From this thread I see nothing to indicate they have a desire to destroy capitalism or kill people. Furthermore, I do not consider blocking someone's house from demolition a destructive or nihilistic action. It certainly can't be called Marxist.
The biggest reason houses are destroyed is because the people who live in them harbor terrorists, fund terrorists, support terrorists, or because years of palestinians looking the other way rather than reporting terrorists among them has made it neccessary. When others cannot distinguish the terrorists from the covilians because the terrorists dress like civilians and hide among civilians, and because the covilians tolerate and allow it, then there is no recourse but to assume they are all terrorists or supporters of terrrorists.
That's why the Geneva Conventions were created- to encourage groups and nations to field soldiers instead of terrorists, to convince them to put military installations as far from hospitals, churches, residences and schools as practical, so as to PREVENT civilian casualties. Everyone thinks they were created to help get POWs good treatment but that's not really true- that was the incentive, not the objective, of the GC. Since terrorists have a natural advantage over soldiers by virtue of being able to hide among civilians on either side, to use them as shields, and are free from rules of engagement- and soldiers by definition are distinguishable from civilians by dress and rules of engagement, there was little or no reason for nations and groups to field soldiers when terrorists were so much more useful. So the Geneva convention was designed to offer incentives to behave like soldiers instead of terrorists, incentives for nations to use armies in uniform traceable to them instead of using proxies that were untraceable.
When people refuse to clean up their own families, someone else will have to do it for them. When palestinians do not remove the terrorists among them, someone else has to do it for them. If they cleaned up their act instead of becoming more and more radical and more and more pro-terrorist, there would be no need for anyone else to do it and houses would be spared because they would not be refuges or shields for terrorists.
This girl didn't have a clue as to what was in the house, why it was being destroyed, or the decisions involved in making it come to pass- she was in no position to know these things. Instead of DEBATING the issue of the destruction of houses using speech and reason- which is her right at least here in the US- she chose to "take the law into her own hands" and interfere in a matter of national security- in a war xone, no less. She got what she asked for.
If she had been blocking a runway to prevent a US bomber from taking off, I would say she deserves what she asked for if she gets shot and dragged off. Why? Because that bomber may be needed more than she knows and men on the ground fighting to protect our liberties may depend on it. This situation is no different from blocking the Israelis in carrying out their tasks in fighting the murderers who have sheltered among palestinian civilians- frequently with their support.