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.
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.