In order to take a different position, the perspective needs to be clarified. Before even assessing the acts of the various factions in this civil war, their self definition as such needs to be examined, without accepting it a priori.
Both the 'palestinians' and the 'israelis', define their collective identities as nations (hebrew/arab) or as reliogious congregations (jews/muslims), making claims to land etc on the base of inheritance.
While such claims and their rationale are often shaky in their own right (who's ancestors there first, who's religion is the true one), the paradigms as such are questionable from a political perspective.
Both nation and religion have been used througout history to set the oppressed up against eachother to the great benefit of the oppressors. The historic and current political landscape of the middle east is the result of wars fought in the name of religious (crusades etc) and national (imperialism) supremacy.
All european (and other) pogroms of the past, including the Shoa, were committed in the name of religion and/or nation.
Seen the recent atrocities however, it is not an option to take an indifferent stance, even if both parties are clearly in the wrong by principle. It is also clear that the war will not end by either side 'winning' on the grounds of their national pretence.
There is a chances for the war to end however if it's physical actors actors (soldiers and insurgents) are refusing to man the trenches and turn their weapons on their own commanders instead of eachother.
This only leaves one category of people to support for the libertarian left: the 'defeatist', those who actively root for the defeat of their own polity as to topple it's ruling gang.
Revolutionary Defeatism
In order to take a different position, the perspective needs to be clarified. Before even assessing the acts of the various factions in this civil war, their self definition as such needs to be examined, without accepting it a priori.
Both the 'palestinians' and the 'israelis', define their collective identities as nations (hebrew/arab) or as reliogious congregations (jews/muslims), making claims to land etc on the base of inheritance.
While such claims and their rationale are often shaky in their own right (who's ancestors there first, who's religion is the true one), the paradigms as such are questionable from a political perspective.
Both nation and religion have been used througout history to set the oppressed up against eachother to the great benefit of the oppressors. The historic and current political landscape of the middle east is the result of wars fought in the name of religious (crusades etc) and national (imperialism) supremacy.
All european (and other) pogroms of the past, including the Shoa, were committed in the name of religion and/or nation.
Seen the recent atrocities however, it is not an option to take an indifferent stance, even if both parties are clearly in the wrong by principle. It is also clear that the war will not end by either side 'winning' on the grounds of their national pretence.
There is a chances for the war to end however if it's physical actors actors (soldiers and insurgents) are refusing to man the trenches and turn their weapons on their own commanders instead of eachother.
This only leaves one category of people to support for the libertarian left: the 'defeatist', those who actively root for the defeat of their own polity as to topple it's ruling gang.