Naw they always have a choice. That one person who ran a Taylor Swift fan account took a moral stance and is braver than 100% of any of the cowards in the IOF.

Every single IOF troop could get or and I wouldn’t shed a tear

deleted by creator

but I also doubt that a person that experiences severe PTSD and takes their own life was like “hell yeah let’s bulldoze some Palestinian kids!1!”

I dunno, he sounded pretty fucking happy to me bulldozing Palestinian homes with a shit-eating grin. Just laughing it up with his fellow genocider and appearing on talk shows to brag about bulldozing 5000 Palestinian homes. But it stopped being so funny when his partner-in-genocide got liquidated by the Resistance.

Hope his suicide was one of those botched hangings where the hanged suffocates for hours before finally dying.

This is nazi apologia. I mean like actual, 1945, “guards at Auschwitz” nazis. A lot of Germans developed psychological problems due to their crimes against humanity. It’s why they created death camps. And they all claimed they were “…just following orders.” Many more claimed it was a “necessary evil to eliminate the Judeo-Bolshevik hordes.”

Despite all this, nazis still got hanged after the war (especially if they were caught by the soviets). We can list Germans who didn’t commit atrocities or actively fought against the genocide being carried out. There’s hundreds of them listed on Wikipedia alone. The Germans knew what they were doing was wrong. They ignored morality because they wanted an excuse to steal from and kill their neighbors.

No. That’s bullshit. You can fully blame them. Nothing forced them to serve in the IOF.

To a small degree maybe, but I imagine if you’re not enthusiastic about killing children you get shuffled off to some other role reasonably quickly. As an institution they’re motivated to match the real bloodthirsty psychos with the hands-on jobs, and give the genocide-support roles to the squeamish ones.

yeah I commented above before I saw this it’s the same trend as that Frankie Boyle joke

American foreign policy is horrendous 'cause not only will America come to your country and kill all your people, but what’s worse I think, is that they’ll come back 20 years later, and make a movie about how killing your people made their soldiers feel sad~ boo hoo~

Americans making a movie about what Vietnam did to their soldiers is like a serial killer telling you what stopping suddenly for hitchhikers did to his clutch.

There are roughly 12 Israeli anarchist who use themselves as human shields in some capacity (according to badempanada, I have not checked this info) so not every Israeli. However, 12/9,425,624 or 0.000127% is actually much more damning than anything. Regardless those roughly 12 Israelis are cool with me, everyone else though… shit gets complicated

their cowardice is legendary

My first temptation was to say “JK Rowling writing a Jewish character ass name”, too, but apparently Mizrahi has been a fairly common (or at least not unheard of) surname for centuries. Wikipedia seems to indicate that Mizrahi is most often a Sephardic surname — originally pointing to someone who arrived to Iberia from the east — however it seems like there are also a number of actual Mizrahim with the surname Mizrahi, interestingly, including a number of American Jews of Middle Eastern descent. The most famous person named Mizrahi appears to be Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525), author of The Mizrachi, a very creatively titled supercommentary on Rashi’s commentary on the Torah. There was apparently also an Egyptian Olympic fencer in the 1920s named Joseph “Jack” Mizrahi, who I am very curious about now.

So in hindsight, you know, I don’t know if Jenny Mizrahi actually chose that name in the same way as Bibi’s dad was born Mileikowsky, or if ol’ Jenny was like born in Seppoland and was given a typical Anglo forename with the inherited surname Mizrahi. But you know, in any case, with that added context, “Jenny Mizrahi” seems only as silly a name as like, I dunno, Jason Costello or something.

Fanon right again

Many such cases. I’ve said it many times and will never stop, The Wretched of the Earth ^{(pdf DL link)} is fundamental required reading for anyone in a colonialist or colonized country (or both, in the case of settler-colonies). It is absolutely critical for a material understanding, and Fanon being a professional doctor and psychologist as well as a Marxist gives incredibly valuable foundational insights to not only a dialectical and historical materialist analysis of the material conditions, relations, and struggles in and against colonialism, but also of the superstructural political, social, cultural, and psychological outcroppings from the colonial relation and their mutual interpenetration and cyclical reinforcement.

It is also the direct theoretical lineage of so many liberation struggles which came after, including in the US with the BPP and BLA; and so it is quite literally necessary, in general and in particular in the places which inherited the legacy of those Fanonist struggles, for one to engage with in order to not be speaking nonsense about colonialism and the colonial relations which exist, and the contradictions and struggles therein. Fanon is no lesser than what Malcolm X was to the heart of the struggle and its history and theoretical body of work.

From there the next step is reading the criticism and self-criticism and analytical adaptations from the experiences and lessons of those struggles (Huey Newton, George Jackson, Maroon Shoatz, and newer generations such as Kevin Rashid Johnson), which are also necessary because their knowledge derives from practice and its lessons better than anyone who has not this experience. As Mao wrote in On Practice:

Marxists hold that man’s social practice alone is the criterion of the truth of his knowledge of the external world. What actually happens is that man’s knowledge is verified only when he achieves the anticipated results in the process of social practice (material production, class struggle or scientific experiment). If a man wants to succeed in his work, that is, to achieve the anticipated results, he must bring his ideas into correspondence with the laws of the objective external world; if they do not correspond, he will fail in his practice. After he fails, he draws his lessons, corrects his ideas to make them correspond to the laws of the external world, and can thus turn failure into success; this is what is meant by “failure is the mother of success” and “a fall into the pit, a gain in your wit”. The dialectical-materialist theory of knowledge places practice in the primary position, holding that human knowledge can in no way be separated from practice and repudiating all the erroneous theories which deny the importance of practice or separate knowledge from practice. Thus Lenin said, "Practice is higher than (theoretical) knowledge, for it has not only the dignity of universality, but also of immediate actuality." The Marxist philosophy of dialectical materialism has two outstanding characteristics. One is its class nature: it openly avows that dialectical materialism is in the service of the proletariat. The other is its practicality: it emphasizes the dependence of theory on practice, emphasizes that theory is based on practice and in turn serves practice. The truth of any knowledge or theory is determined not by subjective feelings, but by objective results in social practice. Only social practice can be the criterion of truth. The standpoint of practice is the primary and basic standpoint in the dialectical materialist theory of knowledge.

If one could hypothetically only read one thing about colonialism, the Wretched of the Earth would be firmly at the top of the list I give them. There is also Orientalism by Edward Said which is too invaluable for those in “the west”, but is more of a broad-focused general deconstruction of the historical notions of “the west” and “the east” and such politically-charged and inherently violent concepts as “western values” (as opposed to the values of these ‘others’) which Fanon touches on in its specific relations and expressions in colonialism, but Said does more broadly in its superstructure and relation to its base in the roots from whence it arose and was constructed out of the dialectical relationships of the history of europe, and of imperialism and colonialism, etc. It is more of a deconstruction through historical and dialectical materialist analysis of the broader history and concepts in and out-of-from “orientalism” than acting as a direct foundational analysis of and for the specific struggles which have been carried out as the Wretched of the Earth has.

Can’t speak for this example in particular, but they definitely do believe that. That’s why they think “there was never a state of Palestine” is a good argument for Zionism. The lines on the ground matter more to them than the rights of the people who lived there.