On September 05 2026 03:51 Jankisa wrote:Show nested quote +On September 05 2026 02:10 dyhb wrote:On September 05 2026 01:33 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 23:40 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 20:05 Jankisa wrote:On September 04 2026 03:49 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 03:39 WombaT wrote:On September 04 2026 03:10 dyhb wrote:On September 04 2026 02:39 Nebuchad wrote:On September 04 2026 02:12 dyhb wrote:
[quote]I get that Wehrmacht might be doing some land war in Asia type role, but according to the genocide-proponents in these spaces, it's the IDF actually going in there and doing the genociding. You think good people at the IDF can remain good and remain part of the IDF despite participating in a genocide? I'm talking about people who can't say they were just responsible for bringing in the general's coffee. There is no such thing as good people dyhb, that's an empty concept. There are good and bad actions. Anybody can do good actions and bad actions, or both. You'll probably do both in your life. But you do touch on a concept that is interesting in terms of colonialism, which is shame. The argument that people felt forced to keep going all-in on colonialism because if they did otherwise, it would demonstrate that what they had done up until now was a bunch of bad actions, and that they were "bad people" for doing them, has been made in anthropology. I don't know if it is true but it is, at the very least, interesting. You don't have to endorse the concept to know what somebody means when he says "There are undoubtedly good people in the IDF, at various levels of seniority." I would think good people would quit and become a whistleblower. But I'm looking into his why. There’s all sorts of reasons why one wouldn’t do that. Perhaps one thinks quitting will just see a monster replace you, perhaps you think you can ride out the political epoch and be in situ when something better arrives. You can be a decent person without being self-sacrificing, the latter is pretty rare indeed and is quite the high bar I think it's tough to be a good and decent person in that situation, no doubt. I just think you surrender both if you knowingly continue in your role when you know that is going on. You are a coward, a participant in war crimes, and potentially liable like all the "just following orders" lower-level people at Nuremberg. That's my bar for good people in the IDF: if it's a genocide and you know it, get out and become a whistleblower, or history ought not and likely will not judge you a good person. Assuming you can't stop it or wear a wire to become a better witness. In a hypothetical where you were an Israeli citizen who got drafted (let's say late 2010s) and then became a professional after doing the mandatory service, would you still be on board with being in IDF as of August 2026? The hypothetical would have to include whether internal IDF conversations, decisions, information, and policy exposed a deliberate plan of genocide. I don’t think that the people higher up and internal to the organization are in the same doubt as I am as an outside observer of scattered quotes by politicians and military personnel. I would hope for the courage to resign and whistleblow in the case of genocide, which would doubtless be the correct action. So your moral stance would be based only on intent, the exact same wording that this thread has been about for the last few pages, this is your exact line? I mean, seems like a very convenient cop out, but that's really nothing new from your side. For me, who was ostensibly more pro-Israel then pro-Palestine up to about a few weeks after October 7th I would have no hesitation resigning even if I had to face the military courts for it. If the organization I work for opens the war with statements of total siege, stopping any supplies for a population of 2+ million most of them children and then proceeds to indiscriminately bomb this area for 2 weeks killing tens of thousands of civilians saying they won't stop, I'm pretty confident that would make me quit. You wouldn't seek to lower civilian casualties in a war, or you don't understand that intending to cause more civilian casualties by design precludes that? You seem to be back in a loop, question was very simple but as usual you are being evasive. This is not a debate, I asked you a question, I even offered an example of an answer. You can choose to answer the question or not. The short answer is to ask better hypotheticals.
The longer answer starts by acknowledging that it *matters* whether Israel is committing a genocide. It changes things if a career military officer inducted in the late 2010s learns about it. There's nothing to do but quit and whistle-blow if politicians or senior IDF officers are deliberately aiming at increased Palestinian civilian casualties. There's plenty to do within the organization regarding reducing civilian death in urban warfare if there is no intention to eliminate the Palestinian people.
I restate and clarify to leave only the purposefully obtuse people in the dark.
|
EPT
