Even if it were moral, which it is not, this is strategically insane.

You postulate that you're up against a vastly superior foe--otherwise they wouldn't be the "oppressor"--and your solution is to fight settler colonialism with firepower?!

Leaving aside all your racial bigotry, all your excusing of atrocities as if the world were a video game going "Do you [1] Attack Israel and murder hundreds of civilians or [2] Keep being oppressed", this is just dumb.

If it were regular colonialism, and your only goal was to make it unprofitable to continue running the colony, one could argue whether violence was a plausible path to changing the equation. But if your goal is ethnic cleansing, genocide, or enfeeblement of the oppressors who live there, yeah, good luck with that.

(Fanon was speaking of regular colonialism. Did you miss that somehow?! Shakur's statement is made with all the absolutist bluster of a Trump campaign statement, and with similar levels of credibility. If you don't no-true-scotsman your way out of it, you should be able to list a half dozen counterexamples off the top of your head, if you're remotely versed in 20th century history. Indeed, much of 20th century history is exactly a refutation of Shakur as moral sensibilities overturned oppression and repression over and over again.)

Maybe you think the powerful countries should hegemonically impose their will from a position of even greater power to defeat those they deem to be settler-colonialists? Except isn't that always how the U.S. styles it's actions--it's always for freedom or something, even if in practice it's only sometimes that way?