I have been reading a book about the history of Israel. One section was about people refusing to serve the army when Israel fought war in Libanon and Gaza because they didn’t agree with cruelties the Israel army conducted/ accepted. It made me think about the other way around: What if your country is attacked and people are being called to service by the army, would an anarchist refuse out of principle?
Quite some anarchist reject the idea of a centralized army so an anarchist might refuse out of principle. On the other hand, your country is being attacked. You can argue that accepting service is accepted because it is different from invading another country because you now have to defend your own country.
What are your thoughts on this?
For me anarchism not about opposing a particular state (eg. your own state, some enemy state, etc) but about opposing every state and “the state” in general.
From this perspective there’s always nuance when one “state attacks another”. What are the states? What is their relationship? Why is there conflict? How does this affect me and the planet more generally?
And so someone’s behavior could vary greatly depending on the situation. If you’re living in nazi germany and your “country” is attacked, don’t collaborate with the nazis. On the other hand if you’re invaded by nazis, it’s probably worthwhile to fight back - perhaps in the military or perhaps not. In many cases both states are terrible and it’s a struggle to just survive their violence. I’m using nazis at the typical extreme example but most states are built on similar principles: fascism, xenophobia, patriarchy, colonialism/imperialism, etc. So many conflicts fit into this general framework.
TL;DR: It depends on the situation.
I think this is the general conclusion in the topic that it depends on the situation. Maybe at the moment, emotion will also alter your decision at the moment. I suppose I would indeed never accept service to attack another country, only to defend my own country/land.