Seriously how are they wrapping their heads around that the racist hegemon wants to wipe both Palestine and Russia off the earth, and is funding their enemies in both cases?? Do they think the US doesn't know where their interests lie?
US: Allied to Israel and Ukraine. Gives them billions in weaponry. Consistently votes against Palestinian statehood. Funds the murder of countless Palestinians.
Russia: Consistently votes in favor of Palestinian statehood. The USSR even fought a short war against Israel in the 1960s.
I was talking with two friends yesterday. Apparently they always supported Palestinians, but once they saw Hamas soldiers screaming Allah Ackbar and kidnapping civilian women, they are of the opinion that they're not better than Israelis. "It's just two Nazi Germanies fighting against eachother." Was a banger I heard during that discussion. Another banger: "You don't see Ukranians murder and kidnap civilians, do you? They are respectful of POW."
I tried my best arguing; to no avail. Whatever I said, I was countered with smth like, "well i support them too, but this kind of force is totally unjustified". So in short I failed the argument.
“You don’t see Ukranians murder and kidnap civilians, do you? They are respectful of POW.”
Like fuck they are. Even if we use only the Ukrainian sources, they routinely report Russian KIA:POW ratio as being way, sometimes even multiple times, higher than even during the most brutal fightings in the history of humanity.
Meaning they, by their own admission, either kill or do not take prisoners.
Thanks for this; I shall use this knowledge next time I speak to them. Tho honestly I think my energy is better spent elsewhere.
Whenever anyone does this, I like to use the metaphor of an older woman defending herself from a purse-snatcher. "Is their violence the same?"
It's very morally satisfying for ppl from colonizer countries to equate the violence of self defense, with that of colonizers... and euroamerikkka (and Isn'treal by proxy) is the greatest purse-snatcher in history.
Counterpoint, there is no such thing as civilian Israelis. They are all criminal settlers occupying stolen land and condoning genocide against the people they have stolen from.
Well, I kinda get your point.. Though in all honesty I couldn't blame children for being born there. I'd argue there are civilians.
I'm supportive of Hamas' and Palestine's fight for liberation though, just to clarify.
To quote other commenters in another thread.
What does it mean to be a “civilian” when the violence against Palestine is settler-colonial ethnic cleansing?
I do not advocate for the actual assault of children, but the “civilians” in the settlements are the perpetrators of decades long genocide. People who not only do not care that countless Palestinians, children included, have been murdered, but actually support it. It is not a meaningful distinction in this type of conflict.
They put themselves there because they are ideologically committed to ethnically cleansing the land of Palestinians and taking it for themselves. They are thieves and murderers and actions against them by Palestinian forces is self defence.
I agree, what Palestine and Hamas are currently doing are the only actions left to them by their oppressors. After so many atrocities committed by Israel and so much hatred and violence against them, the Palestinians literally are fighting for survival. Thus, I couldn't, in good conscience, tell them to 'dial down their violence' or whatever it is shitlibs want from them.
And thanks for ur comment. Imma think abt meaningful distinctions.
Honestly the idea that Hamas fighters or Israelis are intrinsically better as the others people is seems to me like a bizarre discussion. Like tbh I don't even know what people are trying to say when they say this or what they could possibly think they are proving. The question of support for Palestinians is not one of their individual leaders' or soldiers' personal virtue but one of judgement of support for relatively progressive forces in the actual historical context.
Settler-colonialists are intrinsically a reactionary force, but their children have not chosen this. Honestly I feel like I'm going a bit insane as I've also seen people celebrating videos where parents are tortured and murdered in front on their children. I've also seen quite a bit of anti-antisemitism on the comments sections of the videos. The psychologically healthy reaction to that is to be shaken and to see it as evil. The reasonable response is also to know that Liberation has nothing to do with that and does not necessitate it, is not invalidated by it.
That has nothing to do with the right to self-defense or general support for the Palestinian liberation cause, given that some people seem to making the massive jump to concluding that it means that self-defense necessarily implies or condones or means that we shouldn't think as fucked the torture and murder of children and sexual violence against women hostages, which is just mind-boggling and twisted. I completely fail to see what the righteousness of Palestinian liberation has to do with this. If the PLO has tortured children, any reasonable non-psychopathic individual would have said that is fucked and unacceptable and reactionary, while also recognizing that that doesn't affect in the slightest the need to support Palestinian Liberation when and wherever the opportunity presents itself. If that was true of the old PLO, it should be infinitely more true of Hamas.
Nor does it have to do with hang-wringing over the the death of civilians, as the support for armed struggle against any imperialist or fascist power has to recognize that those are inevitable. There were atrocities committed by the Red Army during the conquest of the Third Reich, but that did not affect the undeniable legitimacy of the Soviet cause. We can also recognize that it is an unavoidable feature of the asymmetrical warfare that Hamas will have to use what will be described as 'terroristic methods', but which are just a particular type of guerilla terroristic methods (as aiming for terror, psychological shock) as are used by every single power in any war.
"im criticizing Palestinian resistance, because right now they're actually fighting back and the worng civilians are being killed"
Never saw so many people condemn this kind of atrocities by the regime. Also, saying that "their children have not chosen this" reminds me of the apologies on fascists. I can tell you yes, under mussoloini his ideology was mandatory so the people didnt choose it, but on the other hand they were affected irreversibly. To this day the ideology survived, and not by any mandatory dictate of the government.
On your comment more generally, we dont get to choose how the oppressed people fight back.
TLDR: the israelis are still genocidal, they act on their own will whether they are children or not.With all due respect, I think there a lot of serious confusion running through your comment, to the extent that I can make out what you 'argument' is supposed to be as it seems to be jumping a bit inexplicably between unrelated pointed (although feel free to clarify). I really not sure what your points about Mussolini and ideology being mandatory or not are trying to say. Like are you saying that the children should be killed because they were subject to fascist propaganda? Should every Hindu child be murdered because they subject to fascist Hindutva propaganda? Should every Ukrainian child? Islamism serves a similar function to fascism in Islamic societies. Should every child whose parents are Islamist been killed? Wtf are you talking about? Like how the fuck can anyone thing this kind of reasoning is not only moronically fucking stupid, and insane, but also evil is beyond me and speaks volumes about how far the modern left has fallen in nihilism.
Nowhere have I criticized Palestinian resistance, but you seem to be inferring that, from, I guess, the recognize of the trivially obvious fact of how reactionary Hamas are (just read their history or charter). So what? Nothing at all could ever be criticized if there's a power imbalance? That's insane. The Khmer Rouge originally were the underdogs, as were the Shining Path in Peru. If they should obviously not get a pass, it's not clear to me why Islamists should without a lot of argument. And yes, if a particular form of your resistance is killing children, then your resistance is not progressive or politically sensible to that degree. That in no way means that Palestinian right to self-defence should not be unequivocally supported, but that doesn't contradict in the slightest condemnation of certain acts that any sane Marxist.
This also says alot about your ignorance of actual historical Marxist and Bolshevik policy on these points. The Bolsheviks never supported any national liberation movement unconditionally. It had to be a relatively progressive force. In certain cases they made mistakes, such as in the degree of their support for, say, the Guomingdang. The 20th century has provided ample evidence that bourgeois national liberation movements are dangerous, though in many circumstances should be provided critical support, in the interests of creating a context where communist movements can develop. We could also take another Islamist group, the FLN in Algeria. On the one hand, they were the only feasible body capable of defeating the French colonizers, but they detracts in no way from how intrinsically reactionary they were socially or politically, as evidenced by the fact that they massacred, tortured, wiped out the Communist revolutionaries. Hamas would do the exact same if they had a full state of their own. Specific national liberation movements should be supported to the extent that they are progressive forces in their historical context.
Suffice it to say that if the question is whether it is ever justified to kill children I'd say the answer is in 99.99999999999% of cases a resounding "obviously fucking not you fucking moronic psychopath", not only because of moral and ethical considerations which are not changed by the political circumstances, but also because it is politically stupid of the highest degree, unless you are a fascistic Islamist group whose political ideology is intrinsically apocalyptic and whose long-term political interests are in accelerated destabilization of the geopolitical region, which will only benefit Islamists, not leftists and so not, in the long-term, the interests of the masses who live in this region.
People making some kind of mysterious jump in their 'reasoning' from the correct point that 'Palestinians in Gaza have the right to defend themselves, and the only way they have to currently do so is through political and military structures which are dominated by Hamas', to 'we cannot recognize as evil and depraved the torture, rape, and the murder of children'. Or the insane assumption that they are actually politically productive.
There's a similarly piss-poor, vague, ambiguous suggestion you seem to be making when you compare a point to fascism apologism (first off, if you are actually accusing me of that, go fuck yourself with a cactus), which is bizarre. The fact that a fascism engages in poor reasoning by using that kind of statement proves absolutely nothing, and thinking otherwise is obviously confused. I don't give a fuck what it reminds you over. Refute the point or don't, but don't pretend you are by vague associations. I can make the exact same kind of argument to someone who says 'vegetarism is good' but responding 'reminds me of something Hitler apologists would say, as Hitler was a vegetarian'. You seem to be making no less insane a 'point' there. If you really that stuck at a level of reasoning by vibes, associations, connotations, or that you cannot recognize the obvious point that different people can use the same set of words in different contexts with radically different purposes, meanings, and that in one case it could be done logically and in another illogically, then you really need to read some fucking theory. If we were talking about a hypothetical Eastern European society which the US was bombing, and the main opposition force was an explicitly fascist party, then I wonder how many people on this site would support it, though it seems to be as self-evident a political proposition as there could be for a Marxist that fascists should not be supported under any circumstances. In that case, we could still make arguments
The current strategy of Hamas, which restrains that of all others in Gaza because it is dominant, is not the optimal one imo, though I'm not there, though that doesn't seem to matter when we make the obvious realization that it will lessen, not strengthen the likelihood of the construction of actual secular socialist movements. That being said, Hamas is the fault of Israel, and Israel bears ultimate responsibility for what is happening. Palestinians are in a completely fucked situation where armed resistance can only happen through or in conjunction with Hamas. The united from with Hamas and Islamic Jihad from the more progressive Palestinian groups is the only thing they can do. I agree. But that does not mean in any way that the regressive aspects and tactics they use, which are not going to aid the communist movement of history in the long-term, should not be recognized.
You last comment seems to be going from a triviality to a depraved insanity. Children do have a (developing) will. Yes. Fucking obviously. But going from that to 'they are genocidal' is such a vague jump in argument. They are born into the structures of Israeli apartheid, and the apartheid program of much of Israeli society. But frankly, Westerners on here do not benefit less in many cases than many poorer Israelis from structures of exploitation. Does anyone here think it would actually be either morally or politically non-fucked to arbitrarily torture and murder their children? Is a working class baby born in Detroit genocidal? Some people have literally lost their mind, and are nihilistic ultras larping as Marxists.
We could also take another Islamist group, the FLN in Algeria. On the one hand, they were the only feasible body capable of defeating the French colonizers, but they detracts in no way from how intrinsically reactionary they were socially or politically, as evidenced by the fact that they massacred, tortured, wiped out the Communist revolutionaries.
can we talk about this?
The Algerian Communist Part and the FLN cooperated during the Algerian War against French occupation in the National Liberation Army. This was purely tactical from both their perspectives, as Communism is inherently anti-Islamist, and Islamism is inherently anti-communist.
Once the French withdrew and Algeria had formal independence, the FLN was in power and banned the Communist Party in 1962. They were forced underground and would be continuously repressed and would never regain their former support or influence. This was continued once Boumédiène took power. They have never since regained substantial popularity and this was seriously obstructed not only by government repression but also by the rise of Islamism more generally in the Middle East and North Africa, which have presented themselves as radical alternatives based on purifying return to a mystical past and the obliteration of the distinction between religious and political institutions, diverting radical energy from communist movements, which might remind you in several respects of another political movement of European origin.
The Algerian Communist Part and the FLN cooperated during the Algerian War against French occupation in the National Liberation Army. This was purely tactical from both their perspectives, as Communism is inherently anti-Islamist, and Islamism is inherently anti-communist.
The history of Algeria and the PCA didn't start on 1st November, The most of the PCA members were of settler pieds noirs, and it was a part of the PCF. second thing is that the FLN is not Islamist never claimed to be, it's just that Algerians (especially the ones that were oppressed by French colonialism) were Muslims, the revolution was liberating Muslims from oppression.
Once the French withdrew and Algeria had formal independence, the FLN was in power and banned the Communist Party in 1962. They were forced underground and would be continuously repressed and would never regain their former support or influence.
the FLN banned every single other party after Independence, one party system.
the rise of Islamism more generally in the Middle East and North Africa, which have presented themselves as radical alternatives based on purifying return to a mystical past and the obliteration of the distinction between religious and political institutions, diverting radical energy from communist movements
The rise of Islamism was funded by the US and Saudi Wahhabism, the FLN went to war with 2 Islamist parties during the civil war, once again proving the FLN to not be Islamist.
I honestly thought you were going bring up Messali El-Hadj's party or the FFS, did you get your information from french sources? because that's what it seems like, they always bring up the "omagaad they were basically like ISIS they ate babies".
You’re correct on the first point. That’s a typo on my part. Thanks for pointing it out. They were of course nationalist. But their nationalism was still ultimately inconsistent with communist politics. My brain was fuzzy lol as I’d spent all day explaining to ultras what Islamism is.
In really not sure what you think is being established by your second comment. Are you saying they were not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? Because that is self-evidently false. Fascists also banned all other parties along with communist parties to establish a one party state. Are they now therefore not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? The fact that it may (or not) be valid for communists to only allow one party under socialism does not seem to imply that all one-party states are equal. Additionally they were explicit in their anti-communism. Their rule extinguished the potential for communist politics, along with the rise of Islamist. The installation fo ineffective and corrupt nationalist governments has not generally led to communist political ascendency, but rather to Islamist ascendency, as the latter benefited more from the perceived illegitimacy of these governments.
I’m not really sure what your point is by noting that there were a lot of pied-noirs. Should Jor Slovo have been axed after he was part of the armed struggle against apartheid because he was white even though a communist? Judging the political progressiveness of someone like that is fundamentally identitarian and has far more in common with contemporary postmodern and post structural or general liberal, Soc dem and ultra leftist identity politics. It is fundamentally non-Marxist. What matters is how that individual positions themself politically and whether, in this case, they are a class or colonial race traitor. Otherwise kind of position which simply says ‘they white therefore they bad’ is strangely and perversely moralistic to me, and just reproduced the race essentialism, rather than taking a historical materialism view on racial identity, which doesn’t allow that kind of blanket conclusion. You are correct that the PCF has had persistent issues with racism and chauvinism still its inception. So did Engels, frankly. I don’t see how this invalidates communism as preferable to nationalism or indicated that the PCL was in no way communist in its ideology or politics.
My sources are French, Algerian and from Algerian Communist and non-communist friends and acquaintances. You of course correct that the general French liberal and conservative reaction to the nationalist is to see them as satanic. That being said, the FNL did completely did commit atrocities against progressive opponents and civilians. The fact that western liberals or conservatives oppose a group due to their own interests in no ways means that said group’s long term interests are coherent in any long term sense with those of communists.
This kind of argument is very weird to me. It would carry over to the case of the Iranian revolution and the Islamist’s. Should the fact that they were, in a broad sense, attempting to ‘liberate’ Iranians from Western imperialism, therefore they should be viewed positively or as progressive? They are an even more prefect example of a diversion of radical energy from a growing communist movement to radical reactionary mass movements that then brutally crushed all Iranian communist groups through torture, rape and assassination.
They were of course nationalist. But their nationalism was still ultimately inconsistent with communist politics.
Yeah, of course, Arab nationalism is inconsistent with communist politics, but the FLN was as nationalistic as much as it was communist, it has gone to wars with other Arab countries, voted against them, and stood with them depending on the condition.
Are you saying they were not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties? Because that is self-evidently false. Fascists also banned all other parties along with communist parties to establish a one party state. Are they now therefore not anti-communist because they also banned other political parties?
well are they fascist Islamists because they banned all parties including communist parties? you look at the policies of the FLN and its relations to define that, not if they banned a party or not. Stalin killed a number of opportunists and Trotskyists after the revolution, does that make him a fascist? you're not making sense.
Additionally they were explicit in their anti-communism. Their rule extinguished the potential for communist politics, along with the rise of Islamist. The installation fo ineffective and corrupt nationalist governments has not generally led to communist political ascendency, but rather to Islamist ascendency, as the latter benefited more from the perceived illegitimacy of these governments.
No, that is not an evidence of being anti communist, the Islamist reactionaries were funded by Al Qaeda and the US and Wahhabists, the rise of Islamist terrorists and Nationalistic terrorists in the balkans post Yugoslavia doesn't mean that Yugoslavia repressed communism.
I’m not really sure what your point is by noting that there were a lot of pied-noirs. Should Jor Slovo have been axed after he was part of the armed struggle against apartheid because he was white even though a communist?
Algeria is not Apartheid south Africa, the Settlers in Algeria were more recent and the colonizer crimes were more violent, a party that majorly attracts pieds noirs and isn't popular with natives means that the party looks for the interests of the Pieds noirs, which the PCA was, it didn't look for the native interest, the PCA is like the socialists parties of setters in the Zionist entity. the people who fought on the side of Algeria during the revolution native or not were granted citizenship, Harkis were kicked out of the country.
You are correct that the PCF has had persistent issues with racism and chauvinism still its inception. So did Engels, frankly. I don’t see how this invalidates communism as preferable to nationalism or indicated that the PCL was in no way communist in its ideology or politics.
http://babelouedstory.com/thema_les/histoire/12070/12070.html
That being said, the FNL did completely did commit atrocities against progressive opponents and civilians.
And the Fr*nch colonizers committed a thousand other for 132 years, The FLN didn't drop nukes, Napalm or bomb in barrages, so I don't care and I have no sympathy.
The Algerian argument of should've the FLN won the revolution or not are as meaningful and important as the "how could've Hitler won WWII" arguments, it's milquetoast and outright useless to complain that the FLN didn't press the communism button in 1963 or that they bombed a milk bar, what matters is that the FLN as much as I dislike them, have and continues to be fighters of Imperialism and supporters of leftist and liberation movements in the global south.
First off there’s literally no need for this to get aggressive. Some of your latter responses are showing far mor about your own maturity frankly that making substantive points. It’s not milquetoast and it’s no issue with violence. Nor is it saying that you cannot cooperate tactically with reactionaries. It’s highlighting the dangers and pointing to what has happens to communists every time in the Global South when reactionaries who communists have cooperated with win. I agree that an FNL victory is preferable to French colonialism. That’s not what is at issue in my point. This is a serious discussion about what are the correct ways to view different third world movements whose interests are not the same as imperialists. And that’s not a trivial or obvious thing that you can reduce to lower school arithmetic of supportive of the yanks or frog munchers or not. Al Quaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram all define themselves as liberation movements and are opposed to US imperialism. That America is to blame for their existence does not contradict that. That’s a bizarre, arbitrary metaphysical inference that doesn’t follow at all. It’s just blowback. Taliban are also a material product of US policy, but their aims changed and diverged radically.
If you’re going to want to establish that the FLN was partly communist in some substantial, organizational, ideological sense then please provide evidence of them implementing actual communist policies which are not simply what any corrupt national bourgeois government would do and please explain their reactionary policies. Again comrade this is not me being passive aggressive, I’d just like clarification of what you mean.
By-the-bye, the political violence I was referring to was not against the French. I am mentioning against progressives and Algerian civilians. The idea that these were all q French lovers is not true. But yeh, again, and I’m going to keep saying it seems there’s a lot of cognitive dissonance: not all methods of national liberation or opposition to capitalism are equally valid politically or ethically imo. If people are able to understand this in the case of Sendero Luminoso and the Khmer Rouge it’s not clear to me why this isn’t clear in other cases.
Like it also seems to le that the a lot of the people self-identifying as Leninists don’t actually seem to have very seriously studied the history of the Bolshevik party’s foreign policy. The relevant example is that neither the Soviets nor the PRC ever took a position of unconditional support for all national liberation movements. They had to actually indicate substantial potential for progressive policy and change. There is some argument for that in the case of the FLN, but I personally think it’s often overdone.
On your comment that I’ve not made sense, respectfully I think you haven’t grasped my point. I was having a hunch at what your point was supposed to be. You said that they were not anti-communist and appeared to justify it by saying that they banned other parties and formed a one party state. The FLN were opposed not simply to that particular communist party, but communist movements in general. But if that’s the reasoning, then that would make any party that did that not anti-communist. Again, as I already mentioned in my above comment, I’m not saying that it makes them anti-communist to oppose other communists, I’m saying that the fact that a group opposed groups apart from communists doesn’t negate their anticommunism.
Also: my claim is not that the fact that Islamist’s ascended tit he detriment of communists is what makes the FLN anti-communist. What made them anti-communist was their ideology and their policies and material consequences of those. The point about the rise of Islamist is me pointing to the danger of these groups. That’s my central point. Their dominance and inevitable insufficiency, combined with their opposition to more progressive political developments, created the conditions leading to that.
Like are you just defining as communist now what happens to be the popular party or the one that can oppose western imperialism? I’m assuming you’re not but it’s difficult for me to know because you haven’t made clear what the terms you’re using mean. I’m not trying to be rude here but it’s not clear what the meanings or points or relations between points you take yourself to be making are to me.
Someone killing a communist does not preclude them being ideologically communists or implémentign some genuine policies of socialist construction.The Stalinist killing of many members of the party (and don’t bother linking me some brain dead Grover Fur garbage to argue otherwise, cos u can literally just read the actual archive documents) did not preclude Stalin being a serious, intelligent and self-consciously committed communist. That’s called being an inconsistent communist. Stalin has quite a few L’s. Like y’a know, ethnically cleansing tartars and putting bullets in the spines of quite a few innocent comrades who had given there lives for the revolution, known and unknown. At this point in history, not incorporating that into a balanced view of Stalin is not only pathetically childish and idiotic, and will not only alienate someone from from the entirety of the left we actually have to work with if you are an actual militant, but means that in any future hypothetical opportunity for socialism the same mistakes are more likely to be made.
Not giving a fuck about some of consequences is unfortunate and problematic but it is what it is. But opposition to imperialism and opposing unnecessary atrocity are not inconsistent. In any case, your lack of sympathy or empathy is not a guide to correct politics. That’s not his communist agitating or organizing is going to be effectively done. It breeds a reactionary politics and diverts attraction to reactionary alternatives like Islamism. Neither is outrage at atrocity a strict guide, that’s not the point. One of the great lessons and warnings of the 20th century in the post-WW2 period is that national bourgeois governments are in no way a solution to the post colonial dilemma or a sufficient response to imperialism and neocolonialism is even it formal independence is achieved.
I’d also add that I’m not saying that cooperation with the FLN or Hamas for local communists is the wrong move. But the communists in those positions are under far less illusions about the extent to which that’s a matter of necessity and survival. The first united front between the CPC and the GMD is a telling example of how that logic survival can apply even though it’s t might also be likely that once that group has an advantage and the shared opposition is no longer immediate, that they will crush it the communist movement when the opportunity arises.
Again not trying to make this aggressive or tense comrade.
I agree that we shouldn't celebrate any individual acts of needless cruelty (although I haven't personally seen anyone doing so), but collectively equivocating Hamas fighters and Israelis is bizarre; there are disgusting people in every sufficiently large group, but it's a tiny percentage in Hamas compared to the overwhelming majority of Israeli settlers
If you haven't seem atrocities, you are not on the correct telegrams.
It's not a question of equating or equivocating. That Israeli is a fascist apartheid settler colonial state goes without question. That there is an asymmetric balance of power which makes inevitable methods which will be immediately labelled as 'terroristic', and are of course terroristic in the literal sense of the term, though of course no less so than what Israel practices, should also go without saying. Hamas is also, literally, and in many ways, a product of Israel. But the very reason why they financed them and ensured their ascendancy in Gaza was to split the Palestinian opposition, crush the secular left of the Palestinian liberation movement, and ensure they had an enemy who would be perfect in terms of optics, rhetoric and propaganda because they can very believable present them as a menace (by-the-bye, Hamas is an acronymn but sounds very similar to the word 'hamas' in Hebrew, which means 'violence').
Aside from moral and ethical questions (which are not irrelevant), there is also the obvious point that not all tactics or strategies used by particular national liberation movements are equal. It's a mystery to me how people are able to wrap their heads around this very simple and obvious point in the case of, say, the Khmer Rouge or the Sendero Luminoso but not in the context of the Islamic world, and seems to me to have something to do with a lot of guilt that Westerners (on this site, seemingly clearly the majority) justifiably have in relation to the Islamic world. Tbh it's embarrassing in the first place that the comparison even has to be made to get the point about its incoherence across. All this applies even if the situation is so fucked that there are no other avenues left open to progressive forces than to collaborate with your local far-right reactionaries who are going to commit war-crimes. That is the current situation. I'm certainly not saying that I would not have done the same were I a Marxist Palestinian militant. But that's because they have no other choice, and we have to respect their opinion that the most immediate issue and the one on which their legitimacy depends is that of Israeli fascism, apartheid and settler colonialism. Ideally there would be a movement more akin to the First Intifada, but Hamas do not want that, because Islamists are fully aware that their interests are not served by actual working-class mass movements.
If you mean that most people in Hamas are not disgusting, well, that was neither my point nor is is possible quite frankly for you or I to confidently make that statement one way or the other. Like is the head of Hamas more or less reactionary that a working-class Israeli in Jerusalem? That's not that clear. Though it does make me think that there's a continued, fundamental misunderstanding of what Islamism actually is that's going on here. Islamism is a far-right, extremely reactionary version of politics which is very similar in many ways to fascism, noticeably in that it is a mass movement and in its emphasis on a return to a mythical past through violence, warfare and blood, it's death-cult characteristics, its extreme emphasis on hierarchy, is relation to women as essentially one of rape and seeing them as cattle for the bearing of children, its hypermasculinity, and the fact that Islamism is also a result of a (global) crisis in capitalist-imperialist production, but one affecting locally the Islamic global south, or poor proletariat or lumpenproletariat Muslim populations in the imperial core. Like fascism, it functions politically as a a mechanism to divert radical energy from socialist and Communist forces and then to crush them mercilessly.
I meant that I haven't seen celebration of atrocities. As for Hamas, I have to admit that I know very little about their policies aside from anti-Zionism, so I can't meaningfully engage with your points at the moment; if you have any sources on Hamas from this perspective, I'll try to educate myself
I rely don't believe they're putting any deep thought into it. They just root for who they're told too.
If they put deep thought into anything then they wouldn't be libs in the first place.
When you always stand up for the small kid in highschool even though he's been saying racial slurs
There are very significant parallels, but Ukraine is Israel and Donbas is Palestine.
The top post on "dankmemes" right now "which coincidently has been doing the super edgy thing of agreeing with stayed department propoganda for the last couple years" is the shot from Rick and Marty of "20 minute adventure in and out" literally with putin crossed out and Hamas instead, Russia crossed out and replaced with haza and ukraine crossed out and replaced with Isreal.
In case anyone was wondering if it literally is anything more than "but Ukrainians are white"
is the shot from Rick and Marty of "20 minute adventure in and out" literally with putin crossed out and Hamas instead
do they think the Israel palestine conflict just happened now
Probably yes, just like how they think the Ukraine conflict started last year and not 2014 or earlier
I think a lot of their thoughts on it were simply born yesterday...
This post is attracting a lot of downvotes; it's a shame none of the downvoters have commented
js, y'all could eliminate downvotes and you'd get to watch the squealing little cockroaches come scurrying out of their hidey holes
specifically a 3rd-world lib i saw with the status "save palestine and ukraine from israel and russia"
A lot of them really really want to be "one of the good ones"
they said that "palestine should be free but not a rayzheem like da ebil dee pee arr kay"
they also had a video thumbnail that said "i wish the ccp never existed"Is this a person or a bad take machine? They really must be the perfect human being if their standards are this high.
Zelensky/Ukraine is endorsing Israel...what's their mental gymnastics going to be there?
i don't know, i've distanced myself from him and his stooges ever since they decided to bring up CPC-related drama from TWO WHOLE YEARS ago in my own server in order to dogpile on me
Global capitalist chessboard. All ethics are an afterthought. 'the ideas of the ruling elite' etc... libs support what they are told to support. Politics are complicated who has time to investigate historical context?
We are in an information war. That's what it boils down to
Maybe it's as simple as this: they have an underdog / martyrdom fetish.
Palestinians getting murdered en masse: "thoughts and prayers!"
Palestine fighting back: "Stop using violence!!"
It's just a trick. When libs have a take, just pat them on the head and be like "that's a good lib, yes Palestinian is good" and just move on. They don't support Palestinians, are they willing to support them with more than a tweet? Nope,
Most interesting to me in all these conflicts is that the same people who claim and know their local media is corrupted and lying about local issues (that they themselves know about), think that same media is telling the truth about some far away country.
Crazy.
If they claim Fox is always lying, than they should turn on Fox news and believe that everything Fox says is a lye.
It would be less disgusting if they did actually be consistent in their equation. In my experience the sort of people who equated Ukraine and Palestine when they wanted people to support Ukraine are now crying about "violence", "disruption of peace" and "terrorists" when Palestinians decide to punch back a little.
Ukraine talks about territorial integrity and say that this is their land and the Russian-speaking majority should leave but ...
Recognizes Ichkeria (Chechnya, where no one is fighting for it lol) from Russia on the basis of "self-determination" at the expense of Russia's territorial integrity
Tend to support Kosovar "self-determination" against Serbia against their territorial sovereignty
Supports settlement of Palestinian land (recognized by 138 countries, 7 billion people)
Support Yaroslav Hunka who fought with the nazis for "self-determination" against Soviet territorial sovereignty
And then they support "Israeli territorial sovereignty" just like they support their own as the Slavic Israel.
