this state (ST 18.10ff), adding that slavery is an example of the State of War (ST 24.2), and asserting that a person under slavery can permissibly commit suicide to escape it (ST 23.13ff).
I drew the inference in class that the view in question commits Locke to suicide bombing in certain circumstances: if you are under the equivalent of slavery, and your putative owner is not a lawful conqueror, then you can either kill him in order to resist him or commit suicide in order to escape him. But if we grant the preceding conditional (as ex hypothesi Locke does), it seems plausible to think that a conjunctive version of the consequent would also be true: if you are under the equivalent of slavery, and your putative owner is not a lawful conqueror, you can surely kill him and commit suicide (or kill him via the commission of suicide) in just those circumstances in which doing so would be the best or only way of both resisting and escaping him. I reserve comment on whether any of that applies to actual suicide bombings, whether in Israel/Palestine or anywhere else.
Interestingly, when Locke discusses conquest, he tells us that those victimized by it have a right to resist an unjust conqueror:
Whence it is plain that shaking off a power, which force, and not right hath set over anyone, though it hath the name of rebellion, yet is no offense before God, but is that which he allows and countenances, though even promises and covenants, when obtained by force, have intervened (ST 196.20-25, my emphasis).
“Shaking off” is an exact translation of the Arabic word intifada, and the advice Locke gives is an exact description of an accusation commonly made of the Palestinian leadership: that its “promises and covenants” are mere “hudnas” or temporary truces, insincerely offered in order to gain tactical advantages. Again, I reserve comment on the application to actual cases, whether in Israel/Palestine or anywhere else.
Unasked extra credit question: Is John Locke the grandfather of Hamas? I guess it’s a rather odd family if Locke is the grandfather, Ahmad Yassin and Abdel-Aziz Rantizzi are the joint “fathers,” and Mosab Hassan Yousef is the “son.”
Alternate title for this post: “Use the Force, Luke.”