"Volunteers, Volunteers!"

 

The issue is whether the imposed "peace" is better than being bombed flat. I would prefer the Last Stand, the martyr's death, but that's easy for me to say: I never had kids, I'm not tight with my family, I don't even have the responsible accountability of keeping a pet. Nobody depends on me, nobody has any right to miss me very much. I could get shot by a stormtrooper and nobody would be deprived thereby. 

 

(Except I should've thought about life insurance before I turned 50, so not only will my demise profit nobody but my family will have to pay for my cremation and burial themselves: if my body is never found they'll get a dead Davey for free.)

 

Someone who is the sole support of the family should try *not* to get run over by a tank. Someone with two kids who gets no child support should be careful about what websites you visit on your employer's time. That kind of responsibility is the opposite of freedom. But most of the world's cultures are built around the idea of responsibility. So yes, you want to be able to tell your grandkids (or somebody's) that you stood up for what is right, but if you own kids get homeless, sick, and dead because of your actions you have failed as a parent. You can't afford real freedom and real dignity: you owe everything to those you pledged your soul to. 

 

If participation in a cross-border pogrom gets your village exploded you have failed your neighbors. The survivors especially. And if you were explicitly complicit in that risk then you have not only failed your neighbors, you have sacrificed them. And if your own kids were harmed because of what you did you might be a good Palestinian (or whatever) but you are also a damn fool.

Like I said, that's why I never had kids, never took on a lot of responsibility, and never sought any power over anyone else, so that I can be free. At least as far as my own behavior is concerned.

Nobody is going to lose anything if I set myself on fire by the courthouse, and nobody has any right to ask me not to. But there are some things I simply won't do because it violates my version of the Golden Rule, like riot in my own neighborhood or blow up thre local police station. One of the reasons I feel justified in demanding my own freedom is that I arrogate no control over anyone else's life, or as little as possible.

So that's the issue I have: knowing what would happen to Gaza if Hamas did that they did it anyway. Surely they knew what they were getting their family and friends into: since 1967 the Zionist Entity has loudly been the biggest gorilla on the block. If you value your life, the lives of your children, your entire blipping city, you might not want to piss them off. And if you consciously choose to sacrifice them in the name of Principle you'd better hope they die quick. And wanting to get those 72 virgins seems like a feeble motive for all that.

Look at what's happening in Gaza. Can you say, which ever side you're on, that your tactical goals are worth all that human suffering? Isn't all that a bit sordid?

 

I can say "Bite me!" and "So what!" because not only am I god damned independent but I'm also a curmudgeonly misanthrope who looks forward to human extinction. A few thousand people squashed by rubble brings us one step close to nullity. So. Do you want an asshole like me getting your family blown up?

 

Terrorism is not the answer. That's too damn arrogant. Organize a general strike, or a broadly-based revolution. Or just kill yourself quietly somewhere, like I'll do eventually.

 

There's nothing liberating or empowering about being "ethnically cleansed." And if your people need ethnic cleansing let them tell you so. Don't go volunteering civilians for it like it's a Good Thing.