This was a good read that might be a hard pill to swallow for some. For me, this all comes back to “Terrorist” and its weaponization as a word used to isolate the person moved by these perfect victims. They don’t support the killing of innocents, but terrorists? How could one support terrorists? It’s a line in the sand, but like sand, that line is washed away by the rising tide of the oppressors. People are redefined and recategorized regularly by the state to transform objectors into terrorists. Take a look at the UK, with Palestinian Action now being classified as a Terrorist Organization by the government, enabling all the antiterrorist powers of the state against them. What were these people guilty of? Painting a fraction of an RAF cargo plane red? Does this align with “Terrorist Activity”? If you think it doesn’t, then that’s simply too bad because now it does. The question it begs is, when do you become the terrorist? What lines need to be crossed or moved before you, the reader, the sympathizer, the empathetic voice, are transformed from objector to terrorist? The question isn’t, when do you decide to perform terrorist acts, but when do your acts become acts of terrorism? When does a young Palestinian boy, yearning for a life of freedom, become a young Palestinian terrorist, when he can throw a stone, hold a gun, fire a mortar shell? According to many Israelis, he becomes one the moment he is born. Simply being born Palestinian is an act of terrorism.

This is why we should be supportive of those active in the struggle. Every person who takes up an active part in the resistance, is doing so for every man, women, and child can’t.

it sounds kinda ambiguous at first but the article is a pretty good read imo. it depicts the “perfection” that is used to display victims n gaza and which (imo) was used against them when people fought back. The western leaders and press used this to switch from “tragedy” to “rightful counterattack” instead of understanding the horrendous situation in its entirety.