Liberal "both sides" bullshit that spits in the face in the Palestinians fight for national self determination free from the Israeli sockpuppet kapos that call themselves the 'Palestinian National Authority'
Sure the critique of the differences between the PLO united front and hamas are worth noting, but Nikos completely glosses over it in favor of saying it's equally hamas and the Israeli fascists fault for sabotaging the two state solution by resisting genocide.
This is the same rhetoric we've seen in the Ukraine war with mealy-mouthed fence sitters blaming Russia for the splinters in their ass
@Awoo@hexbear.net @emizeko@hexbear.net can I have your thoughts on this article as well?
I agree to a certain extent but also find myself in the situation of asking what is strategically most beneficial to us?
Are we strategically helping the most by supporting violence or are we strategically helping the most by supporting peace above all else?
I haven't made a full decision on this yet if I'm honest. I struggle to see a way out of the Palestinian problem without violence but I strategically see Hamas' religious element as a barrier that is easily used in propaganda. With that said if these people were all communists then the response would still be to call them terrorists and to compare them instead to the IRA or some shit. In terms of branding, the ideal violent liberation movement is a non-political non-ideological non-religious one entirely and totally focused on one thing and one thing only - liberation. I can't think of many who managed to successfully use that approach besides Castro.
With all that said. It is the conditions we have that matter, and I guess I'm undecided on where I am? I can't tell whether the better position is to support the right to violent resistance or not. In conversations I've had with liberals I have actually had a pretty damn good time openly supporting their right to violently resist occupation, which is new to me because usually that's met with severe anger. I actually think the window on this is wide enough for supporting violent resistance to exist and be beneficial in pushing less radical people to more radical beliefs.
Even with my support of violent resistance what Gaza genuinely needs right now is a ceasefire though. And the position anyone should take on this topic is the position that convinces the largest number of people in any given conversation.
At this point in time, I can see the only path towards a two state solution that brings true peace to the region being achieved through the complete and total liquidation of the fascist government of Israel and the creation of an anti-zionist state either led by the CPI or with them in coalition with other anti-fascist and anti-war parties but that unto itself is a pipe dream which is near impossible to achieve as it stands today.
And in regards to a ceasefire, which is beyond a doubt desirable, is impossible to achieve without cowing the Fascist state of Israel through both violence and non-violence, one being national and the other international. Our duty as powerless observers to a modern genocide is to shake our chains loudly and unashamedly in support for the Palestinian people to frighten both our own respective governments and the Israeli fascist government into seeking a ceasefire to quell public unrest.
Consider also that positions should be taken relative to one's own political context. The positions for which to advocate in the US are different than the ones for which to advocate in the Philippines, for example.
Let's say we are in the US. There's a lot to argue about even then, but I'd suggest that advocating for a ceasefire at this moment is fundamentally a reformist approach to try and garner pressure (or opportunistically reap support from existing pressure) on bourgeois politicians to do something that will at best provide a short reprieve for Palestinians. That reprieve is valuable, but the thing I want to emphasize is that there will be a step shortly afterwards where the ceasefire is violated, including by the united front in Gaza. Where does ceasefire rhetoric go then? I think it will all get funneled into an even more fervent call to condemn Hamas and support Zionism. Ceasefire rhetoric hits a quick dead end and, in terms of defining an audience, mostly appeals to liberals that advocate for peace rather than justice.
In contrast, educating the public about the national liberation struggle can pay longer-term dividends while also improving short-term gains. Basically nobody is in the streets because they love ceasefires, they're in the streets because they see Palestinians as people facing oppression. Messaging to free Palestine, to characterize the situation as an occupation, will consistently work indefinitely to engender support and keep up momentum.
Fundamentally, what we need is power-building coupled to wielding that power to undermine the imperial machine. These two work together, they feed each other, and if one is missing the whole thing fails. What harms the Zionist effort is undermining the consent that is constantly manufactured for their project. Propaganda and rallies and marches do build this. So do actions targeted at weapons manufacturers, which can include occupying offices of representatives, but with a demand to stop funding Israel's genocide.
In short, do the core agitation required to self-building movement to oppose the US' material support for Israel. The agitation pays huge dividends, most of which I haven't even mentioned because they're actually about educating the members of our organizations about what the work of organizing looks like and what reactions are created by which agitations and who will be your ally, who will be an opportunist, and who will fight you.
