Yes, but i dont think the position of libertarian socialists should be unrelated from the actual conditions on the ground. Especially since taking a position should have material consequences, and not just be an abstract idea we spout on indymedia and instagram.
For the reasons mentioned, our position should be to support the palestinian resistance in general (while being critical of nasty tendencies and tactics within it), and support (more) ideologically sympathetic resistance groups within it. And not condemn people for fighting back against israeli aggression in general, and condemn (more) ideologically sympathetic resistance groups for fighting alongside nasty people within the palestinian resistance. In favor of a 'revolutionary defeatist' position that is totally alien to the palestinians, for good reasons. Because, in the absence of a a broad defeatism in israel, it will just end in palestinians' ethnic cleansing. And there is no sign that there is or will be such a movement of any significant (let alone decisive) power in israel.
I'm also starting to feel that the underlying problem of your position is an idea of equivalence between israeli aggression and palestinian resistance. There is not. First of all, because it is clear which side is the aggressor (Israel), at least in the last 50 years or so. Second of all, because the israelis have one of the most advanced militaries and economies in the world, and the palestinians are extremely empoverished, have no airforce, no navy, no tanks. Only infantry with basic weaponry.
And of course we should generally oppose the bombing of cities. But i wont prioritise telling palestinians they shouldnt shoot rockets at israeli cities. It's the only way they currently have to make israelis feel they are actually in a war. Otherwise the conflict would be limited to the palestinian areas. And it's clear that, at least currently, most israelis don't give a fuck about palestinian lives.
Yes, but i dont think the
Yes, but i dont think the position of libertarian socialists should be unrelated from the actual conditions on the ground. Especially since taking a position should have material consequences, and not just be an abstract idea we spout on indymedia and instagram.
For the reasons mentioned, our position should be to support the palestinian resistance in general (while being critical of nasty tendencies and tactics within it), and support (more) ideologically sympathetic resistance groups within it. And not condemn people for fighting back against israeli aggression in general, and condemn (more) ideologically sympathetic resistance groups for fighting alongside nasty people within the palestinian resistance. In favor of a 'revolutionary defeatist' position that is totally alien to the palestinians, for good reasons. Because, in the absence of a a broad defeatism in israel, it will just end in palestinians' ethnic cleansing. And there is no sign that there is or will be such a movement of any significant (let alone decisive) power in israel.
I'm also starting to feel that the underlying problem of your position is an idea of equivalence between israeli aggression and palestinian resistance. There is not. First of all, because it is clear which side is the aggressor (Israel), at least in the last 50 years or so. Second of all, because the israelis have one of the most advanced militaries and economies in the world, and the palestinians are extremely empoverished, have no airforce, no navy, no tanks. Only infantry with basic weaponry.
And of course we should generally oppose the bombing of cities. But i wont prioritise telling palestinians they shouldnt shoot rockets at israeli cities. It's the only way they currently have to make israelis feel they are actually in a war. Otherwise the conflict would be limited to the palestinian areas. And it's clear that, at least currently, most israelis don't give a fuck about palestinian lives.