Don't Fight. Love!

Not fighting for anything is perfectly fine in my book.  Not fighting for something evil is even better.  Love, solidarity, and resistance are the most ethical tools, and the only ones that goodness will ever demand.

I wrote this on a thread showing multitudes of Jewish anti-Zionists protesting against Israel.  These scenes are real (confirmed by Grok).  I've seen many other (often mind blowing) protests and gatherings by anti-Zionist orthodox Jews (filling giant stadiums, dancing with joy while burning Israeli flags).

https://x.com/voiceofrabbis/status/2026493784004194644

It should also be noted that deep leftist (Socialist and Communist) Jews have also always opposed Zionism.  Only bourgeois liberals and conservatives were sucked in.  (And perhaps a few anarchist romantics, like the young Noam Chomsky, though it's hard to see how someone so rational and intelligent could have been so fooled.)

I was replying to a Zionist on that thread who wrote criticizing these anti-Zionist orthodox Jews.  She wrote, "Orthodox Jews don't believe in fighting for anything.  They were the first to bard the Umshlagplatz and walk peacefully into the "Showers."  Sabras fight for their country, and defend Israelis, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim."  I'd also argue with the veracity of that claim, Zionists fight for Zionists and persecute or slaughter everyone else.  And this includes the persecution of anti-Zionist Jews in their midst.

(And perhaps murder too?  It is interesting that the Jewish temple in Australia that was bombed in 2025 was also an anti-Zionist synagogue.  Why did the bombers pick that one?  It's already well known that a Muslim was one of the key defenders.)

What then would I say about noble "defenders."  I can't think of any such in US history, US was born in genocide and has spent most of it's existence fighting imperialist wars.  I might well have been better off born in the lands of my ancestors, including Norway.  But there are some I'd consider noble, like the Vietnamese, defending their homeland first against French imperialists and later US imperialists.  What about them?*

I still believe that goodness does not demand killing other people.  There is no cause, even personal self defense, defense of children, defense of Country (ie regime) which goodness demands killing other people for.  One can be a conscientious objector to the very end, and I believe that's perfectly fine, even probably the best option always.

But I would hold that goodness turns a blind eye to limited violence and murder which are done in the name of honorable self defense--including defense of one's own life and 'country'--assuming you or they are not engaged in commensurate evil as well.  So, at best, goodness neither celebrates nor condemns honorable self defense.  Because we live in our own self-justifying information bubbles, it can be a tough calculation to apply violence when and only when it is ethically permissible.  Goodness does not require that we be capable of such calculations.  Meanwhile, conscientious objection is always good, and I believe it is always the best approach.  We don't need to put our stamp on the world.  The world will evolve just as well without such stamps, even if they are honorable ones.

(*The Vietnamese example is the best one, and there are many others clearly similar to that.  I would go further and argue that the Russian Invasion of Ukraine was also done in justifiable and honorable self-defense of Russia and Russians in formerly Russian territories, while Ukrainian fighting for Donbas and Crimea and NATO membership is not, it is an extension of Western Imperialism.  As I said, these calculations can be difficult, but that's the way I see it.  Pure goodness would neither praise nor condemn Russian self defense, but I am not pure goodness and I see Western Imperialism as the ultimate evil of our time and so I praise Russia for resisting it.)