Без названия

It. Literally. Doesn't. Matter.

Spoiler alert: trans people can be antisemitic!

Franz Kafka was a real person who died not too long ago, and just because a trans person relates to his writings doesn't mean they can claim he's trans. It's not the same as relating to a fictional character. You can't 'headcanon' an actual person. I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman. He was an actual person, not a fictional character you can project on. An treating Franz Kafka like a fictional character you can project any label onto and separate him from his actual life is dehumanization and *also* antisemitic.

It's no different than queer people co-opting Anne Frank's memory and erasing her story to just herald her as a "bi icon" when she never had the chance to live long enough to label herself. Queer gentiles need to stop dehumanizing Jewish people and turning them into blank slates they can project onto.

I don't care how much you relate- he wasn't trans, don't call him a woman.

At some point relatively recently, people seem to have come to the conclusion that you can't empathize with a character (or real fucking person, in this case, and I cannot stress how gross that is) unless you're just like them. "Oh, I, a nonbinary person can identify with this cishet man? He must actually be nonbinary!" "Oh, I, an autistic person, can identify with this Ambiguously Quirky™ person? She must actually be autistic!"

Being able to relate to a person--real or fictional--who isn't just like you is a good thing. It's good that you see yourself in the writings of a cisgender man! Maybe it will teach you that cis people aren't the enemy. It's good that an autistic character resonates with NT people! Maybe they'll gain new insight into their autistic friends and family!

It's called empathy, and it's so important to understand that you are going to see your experiences reflected in people who are unlike you. Those connections are important. Deciding that Kafka must be a trans woman because you're a trans woman is missing the entire fucking point. It means that you do, in fact, have some things in common with a cisgender man, and conversely, it means that cisgender men have things in common with you. To flatten them out so they're just like you is missing out on so much of what they have to say.

People are beautiful and rich and layered and the fact that we can connect with other people and share experiences despite how different we are? That's the whole fucking point. That's what makes life worth living.

Because we've seen that before. We see it very often because it's a fundamental premise of some incredibly antisemitic forms of Christianity, and when it turns out that we're real people with real opinions and real beliefs and real feelings who don't just exist to validate someone else's perception of who and how we could be, people don't just abandon their pretense at allyship, they get violent.

It's also a common failing in how the Holocaust is taught. People like to present this lens of "it was random violence that came out of nowhere and could've happened to anyone. It could've happened to you! Imagine if you'd been one of the victims! That would've been a tragedy wouldn't it?" And the thing is, that's bullshit. If you were just a random German citizen at the time? You would've been one of the perpetrators. And it was a tragedy in and of itself; it doesn't become a tragedy by imaging a scenario in which people who were perfectly safe would've actually been potentially in danger (never killed, of course, because Holocaust education is also commonly sanitized, which is a different rant).

Edited to take out a rant that was in drafts and got added to this by mistake, but. Well, the Tl;dr, since that's been reblogged

No, but everything in his writing that gets commented on is something that speaks to feeling out of place in society, or something that conveys emotional or social vulnerability.

So for someone to say “because of these things I think she was a trans woman teehee!” they are implicitly 1) denying that any other aspect of identity might cause these feelings, and 2) asserting that if someone feels these things, they must be a woman.

Ignoring his Judaism AND implying that men can’t feel alienated or vulnerable and if they do they must actually have been a woman. Doesn’t seem very respectful or deconstructing of gendered norms to me.

In England, during the lifetime of William Shakespeare (and beyond, I don't know how long it lasted though), it was, legitimately, the majority belief that Jewish men menstruated.

Still in pursuit, we followed the ball toward a small lake in Motor World that had been earmarked for a fleet of tiny bumper boats for children. The area wasn’t open yet, but the empty boats were being tested and floated on the surface. The ball soared over the grass and smashed into several of them, scattering the others with rippling waves from the impact, which launched some of the boats several feet in the air.

Charlie and Ken waded into the water looking for the hatch. After some difficulty, they got it open. Charlie pulled Frank out by grabbing him under his armpits like a baby. Frank crawled up the bank, coughing and sputtering. He splayed across the grass as we all stared at the ball, which bobbed in the water like it was attached to a fishing lure.

We did not ask for the inspector’s report, nor did we ever hear of one being filed. Ken Bailey returned to Canada. The snow-makers cleared away the PVC. Told to dispose of the Bailey Ball, they rolled it into the woods, where it remained for many years."

People in my mentions: Okay, but what if the Jews are actually bad this time?

Me: Cool rationalization, still Nazi.

At the 1985 Labour party meet, the motion to support LGBT rights as a party was passed due to a block vote from mining unions.

You talk like this is something new that we've never faced before as a people, lol. You understand that words like scapegoat, colonia, diaspora, ghetto, genocide, etc, were literally invented to describe our circumstances, right?

Who the fuck do you think you're talking to? Goyim think they're so special asking the Jews if we're accustomed to people hating us, lmao. Shut the fuck up, dumbass.

Read theory. Read the commentaries on the theory. If you don't understand, that proves you haven't read enough. If you disagree with any of it, that proves you're a bad person.

Follow the right influencers. Support the right politicians. Follow the leaders of our movement. Until we decide they're bad people, anyway.

March in our protests. Commit to our boycotts. Donate to our causes. Don't ask what we hope to achieve or how we think we're going to get that effect from what we're doing. Only a bad person would ask those questions.

You've probably seen people online spouting nonsense like "Israel killed most of its own people on October 7th. The Hannibal Directive proves it. Hamas didn't do the massacre - Israel did."

Let's go over what the Hannibal Directive actually was, its status on 10/7/23, and how stories about it have been dishonestly spun.

The Hannibal Directive was issued in 1986. Here's what it actually said:

"א. בזמן מחטף הופכת המשימה העיקרית חילוץ חיילינו מידי החוטפים גם במחיר של פגיעה או פציעת חיילינו. ב. במידה ויזוהו החוטפים והחטופים ולא נענו לקריאות לעצור, יש לבצע ירי נק"ל (נשק קל), על מנת להוריד את החוטפים לקרקע, או לעצור אותם. ג. אם לא עצר הרכב או החוטפים, יש לירות לעברם ירי נשק קל בבודדת, במכוון, על מנת לפגוע בחוטפים גם אם המשמעות פגיעה בחיילינו."

"A. During an abduction, the main mission becomes rescuing our soldiers from the captors, even at the cost of harming or injuring our own soldiers. B. If the captors and captives are identified and do not heed calls to stop, use small arms fire to bring down the captors or halt them. C. If the vehicle or captors do not stop, use aimed small arms fire to hit the captors, even if that means harming our own soldiers."

This isn't particularly controversial in principle. A captured soldier becomes a massive piece of political leverage, a tool for extortion, and a severe threat to national security - and accepting the risk of injuring your own people during a rescue attempt is a standard, tragic reality of combat. The underlying logic is standard across professional militaries.

Note that the directive as written applied specifically to soldiers. That distinction matters when we get to October 7.

From its inception, the directive was controversial within Israel. Some commanders refused to pass it down, as they were permitted to do under the Spirit of the IDF booklet. In 2011, Chief of Staff Benny Gantz clarified that the directive did not authorize deliberately shooting a captured soldier - it aimed to stop terrorists from escaping with them, not to kill the hostage. The directive was revised several times, with legal reviews consistently recommending every effort be made to avoid harming soldiers who were hostages.

In 2016, Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot officially cancelled it.

It was long gone on 10/7/23.

A Haaretz investigation, though, identified three specific instances where local commanders invoked a Hannibal-style order at points along the Gaza border: at the Erez crossing, the Re'im army base, and the Nahal Oz outpost.

The orders were primarily aimed at striking the gaps in the border fence and vehicles moving back into Gaza to stop the mass transfer of hostages. Because Hamas was taking civilian hostages, not soldiers -local commanders were adapting a soldier-focused doctrine on the fly, in chaos, without official authorization. That context matters for understanding what actually happened.

So what does the evidence actually confirm?

The UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry confirmed at least 14 Israelis likely killed by IDF forces. The Be'eri incident (where a tank commander ordered fire on a house holding hostages, killing 13 of 14) is the most documented single case.

These deaths are real, they are serious, and the officers responsible should face accountability - that's the only acceptable reaction to a friendly fire incident.

At no point has any investigation found that the IDF deliberately targeted Israeli civilians.

Every documented IDF-caused death on October 7 occurred in the context of combat decisions made to stop Hamas from dragging hostages back into Gaza. These decisions were chaotic, unauthorized, and in some cases probably a bad call. A commander who orders fire on a vehicle he believes contains Hamas fighters and accidentally kills Israelis in the process has made a bad decision, but he has not committed a premeditated massacre of his own people.

There is no evidence -NONE WHATSOEVER - that the IDF identified Israeli civilians and chose to kill them. This claim exists solely to launder the responsibility of Hamas (and others from Gaza) for the atrocities visited upon Israeli civilians on 10/7/23.

The total October 7 death toll was approximately 1,200 Israelis. That number is documented and forensically verified. The 14+ deaths caused accidentally by the IDF are worth investigating and accountability should be sought- but they are not an alternative explanation for the massacre.

That's how Hamas supporters spun it.

In July 2024, when Haaretz published an investigation into Hannibal-style orders at those three military sites on October 7, this was journalism. Israeli reporters, using IDF documents and soldier testimony, holding their own military accountable for specific decisions made in specific locations.

The article did not claim Israel caused most of the deaths. It did not claim Hamas was innocent. It reported on a real institutional failure at the Erez crossing, Re'im base, and Nahal Oz outpost.

Within two weeks, that article had been shared over 16,000 times on X, almost entirely by accounts using it to argue that Israel, not Hamas, was responsible for the October 7 massacre.

Hamas supporters have elevated this sort of dishonesty to an art form: they take legitimate accountability journalism, remove every qualifier, delete the specific scope, and present it as proof of something the article explicitly does not claim and try to make the IDF responsible for the crimes committed by Hamas and other Gazans.

The people doing this aren't engaging with the Haaretz investigation. They're borrowing its brand as a prop to make the absurd allegation seem credible. It isn't - and anyone who actually read the article knows that.

The claim that Israel killed its own people on October 7 isn't a good-faith misreading of a complicated story. It's a conspiracy theory.

It takes a documented atrocity with 1,200 named victims, forensic evidence, and survivor testimony, and replaces it with a fairy tale where the Jews did it to themselves.

That's not skepticism. That's not "asking questions."

The people spreading this libel aren't engaging with the Haaretz story or the UN or any of the investigations they pretend to cite without having read them. They're using the language of accountability journalism to run interference for a massacre.

~6,000 people including Hamas, other militant groups, and Gazan civilians burned families alive, took 251 hostages, and committed widespread torture and sexual violence on October 7. That happened. The Hannibal Directive didn't make it happen. Israel didn't make it happen. Hamas made it happen.

They filmed themselves doing it, they livestreamed it, they called their families to brag about it, they celebrated it in Gaza, their leaders praised it and promised to repeat it. They want the credit for their massacre.

Later, she admits her problem is with "hebs"

She's a Republican.