But on the other hand, you will never get what you actually want unless you articulate what that is. What good is a ceasefire if it never leads to the end of Israeli apartheid?
Another argument for demanding what you ultimately want to achieve is that it makes the ceasefire position appear to be the moderate position, which worked well in the civil rights movement in the US. When the black power/BPP started organizing it made MLK look moderate and helped him win concessions from the government.
But yes my post was meant as a provocation to start a discussion.
What good is a ceasefire if it never leads to the end of Israeli apartheid?
well if you get a ceasefire your demands change, since you presumably got it by creating a very powerful movement that is now able to ask for more. One school of thought would have you make transitional demands which both materially improve people's lives and build class consciousness, so that they can escalate as the movement builds momentum and achieves demands.
A indefinite ceasefire - like the DPRK and South Korea have, I'll point out - is one step closer to a two-state solution. Lots of possibilities from there.
You are presupposing operation Al-Aqsa flood was intended/believed to be the initiation of decolonial people's war. The intention of Hamas was to 1) interrupt normalization, 2) terminally undermine internal and international confidence in Israel, and 3) force the world to witness Israeli genocide which it had been pointedly blind to before.
These goals are largely met, there is not momentum or preparation for wider armed struggle, and so a ceasefire and two-state is the immediate demand. In no world does Hamas believe that a two-state solution with Israel in control of >80% of historical Palestine is correct or the final goal.
I’m inclined to agree with you.
But on the other hand, you will never get what you actually want unless you articulate what that is. What good is a ceasefire if it never leads to the end of Israeli apartheid?
Another argument for demanding what you ultimately want to achieve is that it makes the ceasefire position appear to be the moderate position, which worked well in the civil rights movement in the US. When the black power/BPP started organizing it made MLK look moderate and helped him win concessions from the government.
But yes my post was meant as a provocation to start a discussion.
well if you get a ceasefire your demands change, since you presumably got it by creating a very powerful movement that is now able to ask for more. One school of thought would have you make transitional demands which both materially improve people's lives and build class consciousness, so that they can escalate as the movement builds momentum and achieves demands.
A indefinite ceasefire - like the DPRK and South Korea have, I'll point out - is one step closer to a two-state solution. Lots of possibilities from there.
You are presupposing operation Al-Aqsa flood was intended/believed to be the initiation of decolonial people's war. The intention of Hamas was to 1) interrupt normalization, 2) terminally undermine internal and international confidence in Israel, and 3) force the world to witness Israeli genocide which it had been pointedly blind to before.
These goals are largely met, there is not momentum or preparation for wider armed struggle, and so a ceasefire and two-state is the immediate demand. In no world does Hamas believe that a two-state solution with Israel in control of >80% of historical Palestine is correct or the final goal.