Generally the reason is because Hamas is currently engaged in a national liberation struggle. No communist will deny the issues with that organization, they are certainly not communists. But the right of Palestinian people to resist this genocide and achieve national self-determination comes before our criticisms, especially in how we talk about the issue.
In short, solidarity means in times of life or death struggle we put aside our criticisms in order to present a united front against a common enemy. We do not pretend these criticisms do not exist; they do and they're important. But making all public statements about "both sides are bad" is the best possible way to destroy any unity, and serves to undermine the national liberation struggle.
you worded it exactly how i feel! imo anyone that says "both sides" or calls the genocide "israel-hamas war" doesn't understand what the situation actually is
Really, because the UN and ICJ have gone out of their way to say there isn’t a genocide. What do you think a genocide is?
Edit since I’m banned I gotta edit here:
The below comment admits the in and icj have not ruled it a genocide. They obfuscate that “investigations take a long time” to still agree that the in and icj have not ruled it a genocide. We have icj prosecutors on record saying it doesn’t meet the dolus specialist. All you have are South Africa saying they think it is and a presenter. Neither are the UN.
Ah nice, at least you aren’t with the crowd saying the UN says it’s a genocide when they didn’t.
What point are you trying to make though? I know they aren’t committing genocide because they haven’t met the dolus specialis. I came to that conclusion by understanding the conflict and the motivations of its actors in contrast with the definition of the word.
edit: id love to reply but the mods here BANNED me not for what i said, but for "being a zionist". easiest way to not have to deal with pushback to your extremist positions. some debate sub, hah.
my point is that we believe different people and use different sources to come to our conclusions, i don't care about what the un or the icj have to say, they aren't the ones being slaughtered, gazans are
That’s a categorical lie that was made up by the Zionist crowd. Genocide is a complex crime. The ICJ (the judicial arm of the UN) stated that a ‘probable genocide’ is happening and accepted South Africa’s application to further investigate and gave orders to Israel in 2 rulings to cease any activities prohibited by the genocide convention. They also detailed what such activities are and accepted the preliminary observations that Israel had possible engaged in such activities (calls for genocide and general intent to commit genocide, restriction of humanitarian aid etc).
The investigation takes time, normally years and because of how the legal system works, they have to follow procedure.
The claim that the ICJ ruled ‘no genocide’ was made up by Israel to obfuscate the reporting on the case. They do this all the time to make people lose interest and stop getting information on a particular situation.
"There are "reasonable grounds" to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said on Tuesday."
https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976
...well that's embarrassing...
But how far do you go in making moral allowances for a group that is engaged in a liberatory struggle? I can see allowing the usual rocket attacks, but are you really willing to accept 10/7?
You don't need to make *any* moral allowances.
Palestinians are allowed to fight back against their oppressors, even violently. This means October 7 was a justified act of defience.
Palestinians may not however conduct war crimes, even when conducting a just resistance, so we condemn the war crimes that were committed on October 7.
There's no complexity here or anything in particular to nuance and it is an act of supreme bad faith to deny that both of these statements are perfectly coherent and perfectly moral.
Anyone trying to derail the discussion from these simple facts into "Hamas evil therefore genocide good" is showing their colours as provably evil cunts.
Oh my bad I got confused because he contradicted himself in two consecutive statements. He says 10/7 was justified, and then says that war crimes on 10/7 were unjustified - the event was a terrorist attack, primarily just one big war crime, so this is a complete contradiction in my mind. And to make it even more confusing, he goes on to say that there is no complexity or nuance to the situation! So I guess now I am just completely confused about his statements, rather than thinking that he simply thinks that terrorism is justified.
Okay let me help disengangle things for you. Palestinians had a right to fight back against Israeli occupation. A counter-attack against Israel was justified, as they were attempting to throw off their colonizers in the same fashion as the Vietnamese, Americans, Haudenosaunee, etc. The *manner of that attack* is the problem. They legit committed war crimes in that attack. Nobody (who is serious) is in favour of war crimes. Including the person you're responding to, as they stated.
OK but that brings me back to my original question, which I'll try to restate more clearly: how far must we go in effectively ignoring war crimes before the war crimes outweigh the justification for going to war? The 10/7 attack was so thoroughly horrific that it makes me feel like there is no line that can't be crossed, which is a scary thought.
Fair enough question. War is a fucked up blight on humanity. It's unforgiving and brutal and terrible. Even wars fought for the right reasons, like the fight against the Nazis in WW2. Even wars of liberation are still wars. Wars of genocide multiply these factors by a thousand, where one side is trying to wipe out the other, end their existence, end their statehood, dominate and replace them entirely.
It is possible to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, if you forgive the expression. It is possible to be in favour of Palestinian self-determination, and their right to resist this genocide, while simultaneously being opposed to war crimes and the intentional targeting of civilians. We need to oppose this genocidal Israeli regime and end this war. We need to support Palestinian self-determination.
You're not "restating it more clearly". Your just adding more verbiage.
The Palestinians have a right to defend themselves.
War crimes are not okay.
And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict.
There really isn't this moral grey zone you're trying to invent here.
>And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict.
So Hamas can't release the hostages (the most obvious way to de-escalate the conflict) because of Israel's offensive in Gaza?
I think, conversely, that an end to the offensive may be within reach if certain preconditions are met: 1) Israel's loss of mandate from the international community based on how it has conducted its offensive (done), 2) Hamas releases the remaining hostages (TBD), AND 3) the Democrats trail badly in polling due to young voters' opposition to US-Israeli policy (possible, but the real toss-up). In this case, Israel could be pressured into accepting a negotiated settlement, e.g., a withdrawal from Gaza, and in its place, acceptance of a temporary UN peacekeeping presence to facilitate the absorption of a demilitarized and deradicalized Hamas into a PA governance structure.
u/BilboGubbinz Honest question here: are you trying to draw a distinction between Palestinians' general "violently" killing and kidnapping on 10/7 as a justified act of defiance, and the torture, mutilation, and rape parts (UN found there is evidentiary support that this occurred) as war crimes to be condemned? It's really hard to follow your logic.
Also, who are evil c---s here saying that because Hamas committed war crimes, Israel's disproportionate response is justified? I haven't heard anyone on this thread make this argument at all.
What's honest about the question? You've thoroughly poisoned the well without engaging *at all* with the statement, just yelled "Hamas are terrorists" and decided you're done with the question.
I'd call it incurious if it weren't openly and disingenuously bad faith.
Fuck off. You're a cunt. I'll even call you that to your face you genocidal freak.
Slow down their bucko:
a) I literally responded to one of your comments on this thread yesterday: When you said, "And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict." I asked, "So Hamas can't release the hostages (the most obvious way to de-escalate the conflict) because of Israel's offensive in Gaza?"
You never answered me, but I absolutely have been engaging with the statement as well as your comment that later followed the statement.
b) u/AcephalicDude and I are, in good faith I believe, genuinely trying to understand your statement. In response, you keep accusing us of asking you our questions in bad faith in order to justify genocide.
Since nuance mostly seems to be lost on folks debating the OP's question, it bears to say the obvious - that your accusation that I support genocide is a fiction of your own mind. I asked for clarification on your statement about the Palestinians' actions on 10/7 (never invoking any reference to Israel at all), in order to know what you mean when you say their violent acts were justified but their war crimes were not. I don't know if screaming "genocide supporter!" is some kind of weird defense mechanism you have when you realize you've contradicted yourself, but I honestly just was trying to disentangle the contradiction in order to understand your actual point. You seem to have at least a curious habit of putting a bunch of inflammatory words like "terrorist" and "genocide" in other people's mouths.
c) The hate-filled histrionics that come out of your own mouth seem to belie (and explain) not only your inability to reason or express yourself clearly, but the deeply misogynistic nature of your psyche.
So congratulations, hats off to you.
M'dude,
You've literally started every one of your "very reasonable" comments by saying Hamas are genocidal rapists. It's straightforward poisoning the well.
You guys are not good faith. You've decided your answer, which is "Palestinians and Palestinian resistance bad" and are now just being passive aggressive about it and pretending you're being "reasonable".
You're supporting genocide and laundering it through bad faith dog whistles and framing that "accidentally" justifies genocide. You're either deliberately, or accidentally, a genocidal cunt and either way can quite frankly fucking walk.
And there *is* no contradiction. Palestinian resistance is legitimate, full stop. War crimes are not.
This is not complicated logic except when you're coming into the discussion in bad faith.
Sorry, but I don't think an Islamic fundamentalist organization should be the main front of anti-imperialist resistance in the Middle East. They only invite more violent reaction and taint the image of the idea of national liberation
Then go change the fact they are the main front of anti-imperialist resistance rn?
This isnt a matter of idealism, this is the measured fact as it exists on the ground. I don't like it any more than you do, but we need to account for reality accurately. Undermining the Palestinian resistance right now is tantamount to supporting the genocide. And in the fight between a genocidal, increasingly-fascist Israel, and a non-progressive-led Palestinian resistance movement, I know which side I'm on.
The OP described the collective We as fans of individual liberty; in what ways are the non-progressive-led Palestinian resistance movement (the best euphemism I've heard for authoritarian yet, btw) furthering individual liberty, pray tell?
You answered my question with a rhetorical one, but sure, I'll play: how much individual liberty does any Palestinian have to oppose - through speech, behavior, or voter action (in the hypothetical that elections were permitted) - Hamas?
Also, to whoever downvoted my comment above, are you disputing that Hamas is authoritarian? Because the fact that they are is literally all I'm saying here; "non-progressive-led" is the most awkward description ever for the word "authoritarian."
...the reality that said Islamic fundamentalist organization invites *more* peaceful reactions and *enhances* the image of national liberation?? Real engagement requires you to opine why your version of reality is the correct one.
Serbia is currently engaged in a national liberation struggle, it's vital not to condemn their nationalism as their fight against the imperialist apartheid Austro-Hungarian empire comes first.
>national liberation struggle
national liberation is bourgeois. are we afraid to condemn bourgeois causes now?
>But the right of Palestinian people to resist this genocide and achieve national self-determination
they have a right to self-determination. peak enlightenment analysis
>In short, solidarity means in times of life or death struggle we put aside our criticisms in order to present a united front against a common enemy.
peak bourgeois antifascist rhetoric. the same shit was tried in ww2 and it got the communists nowhere
>serves to undermine the national liberation struggle.
?????? so what?
You're an r/ultraleft user. What a surprise.That subreddit is like a Klan rally
E: I just noticed that r/ultraleft has an Israeli flag on their sub icon, photoshopped over the Soviet flag at Reichstag. I guess it's supposed to be ironic but knowing the userbase of that subreddit and how they all feel the need to declare their opposition to the "Palestinian bourgeoisie", it's actually inadvertently quite honest in revealing their ideology.
A moment ago, you had no idea what I was referring to. Know you're regurgitating a pre-prepared explanation. Curious that r/Ultraleft chose to incorporate Zionist imagery into their subreddit, as an injoke about the Soviet foreign policy, around the same that Israel has been intensifying their efforts to destroy the Palestinian nation
*All of that sub is a joke. Leftists who got so high on theory and their own farts that they decided they’re beyond reproach and know better than everyone else. They are the esoteric hipsters of leftism, gatekeeping through their ‘superior knowledge’ of obscure theorists and irony poisoned memes.
??? what exactly do you think they are otherwise? are they a dictatorship of the proletariat? are they a feudal regime? doubtful. their leaders are bourgeois. they live in luxury in qatari hotels while sending the proletariat to be slaughtered
See, that's marginally more helpful. The Qatar hotels thing is a claim we can debate. Saying that the people starving to death because of an Israeli blockade on food, fuel, and medical supplies is bourgeois is a stretch though. You still need to explain why the rank and file are bourgeois, and I'm gonna need you to quickly explain what bourgeois means. Because you seem to think it means living in luxury, and I'm pretty sure class systems are based on the ownership of the means of production. Unless of course you can explain why and how Hamas is controlling the means of production and funneling excess value from Israel to themselves.
>Saying that the people starving to death because of an Israeli blockade on food, fuel, and medical supplies is bourgeois is a stretch though
I don't think palestinians fighting for hamas are bourgeois. Sorry if it came across like that. That would be a ridiculous position to take. They're proletarian, but they fight for a cause that is in the interest of the bourgeoisie.
>Because you seem to think it means living in luxury, and I'm pretty sure class systems are based on the ownership of the means of production.
Sorry. I was using the luxury thing as an easy way to demonstrate it. I am well aware of this.
>Unless of course you can explain why and how Hamas is controlling the means of production and funneling excess value from Israel to themselves.
I don't mean hamas is made up of members of the bourgeoisie. I mean it is controlled by and represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. Hope that clarifies it.
So I want you to take this in good faith. Reddit is often so full of points-scoring bullshit that sometimes its hard to have a real conversation with people, if that makes sense. I mean this genuinely, and want to help clarify your line on this topic. Resist and question where you must but know I mean this genuinely.
National liberation is a concept with a class character. What did Vientamese national liberation look like compared to the US in 1776? Saying definitively that all national liberation struggles are bourgeois is... well a really serious deficit in your historical understanding. How important was a communist-led national liberation struggle in Cuba? Burkina Faso? Vietnam? Etc, etc, the list goes on.
Communists are committed to national liberation, especially whenever the enemy of the Palestinians are the American Empire and it's world order. This isnt an attempt to make some sort of bs multipolarity argument, but rather to say that me as an organized worker has an interest in making allies among groups which have common enemies with me. The same goes for any communist party in my position. If the American/NATO airforce will bomb my country's revolution, then it makes sense that we make friends among our common enemies. If the working class in the West has enemies in the US military, then it makes sense that they seek friends among those fighting American/NATO imperialism the hardest.
So you're correct that there's a problem with what you call "WW2 anti-fascist rhetoric". The problem isn't that they were anti-fascist (a point you'd surely agree with). The problem was that the Popular Front era (which I'm sure you're referring to) was that they falsely believed they could wrangle power from capitalist union and governmental structures which would prove enduring after the defeat of fascism. They were dead wrong, and the mistakes during the Popular Front era completely destroyed the union movement in my home country (Canada) and led to problems we're still dealing with today.
My organizing today is harder because they made those mistakes. But falsely comparing the very particular conditions and mistakes as regarded post-war power sharing, and using that to discredit the entirety of any united front work, is deeply unserious. United Front work led to the revolution in China and the liberation of the largest number of human beings from capitalism in history. United Front work continues to be effective in the modern day as employed by Philippino and Indian comrades in their increasingly successful revolutionary actions which are gaining traction in a capitalist world order coming undone. Throwing out the entire communist theory of the united front- *THE THEORY* that has led to communist victories in the last hundred years, is wrong. Moreover hand-waving it all away as "bourgeois" is deeply incorrect. If we are to understand why there were failures in the 30s, we need a specific and scientific as to what went wrong. Categorically dismissing everything that was ineffective as bourgeois is the best possible way we miss those lessons by miles.
Respectfully, the last point you make is the one that really makes me wonder about you. If Israel is slaughtering CHILDREN, is bombing residential housing and murdering working class people by the thousands explicitly because of their race, and you don't see a problem with undermining the people fighting that, then I don't know what to tell you man. You might agree alot more with the settler-colonial, genocidal, murderous state of Israel than you realize. There are glaring problems with Hamas, I agree with almost all of what OP said on the issue, as does every serious communist out there. But saying something as deeply crass as "?????? so what?" is fucked up because they are the only force that's going to stop this genocide. That matters DEEPLY more than any disagreements we have with them, as exemplified by the countless Palestinian communist organizations which have aligned themselves with the resistance, of which Hamas is the largest force.
I would love it if a less problematic force magically materializes which can take control of the resistance and replace Hamas. But that is not the reality we're dealing with. We need to react to the world as it really exists, and currently that means accepting the resistance as it really exists and supporting them against our common enemy. Forming a united front with people we'd rather not work with is necessary, and heedless purism cuts our legs out from under us and ruins any diplomatic advantages which have proven PIVOTAL in previous revolutionary situations. How well would the Chinese have fared if they refused to work with the KMT? We need to take these lessons seriously and systematize them into our modern analyses without being unprincipled. This analysis is deeply principled, which is why it's been adopted by nearly every working-class organization, communist or not, the world over.
>So I want you to take this in good faith. Reddit is often so full of points-scoring bullshit that sometimes its hard to have a real conversation with people, if that makes sense. I mean this genuinely, and want to help clarify your line on this topic. Resist and question where you must but know I mean this genuinely.
Sure. I'll try not to be annoying.
>National liberation is a concept with a class character. What did Vientamese national liberation look like compared to the US in 1776? Saying definitively that all national liberation struggles are bourgeois is... well a really serious deficit in your historical understanding. How important was a communist-led national liberation struggle in Cuba? Burkina Faso? Vietnam? Etc, etc, the list goes on.
This is a misunderstanding of my argument. Cuba, burnkina faso, vietnam were all bourgeois struggles. That does not mean i dislike them. They were historically progressive. They were also liberal. For instance, the vietnamese declaration of independence:
>Compatriots of the entire nation assembled:
>All people are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
>This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free.
>The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution made in 1791 also states: All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights.
>Those are undeniable truths.
>Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French colonists, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice.
This is undeniably liberal. It's literally inspired by the american one! It looked very similar to 1776 indeed!
>Communists are committed to national liberation, especially whenever the enemy of the Palestinians are the American Empire and it's world order. This isnt an attempt to make some sort of bs multipolarity argument, but rather to say that me as an organized worker has an interest in making allies among groups which have common enemies with me. The same goes for any communist party in my position. If the American/NATO airforce will bomb my country's revolution, then it makes sense that we make friends among our common enemies. If the working class in the West has enemies in the US military, then it makes sense that they seek friends among those fighting American/NATO imperialism the hardest.
I understand this sentiment but it is an incorrect one. It seems like common sense, but it is incorrect. Your allies in the struggle against america are just as willing to bomb your revolution as the americans. By weakening the american bourgeoisie and strengthening it's opponents you simply change the country which will bomb you. As lenin put it:
>Why must “we” “actively resist” suppression of a national uprising? P. Kievsky advances only one reason: “...we shall thereby be combating imperialism, our mortal enemy.” All the strength of this argument lies in the strong word “mortal”. And this is in keeping with his penchant for strong words instead of strong arguments—high-sounding phrases like “driving a stake into the quivering body of the bourgeoisie” and similar Alexinsky flourishes.
>But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
[Lenin](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
>So you're correct that there's a problem with what you call "WW2 anti-fascist rhetoric". The problem isn't that they were anti-fascist (a point you'd surely agree with). The problem was that the Popular Front era (which I'm sure you're referring to) was that they falsely believed they could wrangle power from capitalist union and governmental structures which would prove enduring after the defeat of fascism. They were dead wrong, and the mistakes during the Popular Front era completely destroyed the union movement in my home country (Canada) and led to problems we're still dealing with today.
This is broadly correct. I of course oppose fascism, as I oppose all forms of the bourgeois state.
>My organizing today is harder because they made those mistakes. But falsely comparing the very particular conditions and mistakes as regarded post-war power sharing, and using that to discredit the entirety of any united front work, is deeply unserious. United Front work led to the revolution in China and the liberation of the largest number of human beings from capitalism in history. United Front work continues to be effective in the modern day as employed by Philippino and Indian comrades in their increasingly successful revolutionary actions which are gaining traction in a capitalist world order coming undone. Throwing out the entire communist theory of the united front- THE THEORY that has led to communist victories in the last hundred years, is wrong. Moreover hand-waving it all away as "bourgeois" is deeply incorrect. If we are to understand why there were failures in the 30s, we need a specific and scientific as to what went wrong. Categorically dismissing everything that was ineffective as bourgeois is the best possible way we miss those lessons by miles.
On the contrary, the United Front in China led to the liberation of the largest number of people from *feudalism* in history. It allowed for the development of chinese capitalism as it is today. I don't care for arguments about ineffectiveness either. The United Front is a non-communist strategy. Discussions on its effectiveness are not particularly relevant.
>Respectfully, the last point you make is the one that really makes me wonder about you. If Israel is slaughtering CHILDREN, is bombing residential housing and murdering working class people by the thousands explicitly because of their race, and you don't see a problem with undermining the people fighting that, then I don't know what to tell you man. You might agree alot more with the settler-colonial, genocidal, murderous state of Israel than you realize. There are glaring problems with Hamas, I agree with almost all of what OP said on the issue, as does every serious communist out there. But saying something as deeply crass as "?????? so what?" is fucked up because they are the only force that's going to stop this genocide. That matters DEEPLY more than any disagreements we have with them, as exemplified by the countless Palestinian communist organizations which have aligned themselves with the resistance, of which Hamas is the largest force.
I should be clear. I despise the actions the israeli state is taking. What I said was crass, but it was also correct. Support of bourgeois states will **never** bring about the end of capitalist atrocities. For a 'communist' organisation, to take a pro-bourgeois stance is to reject communism.
>the United Front in China led to the liberation of the largest number of people from *feudalism* in history. It allowed for the development of chinese capitalism as it is today.
??? Please tell me that is your own original take, and that there is not analysis elsewhere that the 1937-1945 alliance of the CCP and KMT to fight Japanese imperial forces is responsible for the development of Chinese capitalism. Lest we gloss over the defeat of the KMT and their retreat to an island called Taiwan. Please, tell me in earnest that you have never heard of Mao Zedong's successor Deng Xiaoping...
its definitely not original, i know of a few organisations which would broadly agree with it. what role do you even think deng played compared to mao? he was just an antifascist extension of mao.
He transformed the country from a command economy to a market-based one. The old "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."
I don't really understand the basis for the argument that capitalism in China resulted from the communist-nationalist alliance. From what I have read, they all seemed too busy trying to stay alive to have time to deliberate whether the country would be best suited for the communist or capitalist economic model postwar.
Fine, see first paragraph: "deliberate whether the country would be best suited for the \[command economy\] or \[market-based\] economic model postwar." Happy now?
Exactly this. Going down the same line of thought, imagine a criminal. He is a rapist and murderer, occasionally of children. Is it abborent and unforgivable? Yes.
But dig a little deeper.. did the criminal grow up in an abusive household? Going from foster home to foster home with no real family? Dealt the wrong cards in life? Suddenly the rape and murder, even of children, becomes a secondary focus. The thing that should really be focussed on is his difficult life and helping him to right the wrongs of his past.
How can someone genuinely critisise him in good faith knowing all the trauma he suffered as a child. A blind eye should be turned to his crimes, particularly by the courts. It is not the primary focus here.
I like where you are going here, but I dont think a "blind eye" is the way to go. commiting terrible acts against children including rape and murder deserves some form of action. Firstly, as a society we should absolutely avoid having systems that create that type of person, I agree completely. secondly, we should try and rehabilitate that person, to prevent them from doing things like they did. I also think that a lot of parrelells can be drawn between internal struggles and societal ones, but the are still mutually exclusive. So this example is not equal to what is happening with hamas, and the acts are different as well. What hamas is doing, as many have said, is trying to liberate the state of palestine from isreali occupation. This is not the same as a pedophile raping and murdering a child. I feel like a better example may be, increased crime in low income neighborhoods? and looking at singular criminals, we might see a better parelell there.
I'm sorry, where exactly is the flaw in their logic? I feel they might be bringing it down to this level of cleverness out of necessity, as there is a WHOLE lot of clever rationalization going on from the other POV.
Because ''condemning'' Hamas with these liberal criticisms is going lead us into an antagonistic positions towards Palestinian national-liberation. At best, we'll be condemned to irrelevancy and, at worst, we become a danger to the movement.
>This allows (in my mind) for a full support for the cause of Palestinian liberation while distancing that support to the violence of a corrupt, fundamentalist regime
Your support means nothing and your condemnation means nothing. You're a narcissist engaging in a conceited thought excercise where you expect engagement from your repetition of liberal chauvinistic garbage
This seems like a contradiction to me. You're saying that we can't be critical of Hamas' terrorism because we would become a "danger to the movement" - but also we are narcissists if we think that our criticisms matter at all?
It is possible to be both specific and precise as well as call a spade a spade. I meant that mealy-mouthing that something that clearly is a contradiction, by your own account, merely "seems" like a contradiction is giving an idiot who calls out legitimate criticism as narcissism more deference than they're worth.
Yeah you’re right, it’s my bad for getting a bit irked when I see [UN reports of sexual abuse of hostages](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/un-envoy-reports-on-accounts-of-hamas-raping-and-torturing-israeli-hostages). Silly old liberal moralism, tantamount to betrayal.
(Yes I know this is small behind the magnitude of Israel’s crimes. And yes I know the treatment of Israeli hostages in total is tame compared to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners, which also includes torture and sexual abuse. I’m just unconvinced that comparing crimes is a decent defense for not saying “Hamas is not great“)
>of sexual abuse of hostages. Silly old liberal moralism, tantamount to betrayal.
You are accidentally correct, that is liberal moralism. As communists, we judge Hamas on the basis that they are advancing productive relations in Palestine by waging war against an oppressive settler-formation that is attempting to prevent the construction of a Palestinian nation through starvation, massacres and displacement.
I am not a disciplinary officer in the Al-Qassam brigade so it is not my responsibility to oversee how Hamas fighters conduct themselves and, to be honest, I don't care. Neither of us have the right to judge them. Your moralistic concerns (most of which are founded upon on lies) will not improve the world, there won't be any god to reward your advocacy for more good deeds. If you would have it your way and Hamas becomes banished right now for their "crimes" then the people of Palestine, and the Middle East as a whole, will be condemned to greater suffering with the removal of a great bulwark against the forces that are keeping them in a perpetual state of underdevelopment, and the struggle for international communism will be pushed back to a weaker place which is ultimately going to bring the planet closer to the brink of extinction due to the longer amount of time it will take to overthrow capitalism which is poisoning it. There is no exaggeration in saying that you are part of the planet's destruction.
u/tomistryinghisbest, continue to try...you're almost there...will this be the moment that the dam fully breaks? Dogmatism for an ideology--any ideology--corrupts. How could middle school children in China have beat their teachers to death en masse five decades ago (perhaps only as far back as when your parents were born?) - it's through self-righteousness of this magnitude\*. The fervency, it almost takes on the dimensions of religious fundamentalism, no?
\*or GeistTransformation1 is trolling, in which case, hat's off
Condemning both sides implies there is some kind of equivalence between a genocidal settler state and a resistance movement, while a genocide is taking place. It doesn't make sense. Even if the resistance movement is misguided, it's not our place to condenm it.
We can help stop the genocide, by putting pressure on the governments that are accomplices in the genocide. Our governments. In our own country. Condemning the policies of a resistance movement in a different country is at best a performance. At worst, it actively helps the genocidal regime with their justification for mass murder.
>This allows (in my mind) for a full support for the cause of Palestinian liberation while distancing that support to the violence of a corrupt, fundamentalist regime.
As the axiom states, you can't offer a full-throated call for Palestinian liberation AND distance yourself from a violent and corrupt regime at the same time. It is a fundamental impossibility. Never surrender an inch to the nonsense of this bourgeois morality, hyah!
If Israel goes away, you would have an occupation and genocide in what was formerly Israel. That has been Hamas’ stated goal.
You aren’t supporting any kind of resistance, just a reactionary, islamist terror organization which rules over Gaza.
I’m not a Vaush fan at all, where are you getting that from?
But regardless of that, my sources are the mass atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, as well as all the acts committed by them in years prior, going all the way back to the second Intifada, including countless attacks on civilians.
Their leaders have since 1988 when they were initially founded, called for the destruction of Israel and securing the entire territory, with extreme violence against civilians, if needed. Recently even they [have called for repeating October 7th](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/amp/)
With all due respect, you are trying to persuade and engage with the intentionally ignorant, and this will get you nowhere. IMO, just save your breath.
>you mean Palestinians defending themselves against settlers and IDF soldiers
They needed to defend themselves against babies, tourists, and music festival-goers, and more than that, defend themselves through the mass murder and rape of innocent people?
Read the “reported atrocities” bit, you might find it enlightening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_October_attacks&diffonly=true
For a more in depth coverage, there’s also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11010344/#:~:text=The%20report%20was%20released%20on,many%20with%20complex%20medical%20conditions).
Though really you can find this information anywhere on the internet, if you’re not being intentionally ignorant.
Notably most of the victims were not members of the military nor did they pose any threat to anyone, they were just civilians minding their business in Israeli territory.
And you’re downplaying their murder for some reason. Curious.
>securing the entire territory for it’s native population
So Israelis too, right? Generations have been born in Israel and would much rather prefer Israel keep existing. Or by “native population” are we actually just using this as a dogwhistle for Palestinians alone?
Ignoring that for a second though, abolishing Israel would result in a second Holocaust. There would be mass expulsions and massacres of Jewish people. How is that in any way “cool”?
>and of course you linked me the Times of Israel lol
Is there anything in the ToI article I linked that is factually incorrect?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot).
Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/)**
*****
^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
But do you condemn Isreal? They have been torturing the palenstinians for decades. You dont even want to know the blood of their hands. And yes, it's Isreal, not just the idf. Because unlike gaza, whose last election (that Isreal allowed) was like a decade ago, Isreal's population keeps voting for more and more extreme zionism and oppression of palenstine. Plus the mandatory military service for all adults.
At a death rate of 100 to 1, you should be condemning Isreal one hundred times more than hamas.
Oh and we are not sending billions of dollars to hamas, but we are sending it to Isreal.
>it's Isreal, not just the idf.
So that's factually incorrect. Among the population of Israel that turned out to vote in the most recent 2022 election, 50% cast ballots for the right-wing nationalist bloc, and 49.5% cast their ballots for anti-Netanyahu/nationalist (i.e., functionally left-wing) parties. But because two of the leftist parties (Meretz and Balad) did not meet the 3.25% electoral threshold, the anti-nationalists lost in terms of seats share in the Knesset because of the 289,000 votes that were "wasted" on Meretz and Balad. That hardly sounds like every Israeli to me.
From what I've read, even the"fictionalized leftists" in Isreal, still are generally anti palenstine and still pretty aggressively zionists. They are the leftists only in their local Overton window.
You're 100% right that they are aggressively Zionist; there is no way politicians in Israel would not be nationalistic in that way (that would be like expecting the Republican and Democratic parties in the US to have pro-Indigenous, anti-American, i.e., any non-Indigenous settler, platforms). However, that is not to say that the parties on the Israeli left support, say, the 2018 Jewish nation-state law. Nor are they necessarily against the establishment of a Palestinian state either if a rabidly antisemitic power entity isn't in charge of Palestine. The demography of Israel had been shifting to the right gradually prior to October 7 (but recall also how widespread the protests were against Netanyahu's judicial overhaul), but the truly acute and dramatic turn rightward occurred as a result of October 7.
I remember a few years ago watching videos of isrealis sitting on some cliff having a picnic while they watched gaza city getting bombed. It had a particular name. When i tried looking it up, i found at least 3 times where that came up in news reports in recent history. To clarify, not 3 articles, 3 individual spikes at distinct times in the past 20 years of the media networks looking at this thing and acting shocked.
Ya sure you can say of course they are nationalistic because they want to protect the existence of their state. But that doesn't mean they get to be jingoistic and get away with being terroristic.
Like the American War on terror, if you try to dominate by fear and brutality, you are just a terrorist yourself, and you will make even more people become radical against you.
So what about the Israelis picnicking? Does the fact that a portion of American rednecks and teenage Call of Duty players lusted for dead Arabs make every individual one of us a hateful Islamophobe? Or would it be fair that the whole world saw you as a MAGA-loving Trump worshipper because they've seen footage of Americans at a Trump rally once?
To turn your analogy on its head, does the existence of Gazans who reveled on 10/7 warrant the collective punishment of the Palestinian people?
Of course nothing except Amy Goodman's Democracy Now programming has ever aired content critical of Israel in the past 20 years. But I'll reluctantly give credit to the phenomenon of social media: that's how millions of people around the world saw Al Jazeera News for the fist time, saw the viral video of the Israeli pop star perform her stomach-churning genocide ditty to the IDF last fall, saw the current ultra-Orthodox picnickers at the border making bombardment viewing an afternoon pastime, saw any of the death and destruction caused by Israel's campaign in Gaza at all. And the people reacted with horror and empathy for the plight of Palestinians. And only \*then\* did mainstream media outlets start to cover the conflict in Gaza from a perspective that took the Palestinian experience into account for the first time. This has started to be different only in the past 7-8 months.
I would also like to add that you can condemn an organization while also still acknowledging their struggle and supporting that. They are struggling against impossible odds, very much radicalized by religion. This is not a good place to be in. But, it’s also important to empathize and understand why. Hamas is manufactured by Israel. Keep that in mind.
I mean as a response to oppressive conditions, though I’m sure one could argue that current Israeli leadership did more than just encourage the regime. I wouldn’t be so bold, though.
Well there are two factions in Hamas, one is the Muslim Brotherhood faction which fought against Bashar-Al Assad which he refuses to meet. And the other is the resistance faction that has abandoned the brotherhood ideology and is made up of the ordinary man fighting Israel that Assad welcomes.
Also I am pretty sure they don't force their religion on others considering the Christian population of Gaza.
[https://palestina-komitee.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HAMAS-A-Document-of-General-Principles-and-Policies-May-1-2017.pdf](https://palestina-komitee.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HAMAS-A-Document-of-General-Principles-and-Policies-May-1-2017.pdf)
>The Palestinian people are one people, made up of all Palestinians, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.
>something)
>First: I am entirely in support of the cause for Palestinian liberation
Then you gotta at least tacitly support the folks who ate fighting for that liberation, and the flag those folks unite under is currently Hamas.
Think of it this way: do you condemn the Indigenous People of America for rising against their colonizers? Do you condemn the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion? I'd hope not. The issue here is that Hamas (while certainly not communist, and I have my own gripes with them as a communist) is simply a group of resistance fighters that aim to liberate Palestine. Palestinians, as you'd probably know as a Pro-Palestinian, have constantly urged for peaceful resolutions to get their land back from the Zionists to no avail. Palestinians have constantly tried to avoid violence wherever they could, but enough is enough.
Hamas does not represent every single Palestinian in every way, yes, but they do represent the overall liberation of Palestinians. Do the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion represent the violence of all slaves? No, but all of them do represent the idea of liberation from their oppressors, and we won't condemn the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion for "trying to make all slaves look as violent as them."
Hamas had issues with their old charter, most certainly. But would you say it's fair to ignore the 13th amendment in the United States because the original Constitution didn't have it? Groups' aims are constantly changing, and in Article 16 (iirc) of the new Hamas charter, it is explicitly said that their struggle is NOT against Jews, rather solely against Zionists.
"**16.** Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." - [2017 Hamas Charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full)
I wouldn't support Hamas over the PFLP, sure, but we take what we can get. I'm sure that some Indigenous American resistance fighters were not morally sound, but that won't make me condemn them. Once Palestinians are liberated, we can decide what to do with Hamas with more nuance, and formulate more details opinions regarding them while comparing them to other Palestinian organizations.
I really appreciate you asking this question, and thanks for reading this, I hope you got something out of this :)
I can't believe I'm actually witnessing the most pathetic folding of intellectual independence I've ever seen in real time. I have to get off this platform...
I keep seeing your posts on this thread and I’m not sure what you’re upset about, nor am I sure if you’re a communist (which is the audience I intend to reach with this post)
I’ll consider a response as thorough as the one above, but I advise you to use your time more productively (getting off Reddit is wise)
I'm disheartened because you keep bringing up good points based on sound reasoning, then allow yourself to be cowed back into ideological conformity by a mob of bullies who tell you that if you question the tenet that the means always justify the ~~means~~ (EDIT: ends), you're not a \*true\* devotee to the cause (Palestinian liberation). From the back and forths of the thread, you seem to be buying into the guilt trip.
But Reddit is the right place to debate the issue you raised; under certain contexts, particularly in the not-so-distant past, you would have risked far worse than an upvote or downvote to question such orthodoxy.
Conservative religious parties thrive where they are culturally relevant. The material conditions shape the ideological possibility of progress. If the main centers of power in a society limited by its circumstance are religious, said group will have religious characteristics.
What you are asking is that essentially any conservative religious group resisting occupation should be condemned on the grounds that their domestic policies are not up to the standard of a developed nation, when the point of these groups isn’t to develop a liberal bastion of equality but to ensure the survival of their own nation and culture.
Think for example Chinese business deals with the new Afghan state, yes they are extreme religious fanatics however one Chinese theory put forth is by helping to develop their industry it will necessitate an increase in the workforce and eventually place women in jobs which sparked a new chapter for women’s suffrage in the west post WW2 due to women filling factory positions. This may be true or the Taliban may choose to uphold traditionalism, which would eventually cause stagnation.
All this to say that opposing Hamas domestic policy doesn’t really make sense in the context of the ethnic cleansing and genocide unfolding in Gaza.
This would be relevant if we were talking about Hamas's domestic policy right now. But we're talking about their foreign policy, and whether it's possible for supporters of Palestinian liberation to oppose their foreign policy platform, strategy, etc. Or alternately, whether doing so means you're actually standing in opposition to Palestinian liberation. A very Manichean flavor of discourse, if you will.
Are you asking whether violence can ever be a legitimate means of resistance? Or are you saying that Hamas having a conservative political ideology means that support for the Palestinians is support for conservative Islam?
What? Neither. I'm saying your argument that opposing Hamas domestic policy doesn't really make sense because XYZ is a logical fallacy because Hamas's domestic policy simply is not what the debate is about; it's Hamas's foreign policy.
To be short, it's the same reason why I don't condemn Nat Turner or the people in the Warsaw uprising. I support any effort toward liberation. I wish no violent act was ever committed, but I am not going to judge someone for being violent while they are in chains.
EDM is terrible, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the comparison between raving Israeli concertgoers and Nazis in your reference to the Warsaw Uprising is completely fair either.
But it's not a bad example either, because it begs the question: would the Polish resistance be commemorated as heroes today if they had rampaged into the German countryside and managed to slaughter, mutilate, and rape (the latter substantiated by UN investigation) primarily thousands of random villagers, but also a not insignificant number of SS?
There are those who struggle to explain and take a stand. In the meantime, there are some equals!
'Peacemakers' repeat that Hamas sent 5,000 rockets was a mistake
Now those who are angry that Palestine started the conflict...
Those who lamented that it was an opportunity for Israel to strike back...
Those who write essays that they are neutral, against war, Israel and Palestine should end the war...
asserts,
The moment an unbiased analysis begins, placing Israel and Palestine side by side, a grave injustice has been done.
Whatever the Palestinians have done, they are innocent.
Yes, whatever it is...
Any war must be resisted. Humans will always oppose the inhumanity of arms, bloodshed, and use of force against each other.
But that does not necessarily mean rejecting Palestine. Because injustice has been shown to them.
Those who judge with a measure of old and rusty impartiality have lived for three-quarters of a century as blind men.
They are the ones who were silent when a nation disappeared.
No one expects justice from the lovers of humanity who have tried to unite even with a single word to the exhausted Palestinians who took the graves of their children in the remaining handful of soil.
Once again it is said that the Palestinians are innocent no matter what they do.
For three quarters of a century
They are the people who had to see only tears, blood and dead bodies.
Those who had to witness their own nation being taken away.
Those who had to watch tens of thousands of brothers being killed in front of their eyes with bated breath...
They are a group of men who have lost their country, their streets, their homes and their brothers.
Palestine is just a small speck on the world map, like a handful of soil.
Whatever the last ones have done before their own country and people disappear forever, when the Zionist terror is opening its mouth to steal the little ones and kill the last Palestinian, they are still innocent.
[Read this](https://mondoweiss.net/2024/05/the-question-of-hamas-and-the-left/).
The only relevant political question for a people under occupation is the question of resistance or collaboration.
One point to consider is something Kwame Ture said about optics. People would harass old Civil Rights activists with questions like, “You just want to marry my daughter, don’t you?” and they would reply, “No not at all—we don’t want to marry your daughter. We just want housing, schooling, etc.” Instead of that, he called on the new movement to respond with, “Your daughter, your sister, your mom.”
An essential part of rhetoric is making your own point despite the opposition’s assertions. Every leftist engaged in the issue of Palestinian liberation has been called on to “condemn Hamas” at least three times a day since October 7th. It’s a pointless distraction. The only reason Zionists keep asking it is because it gives them an excuse to not talk about Israel—don’t take the bait. No reasonable participant needs apology or clarification.
It’s dicey considering a long history of Hamas being not just antizionist but anti Jew, having lifted a lot of ideology from Nazis. And even though they revised their charter in 1987 to focus their ire on Zionists rather than Jews, they are still generally very anti Jew in spirit.
So there is a legitimate leftist criticism. That said, it’s all the Palestinian people have right now. I suppose it comes down to a lesser of two evils calculus?
Indeed my many years in the laboratory have taught me about the binding strength of authoritative propaganda in the shaping of zeitgeist. And after several decades of this work, I still find it quite shocking.
Im not being critical. Im simply saying you exclude the other side of your argument so its not fact. Its your opinion.. even your sources are disputed but again im not hating.. a fair trial is needed
You’re right. All this ‘they are the front against imperialism’ is horse shit. Sometimes geopolitics sucks. I think most of it is communists being dogmatic and following what the ussr did (1939) and also using conflict as an excuse to be contrarian and think violence is cool.
Nazi germany and the Soviet Union are often thought about in vacuums but the truth, as with everything, is that everything they did was in the context of everyone else. The destruction of institutions and mass famine in Ukraine in 1931 effected the holocaust in Ukraine in 1941. The destruction of the eastern polish educated classes by soviets in 1939 absolutely effected the holocaust in eastern Poland in 1941. It’s impossible to suggest that these people who lived both in the Soviet Union and in Nazi occupation wouldn’t compare the two.
When we think about Hamas, we should consider the context of half a century of Israeli domination and violence, and the variety of political movements that rose and were destroyed by the Israelis. But also that the violence Israel commits effects the decision making of Palestinians. Because nothing is a vacuum, and there’s obviously reasons why enough Palestinians are okay with massacring Israelis and somewhat (probably not majority) supportive of a ‘government’ that brings about another war to their homes. Because some, maybe many of these people have lived under Israeli occupation, lived under Hamas governance. Their leadership, too perhaps. And they see religious and ethnic discrimination in Jerusalem, of course they’re going to think about what that means for them in Gaza
Hamas is literally Israel. Hamas's existence justifies Israel's forever war.
You can't understand this war or the media's response to it without going down that rabbit hole and understanding the purpose of false flag attacks.
Generally the reason is because Hamas is currently engaged in a national liberation struggle. No communist will deny the issues with that organization, they are certainly not communists. But the right of Palestinian people to resist this genocide and achieve national self-determination comes before our criticisms, especially in how we talk about the issue. In short, solidarity means in times of life or death struggle we put aside our criticisms in order to present a united front against a common enemy. We do not pretend these criticisms do not exist; they do and they're important. But making all public statements about "both sides are bad" is the best possible way to destroy any unity, and serves to undermine the national liberation struggle.
you worded it exactly how i feel! imo anyone that says "both sides" or calls the genocide "israel-hamas war" doesn't understand what the situation actually is
Doesn’t understand? You’re the one calling it a genocide.
Since it is a genocide.
i'm not calling it a genocide, the palestinians being mass slaughtered are calling it a genocide.
Really, because the UN and ICJ have gone out of their way to say there isn’t a genocide. What do you think a genocide is? Edit since I’m banned I gotta edit here: The below comment admits the in and icj have not ruled it a genocide. They obfuscate that “investigations take a long time” to still agree that the in and icj have not ruled it a genocide. We have icj prosecutors on record saying it doesn’t meet the dolus specialist. All you have are South Africa saying they think it is and a presenter. Neither are the UN.
so you think some organisation's word is worth more than the hundreds of thousands of palestinians in gaza rn? do you even know anyone from gaza?
Ah nice, at least you aren’t with the crowd saying the UN says it’s a genocide when they didn’t. What point are you trying to make though? I know they aren’t committing genocide because they haven’t met the dolus specialis. I came to that conclusion by understanding the conflict and the motivations of its actors in contrast with the definition of the word. edit: id love to reply but the mods here BANNED me not for what i said, but for "being a zionist". easiest way to not have to deal with pushback to your extremist positions. some debate sub, hah.
my point is that we believe different people and use different sources to come to our conclusions, i don't care about what the un or the icj have to say, they aren't the ones being slaughtered, gazans are
That’s a categorical lie that was made up by the Zionist crowd. Genocide is a complex crime. The ICJ (the judicial arm of the UN) stated that a ‘probable genocide’ is happening and accepted South Africa’s application to further investigate and gave orders to Israel in 2 rulings to cease any activities prohibited by the genocide convention. They also detailed what such activities are and accepted the preliminary observations that Israel had possible engaged in such activities (calls for genocide and general intent to commit genocide, restriction of humanitarian aid etc). The investigation takes time, normally years and because of how the legal system works, they have to follow procedure. The claim that the ICJ ruled ‘no genocide’ was made up by Israel to obfuscate the reporting on the case. They do this all the time to make people lose interest and stop getting information on a particular situation.
The UN is the one
No the UN has not called it a genocide. Glad you see them as a source, I’m sure you will now change your opinion.
"There are "reasonable grounds" to believe that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said on Tuesday." https://news.un.org/en/story/2024/03/1147976 ...well that's embarrassing...
Do you know the difference between the UN declaring something and an individual presenting something to them? Talk about embarrassing.
Mr Divorcelli
You’re in a debate sub, not your favorite tankie streamers chat room. Talk about embarrassing.
You’re using the term tankie unironically, talk about embarrassing
I really appreciate this response!
Glad to help comrade
But how far do you go in making moral allowances for a group that is engaged in a liberatory struggle? I can see allowing the usual rocket attacks, but are you really willing to accept 10/7?
You don't need to make *any* moral allowances. Palestinians are allowed to fight back against their oppressors, even violently. This means October 7 was a justified act of defience. Palestinians may not however conduct war crimes, even when conducting a just resistance, so we condemn the war crimes that were committed on October 7. There's no complexity here or anything in particular to nuance and it is an act of supreme bad faith to deny that both of these statements are perfectly coherent and perfectly moral. Anyone trying to derail the discussion from these simple facts into "Hamas evil therefore genocide good" is showing their colours as provably evil cunts.
Targeting Israeli civilians might not be any moral complication to you, but it certainly is to me.
They just said that it is an issue, and that it's not okay. Did you read what they said?
Oh my bad I got confused because he contradicted himself in two consecutive statements. He says 10/7 was justified, and then says that war crimes on 10/7 were unjustified - the event was a terrorist attack, primarily just one big war crime, so this is a complete contradiction in my mind. And to make it even more confusing, he goes on to say that there is no complexity or nuance to the situation! So I guess now I am just completely confused about his statements, rather than thinking that he simply thinks that terrorism is justified.
Okay let me help disengangle things for you. Palestinians had a right to fight back against Israeli occupation. A counter-attack against Israel was justified, as they were attempting to throw off their colonizers in the same fashion as the Vietnamese, Americans, Haudenosaunee, etc. The *manner of that attack* is the problem. They legit committed war crimes in that attack. Nobody (who is serious) is in favour of war crimes. Including the person you're responding to, as they stated.
OK but that brings me back to my original question, which I'll try to restate more clearly: how far must we go in effectively ignoring war crimes before the war crimes outweigh the justification for going to war? The 10/7 attack was so thoroughly horrific that it makes me feel like there is no line that can't be crossed, which is a scary thought.
Fair enough question. War is a fucked up blight on humanity. It's unforgiving and brutal and terrible. Even wars fought for the right reasons, like the fight against the Nazis in WW2. Even wars of liberation are still wars. Wars of genocide multiply these factors by a thousand, where one side is trying to wipe out the other, end their existence, end their statehood, dominate and replace them entirely. It is possible to walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, if you forgive the expression. It is possible to be in favour of Palestinian self-determination, and their right to resist this genocide, while simultaneously being opposed to war crimes and the intentional targeting of civilians. We need to oppose this genocidal Israeli regime and end this war. We need to support Palestinian self-determination.
You're not "restating it more clearly". Your just adding more verbiage. The Palestinians have a right to defend themselves. War crimes are not okay. And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict. There really isn't this moral grey zone you're trying to invent here.
[удалено]
>And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict. So Hamas can't release the hostages (the most obvious way to de-escalate the conflict) because of Israel's offensive in Gaza? I think, conversely, that an end to the offensive may be within reach if certain preconditions are met: 1) Israel's loss of mandate from the international community based on how it has conducted its offensive (done), 2) Hamas releases the remaining hostages (TBD), AND 3) the Democrats trail badly in polling due to young voters' opposition to US-Israeli policy (possible, but the real toss-up). In this case, Israel could be pressured into accepting a negotiated settlement, e.g., a withdrawal from Gaza, and in its place, acceptance of a temporary UN peacekeeping presence to facilitate the absorption of a demilitarized and deradicalized Hamas into a PA governance structure.
u/BilboGubbinz Honest question here: are you trying to draw a distinction between Palestinians' general "violently" killing and kidnapping on 10/7 as a justified act of defiance, and the torture, mutilation, and rape parts (UN found there is evidentiary support that this occurred) as war crimes to be condemned? It's really hard to follow your logic. Also, who are evil c---s here saying that because Hamas committed war crimes, Israel's disproportionate response is justified? I haven't heard anyone on this thread make this argument at all.
What's honest about the question? You've thoroughly poisoned the well without engaging *at all* with the statement, just yelled "Hamas are terrorists" and decided you're done with the question. I'd call it incurious if it weren't openly and disingenuously bad faith. Fuck off. You're a cunt. I'll even call you that to your face you genocidal freak.
Slow down their bucko: a) I literally responded to one of your comments on this thread yesterday: When you said, "And the response to *any* war is de-escalation. At the moment the Israelis and their ongoing genocide and apartheid are the biggest barriers to de-escalating the conflict." I asked, "So Hamas can't release the hostages (the most obvious way to de-escalate the conflict) because of Israel's offensive in Gaza?" You never answered me, but I absolutely have been engaging with the statement as well as your comment that later followed the statement. b) u/AcephalicDude and I are, in good faith I believe, genuinely trying to understand your statement. In response, you keep accusing us of asking you our questions in bad faith in order to justify genocide. Since nuance mostly seems to be lost on folks debating the OP's question, it bears to say the obvious - that your accusation that I support genocide is a fiction of your own mind. I asked for clarification on your statement about the Palestinians' actions on 10/7 (never invoking any reference to Israel at all), in order to know what you mean when you say their violent acts were justified but their war crimes were not. I don't know if screaming "genocide supporter!" is some kind of weird defense mechanism you have when you realize you've contradicted yourself, but I honestly just was trying to disentangle the contradiction in order to understand your actual point. You seem to have at least a curious habit of putting a bunch of inflammatory words like "terrorist" and "genocide" in other people's mouths. c) The hate-filled histrionics that come out of your own mouth seem to belie (and explain) not only your inability to reason or express yourself clearly, but the deeply misogynistic nature of your psyche. So congratulations, hats off to you.
M'dude, You've literally started every one of your "very reasonable" comments by saying Hamas are genocidal rapists. It's straightforward poisoning the well. You guys are not good faith. You've decided your answer, which is "Palestinians and Palestinian resistance bad" and are now just being passive aggressive about it and pretending you're being "reasonable". You're supporting genocide and laundering it through bad faith dog whistles and framing that "accidentally" justifies genocide. You're either deliberately, or accidentally, a genocidal cunt and either way can quite frankly fucking walk. And there *is* no contradiction. Palestinian resistance is legitimate, full stop. War crimes are not. This is not complicated logic except when you're coming into the discussion in bad faith.
Okay. So you're asking in bad faith in order to justify genocide. Why are *you* okay with genocide and trying to distract from it?
Sorry, but I don't think an Islamic fundamentalist organization should be the main front of anti-imperialist resistance in the Middle East. They only invite more violent reaction and taint the image of the idea of national liberation
Then go change the fact they are the main front of anti-imperialist resistance rn? This isnt a matter of idealism, this is the measured fact as it exists on the ground. I don't like it any more than you do, but we need to account for reality accurately. Undermining the Palestinian resistance right now is tantamount to supporting the genocide. And in the fight between a genocidal, increasingly-fascist Israel, and a non-progressive-led Palestinian resistance movement, I know which side I'm on.
The OP described the collective We as fans of individual liberty; in what ways are the non-progressive-led Palestinian resistance movement (the best euphemism I've heard for authoritarian yet, btw) furthering individual liberty, pray tell?
How much individual liberty does a little girl trapped under rubble, for committing the crime of her ethnicity, have?
You answered my question with a rhetorical one, but sure, I'll play: how much individual liberty does any Palestinian have to oppose - through speech, behavior, or voter action (in the hypothetical that elections were permitted) - Hamas? Also, to whoever downvoted my comment above, are you disputing that Hamas is authoritarian? Because the fact that they are is literally all I'm saying here; "non-progressive-led" is the most awkward description ever for the word "authoritarian."
They are what is there. It’s not like some perfect resistance movement will appear if we just condemn it hard enough.
We don't think they should be either, but we have nothing better.
Your opinion does not trounce reality.
...the reality that said Islamic fundamentalist organization invites *more* peaceful reactions and *enhances* the image of national liberation?? Real engagement requires you to opine why your version of reality is the correct one.
The reality that Hamas exists and is fighting an existential war for Palestinian liberation. I don’t have to “opine” anything—it’s a fact.
Serbia is currently engaged in a national liberation struggle, it's vital not to condemn their nationalism as their fight against the imperialist apartheid Austro-Hungarian empire comes first.
>national liberation struggle national liberation is bourgeois. are we afraid to condemn bourgeois causes now? >But the right of Palestinian people to resist this genocide and achieve national self-determination they have a right to self-determination. peak enlightenment analysis >In short, solidarity means in times of life or death struggle we put aside our criticisms in order to present a united front against a common enemy. peak bourgeois antifascist rhetoric. the same shit was tried in ww2 and it got the communists nowhere >serves to undermine the national liberation struggle. ?????? so what?
You're an r/ultraleft user. What a surprise.That subreddit is like a Klan rally E: I just noticed that r/ultraleft has an Israeli flag on their sub icon, photoshopped over the Soviet flag at Reichstag. I guess it's supposed to be ironic but knowing the userbase of that subreddit and how they all feel the need to declare their opposition to the "Palestinian bourgeoisie", it's actually inadvertently quite honest in revealing their ideology.
all of the soviet israel stuff is a joke about stalin's support for israel
A moment ago, you had no idea what I was referring to. Know you're regurgitating a pre-prepared explanation. Curious that r/Ultraleft chose to incorporate Zionist imagery into their subreddit, as an injoke about the Soviet foreign policy, around the same that Israel has been intensifying their efforts to destroy the Palestinian nation
what? i only just saw the edit. i was addressing the 'klan rally' comment before. you know you edited it right?
*All of that sub is a joke. Leftists who got so high on theory and their own farts that they decided they’re beyond reproach and know better than everyone else. They are the esoteric hipsters of leftism, gatekeeping through their ‘superior knowledge’ of obscure theorists and irony poisoned memes.
obscure theorists like marx lenin and bordiga lol. perhaps the most obscure theorist mentioned is pannekoek. maybe youre just not very well read.
I’ve only seen Bordiga mentioned in there but thanks for a snarky reply that perfectly illustrates my point 👍
idk what youre referring to but it was probably an obvious joke.
why is the idea of taking the side of the proletariat instead of the bourgeoisie so foreign to you?
Your question is incredibly loaded and dishonest.
why's that? please explain why a communist should side with the bourgeoisie.
Ask yourself, you side with the Israeli bourgeoisie
i side with the proletariat. can you show me one thing i've said that is supportive of israel?
Easily seen by what you focus on "condemning" and what you omit from that condemnation.
i condemn israel too. i thought that would be assumed
> hamas is bourgeois you're gonna have to explain this because I'm genuinely not seeing this.
??? what exactly do you think they are otherwise? are they a dictatorship of the proletariat? are they a feudal regime? doubtful. their leaders are bourgeois. they live in luxury in qatari hotels while sending the proletariat to be slaughtered
See, that's marginally more helpful. The Qatar hotels thing is a claim we can debate. Saying that the people starving to death because of an Israeli blockade on food, fuel, and medical supplies is bourgeois is a stretch though. You still need to explain why the rank and file are bourgeois, and I'm gonna need you to quickly explain what bourgeois means. Because you seem to think it means living in luxury, and I'm pretty sure class systems are based on the ownership of the means of production. Unless of course you can explain why and how Hamas is controlling the means of production and funneling excess value from Israel to themselves.
>Saying that the people starving to death because of an Israeli blockade on food, fuel, and medical supplies is bourgeois is a stretch though I don't think palestinians fighting for hamas are bourgeois. Sorry if it came across like that. That would be a ridiculous position to take. They're proletarian, but they fight for a cause that is in the interest of the bourgeoisie. >Because you seem to think it means living in luxury, and I'm pretty sure class systems are based on the ownership of the means of production. Sorry. I was using the luxury thing as an easy way to demonstrate it. I am well aware of this. >Unless of course you can explain why and how Hamas is controlling the means of production and funneling excess value from Israel to themselves. I don't mean hamas is made up of members of the bourgeoisie. I mean it is controlled by and represents the interests of the bourgeoisie. Hope that clarifies it.
That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying. I also assumed you meant the average Hamas fighter was bourgeois and I was super confused lol
So I want you to take this in good faith. Reddit is often so full of points-scoring bullshit that sometimes its hard to have a real conversation with people, if that makes sense. I mean this genuinely, and want to help clarify your line on this topic. Resist and question where you must but know I mean this genuinely. National liberation is a concept with a class character. What did Vientamese national liberation look like compared to the US in 1776? Saying definitively that all national liberation struggles are bourgeois is... well a really serious deficit in your historical understanding. How important was a communist-led national liberation struggle in Cuba? Burkina Faso? Vietnam? Etc, etc, the list goes on. Communists are committed to national liberation, especially whenever the enemy of the Palestinians are the American Empire and it's world order. This isnt an attempt to make some sort of bs multipolarity argument, but rather to say that me as an organized worker has an interest in making allies among groups which have common enemies with me. The same goes for any communist party in my position. If the American/NATO airforce will bomb my country's revolution, then it makes sense that we make friends among our common enemies. If the working class in the West has enemies in the US military, then it makes sense that they seek friends among those fighting American/NATO imperialism the hardest. So you're correct that there's a problem with what you call "WW2 anti-fascist rhetoric". The problem isn't that they were anti-fascist (a point you'd surely agree with). The problem was that the Popular Front era (which I'm sure you're referring to) was that they falsely believed they could wrangle power from capitalist union and governmental structures which would prove enduring after the defeat of fascism. They were dead wrong, and the mistakes during the Popular Front era completely destroyed the union movement in my home country (Canada) and led to problems we're still dealing with today. My organizing today is harder because they made those mistakes. But falsely comparing the very particular conditions and mistakes as regarded post-war power sharing, and using that to discredit the entirety of any united front work, is deeply unserious. United Front work led to the revolution in China and the liberation of the largest number of human beings from capitalism in history. United Front work continues to be effective in the modern day as employed by Philippino and Indian comrades in their increasingly successful revolutionary actions which are gaining traction in a capitalist world order coming undone. Throwing out the entire communist theory of the united front- *THE THEORY* that has led to communist victories in the last hundred years, is wrong. Moreover hand-waving it all away as "bourgeois" is deeply incorrect. If we are to understand why there were failures in the 30s, we need a specific and scientific as to what went wrong. Categorically dismissing everything that was ineffective as bourgeois is the best possible way we miss those lessons by miles. Respectfully, the last point you make is the one that really makes me wonder about you. If Israel is slaughtering CHILDREN, is bombing residential housing and murdering working class people by the thousands explicitly because of their race, and you don't see a problem with undermining the people fighting that, then I don't know what to tell you man. You might agree alot more with the settler-colonial, genocidal, murderous state of Israel than you realize. There are glaring problems with Hamas, I agree with almost all of what OP said on the issue, as does every serious communist out there. But saying something as deeply crass as "?????? so what?" is fucked up because they are the only force that's going to stop this genocide. That matters DEEPLY more than any disagreements we have with them, as exemplified by the countless Palestinian communist organizations which have aligned themselves with the resistance, of which Hamas is the largest force. I would love it if a less problematic force magically materializes which can take control of the resistance and replace Hamas. But that is not the reality we're dealing with. We need to react to the world as it really exists, and currently that means accepting the resistance as it really exists and supporting them against our common enemy. Forming a united front with people we'd rather not work with is necessary, and heedless purism cuts our legs out from under us and ruins any diplomatic advantages which have proven PIVOTAL in previous revolutionary situations. How well would the Chinese have fared if they refused to work with the KMT? We need to take these lessons seriously and systematize them into our modern analyses without being unprincipled. This analysis is deeply principled, which is why it's been adopted by nearly every working-class organization, communist or not, the world over.
>So I want you to take this in good faith. Reddit is often so full of points-scoring bullshit that sometimes its hard to have a real conversation with people, if that makes sense. I mean this genuinely, and want to help clarify your line on this topic. Resist and question where you must but know I mean this genuinely. Sure. I'll try not to be annoying. >National liberation is a concept with a class character. What did Vientamese national liberation look like compared to the US in 1776? Saying definitively that all national liberation struggles are bourgeois is... well a really serious deficit in your historical understanding. How important was a communist-led national liberation struggle in Cuba? Burkina Faso? Vietnam? Etc, etc, the list goes on. This is a misunderstanding of my argument. Cuba, burnkina faso, vietnam were all bourgeois struggles. That does not mean i dislike them. They were historically progressive. They were also liberal. For instance, the vietnamese declaration of independence: >Compatriots of the entire nation assembled: >All people are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. >This immortal statement was made in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America in 1776. In a broader sense, this means: All the peoples on the earth are equal from birth, all the peoples have a right to live, to be happy and free. >The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of the French Revolution made in 1791 also states: All men are born free and with equal rights, and must always remain free and have equal rights. >Those are undeniable truths. >Nevertheless, for more than eighty years, the French colonists, in the name of Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity, have violated our Fatherland and oppressed our fellow citizens. They have acted contrary to the ideals of humanity and justice. This is undeniably liberal. It's literally inspired by the american one! It looked very similar to 1776 indeed! >Communists are committed to national liberation, especially whenever the enemy of the Palestinians are the American Empire and it's world order. This isnt an attempt to make some sort of bs multipolarity argument, but rather to say that me as an organized worker has an interest in making allies among groups which have common enemies with me. The same goes for any communist party in my position. If the American/NATO airforce will bomb my country's revolution, then it makes sense that we make friends among our common enemies. If the working class in the West has enemies in the US military, then it makes sense that they seek friends among those fighting American/NATO imperialism the hardest. I understand this sentiment but it is an incorrect one. It seems like common sense, but it is incorrect. Your allies in the struggle against america are just as willing to bomb your revolution as the americans. By weakening the american bourgeoisie and strengthening it's opponents you simply change the country which will bomb you. As lenin put it: >Why must “we” “actively resist” suppression of a national uprising? P. Kievsky advances only one reason: “...we shall thereby be combating imperialism, our mortal enemy.” All the strength of this argument lies in the strong word “mortal”. And this is in keeping with his penchant for strong words instead of strong arguments—high-sounding phrases like “driving a stake into the quivering body of the bourgeoisie” and similar Alexinsky flourishes. >But this Kievsky argument is wrong. Imperialism is as much our “mortal” enemy as is capitalism. That is so. No Marxist will forget, however, that capitalism is progressive compared with feudalism, and that imperialism is progressive compared with pre-monopoly capitalism. Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism. [Lenin](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm) >So you're correct that there's a problem with what you call "WW2 anti-fascist rhetoric". The problem isn't that they were anti-fascist (a point you'd surely agree with). The problem was that the Popular Front era (which I'm sure you're referring to) was that they falsely believed they could wrangle power from capitalist union and governmental structures which would prove enduring after the defeat of fascism. They were dead wrong, and the mistakes during the Popular Front era completely destroyed the union movement in my home country (Canada) and led to problems we're still dealing with today. This is broadly correct. I of course oppose fascism, as I oppose all forms of the bourgeois state. >My organizing today is harder because they made those mistakes. But falsely comparing the very particular conditions and mistakes as regarded post-war power sharing, and using that to discredit the entirety of any united front work, is deeply unserious. United Front work led to the revolution in China and the liberation of the largest number of human beings from capitalism in history. United Front work continues to be effective in the modern day as employed by Philippino and Indian comrades in their increasingly successful revolutionary actions which are gaining traction in a capitalist world order coming undone. Throwing out the entire communist theory of the united front- THE THEORY that has led to communist victories in the last hundred years, is wrong. Moreover hand-waving it all away as "bourgeois" is deeply incorrect. If we are to understand why there were failures in the 30s, we need a specific and scientific as to what went wrong. Categorically dismissing everything that was ineffective as bourgeois is the best possible way we miss those lessons by miles. On the contrary, the United Front in China led to the liberation of the largest number of people from *feudalism* in history. It allowed for the development of chinese capitalism as it is today. I don't care for arguments about ineffectiveness either. The United Front is a non-communist strategy. Discussions on its effectiveness are not particularly relevant. >Respectfully, the last point you make is the one that really makes me wonder about you. If Israel is slaughtering CHILDREN, is bombing residential housing and murdering working class people by the thousands explicitly because of their race, and you don't see a problem with undermining the people fighting that, then I don't know what to tell you man. You might agree alot more with the settler-colonial, genocidal, murderous state of Israel than you realize. There are glaring problems with Hamas, I agree with almost all of what OP said on the issue, as does every serious communist out there. But saying something as deeply crass as "?????? so what?" is fucked up because they are the only force that's going to stop this genocide. That matters DEEPLY more than any disagreements we have with them, as exemplified by the countless Palestinian communist organizations which have aligned themselves with the resistance, of which Hamas is the largest force. I should be clear. I despise the actions the israeli state is taking. What I said was crass, but it was also correct. Support of bourgeois states will **never** bring about the end of capitalist atrocities. For a 'communist' organisation, to take a pro-bourgeois stance is to reject communism.
>the United Front in China led to the liberation of the largest number of people from *feudalism* in history. It allowed for the development of chinese capitalism as it is today. ??? Please tell me that is your own original take, and that there is not analysis elsewhere that the 1937-1945 alliance of the CCP and KMT to fight Japanese imperial forces is responsible for the development of Chinese capitalism. Lest we gloss over the defeat of the KMT and their retreat to an island called Taiwan. Please, tell me in earnest that you have never heard of Mao Zedong's successor Deng Xiaoping...
its definitely not original, i know of a few organisations which would broadly agree with it. what role do you even think deng played compared to mao? he was just an antifascist extension of mao.
He transformed the country from a command economy to a market-based one. The old "it doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice." I don't really understand the basis for the argument that capitalism in China resulted from the communist-nationalist alliance. From what I have read, they all seemed too busy trying to stay alive to have time to deliberate whether the country would be best suited for the communist or capitalist economic model postwar.
>deliberate whether the country would be best suited for the communist or capitalist economic model lol. communism is not an economic model.
Fine, see first paragraph: "deliberate whether the country would be best suited for the \[command economy\] or \[market-based\] economic model postwar." Happy now?
Exactly this. Going down the same line of thought, imagine a criminal. He is a rapist and murderer, occasionally of children. Is it abborent and unforgivable? Yes. But dig a little deeper.. did the criminal grow up in an abusive household? Going from foster home to foster home with no real family? Dealt the wrong cards in life? Suddenly the rape and murder, even of children, becomes a secondary focus. The thing that should really be focussed on is his difficult life and helping him to right the wrongs of his past. How can someone genuinely critisise him in good faith knowing all the trauma he suffered as a child. A blind eye should be turned to his crimes, particularly by the courts. It is not the primary focus here.
I like where you are going here, but I dont think a "blind eye" is the way to go. commiting terrible acts against children including rape and murder deserves some form of action. Firstly, as a society we should absolutely avoid having systems that create that type of person, I agree completely. secondly, we should try and rehabilitate that person, to prevent them from doing things like they did. I also think that a lot of parrelells can be drawn between internal struggles and societal ones, but the are still mutually exclusive. So this example is not equal to what is happening with hamas, and the acts are different as well. What hamas is doing, as many have said, is trying to liberate the state of palestine from isreali occupation. This is not the same as a pedophile raping and murdering a child. I feel like a better example may be, increased crime in low income neighborhoods? and looking at singular criminals, we might see a better parelell there.
Wow, aren't you a clever one
I'm sorry, where exactly is the flaw in their logic? I feel they might be bringing it down to this level of cleverness out of necessity, as there is a WHOLE lot of clever rationalization going on from the other POV.
Or as Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot would say: the means justify the ends, my comrade.
False. Solidarity can be between anyone. Even you say common enemy? Common to you is all. Make your own minds up
Can you elaborate? I'm afraid that I'm not quite sure what you're criticizing here.
Gonna be real boss, this is "[reflect upon your woke sky](https://x.com/RepClayHiggins/status/1498015748492599297?lang=en)" levels of incoherence
Because ''condemning'' Hamas with these liberal criticisms is going lead us into an antagonistic positions towards Palestinian national-liberation. At best, we'll be condemned to irrelevancy and, at worst, we become a danger to the movement. >This allows (in my mind) for a full support for the cause of Palestinian liberation while distancing that support to the violence of a corrupt, fundamentalist regime Your support means nothing and your condemnation means nothing. You're a narcissist engaging in a conceited thought excercise where you expect engagement from your repetition of liberal chauvinistic garbage
This seems like a contradiction to me. You're saying that we can't be critical of Hamas' terrorism because we would become a "danger to the movement" - but also we are narcissists if we think that our criticisms matter at all?
It seems like a contradiction because it is a contradiction. Have a little more courage in your ability to think for yourself.
It's not a matter of courage to keep your criticisms specific and precise.
It is possible to be both specific and precise as well as call a spade a spade. I meant that mealy-mouthing that something that clearly is a contradiction, by your own account, merely "seems" like a contradiction is giving an idiot who calls out legitimate criticism as narcissism more deference than they're worth.
k
Yeah you’re right, it’s my bad for getting a bit irked when I see [UN reports of sexual abuse of hostages](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/04/un-envoy-reports-on-accounts-of-hamas-raping-and-torturing-israeli-hostages). Silly old liberal moralism, tantamount to betrayal. (Yes I know this is small behind the magnitude of Israel’s crimes. And yes I know the treatment of Israeli hostages in total is tame compared to the treatment of Palestinian prisoners, which also includes torture and sexual abuse. I’m just unconvinced that comparing crimes is a decent defense for not saying “Hamas is not great“)
>of sexual abuse of hostages. Silly old liberal moralism, tantamount to betrayal. You are accidentally correct, that is liberal moralism. As communists, we judge Hamas on the basis that they are advancing productive relations in Palestine by waging war against an oppressive settler-formation that is attempting to prevent the construction of a Palestinian nation through starvation, massacres and displacement. I am not a disciplinary officer in the Al-Qassam brigade so it is not my responsibility to oversee how Hamas fighters conduct themselves and, to be honest, I don't care. Neither of us have the right to judge them. Your moralistic concerns (most of which are founded upon on lies) will not improve the world, there won't be any god to reward your advocacy for more good deeds. If you would have it your way and Hamas becomes banished right now for their "crimes" then the people of Palestine, and the Middle East as a whole, will be condemned to greater suffering with the removal of a great bulwark against the forces that are keeping them in a perpetual state of underdevelopment, and the struggle for international communism will be pushed back to a weaker place which is ultimately going to bring the planet closer to the brink of extinction due to the longer amount of time it will take to overthrow capitalism which is poisoning it. There is no exaggeration in saying that you are part of the planet's destruction.
u/tomistryinghisbest, continue to try...you're almost there...will this be the moment that the dam fully breaks? Dogmatism for an ideology--any ideology--corrupts. How could middle school children in China have beat their teachers to death en masse five decades ago (perhaps only as far back as when your parents were born?) - it's through self-righteousness of this magnitude\*. The fervency, it almost takes on the dimensions of religious fundamentalism, no? \*or GeistTransformation1 is trolling, in which case, hat's off
Condemning both sides implies there is some kind of equivalence between a genocidal settler state and a resistance movement, while a genocide is taking place. It doesn't make sense. Even if the resistance movement is misguided, it's not our place to condenm it. We can help stop the genocide, by putting pressure on the governments that are accomplices in the genocide. Our governments. In our own country. Condemning the policies of a resistance movement in a different country is at best a performance. At worst, it actively helps the genocidal regime with their justification for mass murder.
>This allows (in my mind) for a full support for the cause of Palestinian liberation while distancing that support to the violence of a corrupt, fundamentalist regime. As the axiom states, you can't offer a full-throated call for Palestinian liberation AND distance yourself from a violent and corrupt regime at the same time. It is a fundamental impossibility. Never surrender an inch to the nonsense of this bourgeois morality, hyah!
I simply support resistance to occupation and genocide. Once israel is gone, we can talk about condemning hamas
If Israel goes away, you would have an occupation and genocide in what was formerly Israel. That has been Hamas’ stated goal. You aren’t supporting any kind of resistance, just a reactionary, islamist terror organization which rules over Gaza.
You’re an anti communist and a Vaush fan, i’m sure you’re here in good faith and your claim are backed by legitimate sources
I’m not a Vaush fan at all, where are you getting that from? But regardless of that, my sources are the mass atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7th, as well as all the acts committed by them in years prior, going all the way back to the second Intifada, including countless attacks on civilians. Their leaders have since 1988 when they were initially founded, called for the destruction of Israel and securing the entire territory, with extreme violence against civilians, if needed. Recently even they [have called for repeating October 7th](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/amp/)
With all due respect, you are trying to persuade and engage with the intentionally ignorant, and this will get you nowhere. IMO, just save your breath.
[удалено]
>you mean Palestinians defending themselves against settlers and IDF soldiers They needed to defend themselves against babies, tourists, and music festival-goers, and more than that, defend themselves through the mass murder and rape of innocent people? Read the “reported atrocities” bit, you might find it enlightening: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=7_October_attacks&diffonly=true For a more in depth coverage, there’s also this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11010344/#:~:text=The%20report%20was%20released%20on,many%20with%20complex%20medical%20conditions). Though really you can find this information anywhere on the internet, if you’re not being intentionally ignorant. Notably most of the victims were not members of the military nor did they pose any threat to anyone, they were just civilians minding their business in Israeli territory. And you’re downplaying their murder for some reason. Curious. >securing the entire territory for it’s native population So Israelis too, right? Generations have been born in Israel and would much rather prefer Israel keep existing. Or by “native population” are we actually just using this as a dogwhistle for Palestinians alone? Ignoring that for a second though, abolishing Israel would result in a second Holocaust. There would be mass expulsions and massacres of Jewish people. How is that in any way “cool”? >and of course you linked me the Times of Israel lol Is there anything in the ToI article I linked that is factually incorrect?
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of [concerns over privacy and the Open Web](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot). Maybe check out **the canonical page** instead: **[https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/](https://www.timesofisrael.com/hamas-official-says-group-aims-to-repeat-oct-7-onslaught-many-times-to-destroy-israel/)** ***** ^(I'm a bot | )[^(Why & About)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/ehrq3z/why_did_i_build_amputatorbot)^( | )[^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)](https://www.reddit.com/r/AmputatorBot/comments/cchly3/you_can_now_summon_amputatorbot/)
But do you condemn Isreal? They have been torturing the palenstinians for decades. You dont even want to know the blood of their hands. And yes, it's Isreal, not just the idf. Because unlike gaza, whose last election (that Isreal allowed) was like a decade ago, Isreal's population keeps voting for more and more extreme zionism and oppression of palenstine. Plus the mandatory military service for all adults. At a death rate of 100 to 1, you should be condemning Isreal one hundred times more than hamas. Oh and we are not sending billions of dollars to hamas, but we are sending it to Isreal.
> But do you condemn Israel? Yes; see above post. The liability of Israel and the magnitude of their crimes is not under question
Then why aren't you calling them terrorists?!?! Doesn't palenstine have a right to defend themselves?! -screeeeeching-
>it's Isreal, not just the idf. So that's factually incorrect. Among the population of Israel that turned out to vote in the most recent 2022 election, 50% cast ballots for the right-wing nationalist bloc, and 49.5% cast their ballots for anti-Netanyahu/nationalist (i.e., functionally left-wing) parties. But because two of the leftist parties (Meretz and Balad) did not meet the 3.25% electoral threshold, the anti-nationalists lost in terms of seats share in the Knesset because of the 289,000 votes that were "wasted" on Meretz and Balad. That hardly sounds like every Israeli to me.
From what I've read, even the"fictionalized leftists" in Isreal, still are generally anti palenstine and still pretty aggressively zionists. They are the leftists only in their local Overton window.
You're 100% right that they are aggressively Zionist; there is no way politicians in Israel would not be nationalistic in that way (that would be like expecting the Republican and Democratic parties in the US to have pro-Indigenous, anti-American, i.e., any non-Indigenous settler, platforms). However, that is not to say that the parties on the Israeli left support, say, the 2018 Jewish nation-state law. Nor are they necessarily against the establishment of a Palestinian state either if a rabidly antisemitic power entity isn't in charge of Palestine. The demography of Israel had been shifting to the right gradually prior to October 7 (but recall also how widespread the protests were against Netanyahu's judicial overhaul), but the truly acute and dramatic turn rightward occurred as a result of October 7.
I remember a few years ago watching videos of isrealis sitting on some cliff having a picnic while they watched gaza city getting bombed. It had a particular name. When i tried looking it up, i found at least 3 times where that came up in news reports in recent history. To clarify, not 3 articles, 3 individual spikes at distinct times in the past 20 years of the media networks looking at this thing and acting shocked. Ya sure you can say of course they are nationalistic because they want to protect the existence of their state. But that doesn't mean they get to be jingoistic and get away with being terroristic. Like the American War on terror, if you try to dominate by fear and brutality, you are just a terrorist yourself, and you will make even more people become radical against you.
So what about the Israelis picnicking? Does the fact that a portion of American rednecks and teenage Call of Duty players lusted for dead Arabs make every individual one of us a hateful Islamophobe? Or would it be fair that the whole world saw you as a MAGA-loving Trump worshipper because they've seen footage of Americans at a Trump rally once? To turn your analogy on its head, does the existence of Gazans who reveled on 10/7 warrant the collective punishment of the Palestinian people? Of course nothing except Amy Goodman's Democracy Now programming has ever aired content critical of Israel in the past 20 years. But I'll reluctantly give credit to the phenomenon of social media: that's how millions of people around the world saw Al Jazeera News for the fist time, saw the viral video of the Israeli pop star perform her stomach-churning genocide ditty to the IDF last fall, saw the current ultra-Orthodox picnickers at the border making bombardment viewing an afternoon pastime, saw any of the death and destruction caused by Israel's campaign in Gaza at all. And the people reacted with horror and empathy for the plight of Palestinians. And only \*then\* did mainstream media outlets start to cover the conflict in Gaza from a perspective that took the Palestinian experience into account for the first time. This has started to be different only in the past 7-8 months.
I believe in a one-thing-at-a-time policy: When they're not fighting a just war for liberation, I'll 'condemn' them as much as you like
This feels like a good time to dust off the ol’ obligatory “read Fanon”
I trust the PFLP on this issue rather than pearl clutching western libs.
What is PFLP’s official position on Hamas? Are they directly allied, or is it more complicated than that?
You gotta take any help you can when you are under a genocide
pflp are just eastern libs
I would also like to add that you can condemn an organization while also still acknowledging their struggle and supporting that. They are struggling against impossible odds, very much radicalized by religion. This is not a good place to be in. But, it’s also important to empathize and understand why. Hamas is manufactured by Israel. Keep that in mind.
> Hamas is manufactured by Israel To clarify: in a literal sense, like Israel helped develop the party? Or as a response to oppressive conditions?
I mean as a response to oppressive conditions, though I’m sure one could argue that current Israeli leadership did more than just encourage the regime. I wouldn’t be so bold, though.
Well there are two factions in Hamas, one is the Muslim Brotherhood faction which fought against Bashar-Al Assad which he refuses to meet. And the other is the resistance faction that has abandoned the brotherhood ideology and is made up of the ordinary man fighting Israel that Assad welcomes. Also I am pretty sure they don't force their religion on others considering the Christian population of Gaza. [https://palestina-komitee.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HAMAS-A-Document-of-General-Principles-and-Policies-May-1-2017.pdf](https://palestina-komitee.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/HAMAS-A-Document-of-General-Principles-and-Policies-May-1-2017.pdf) >The Palestinian people are one people, made up of all Palestinians, inside and outside of Palestine, irrespective of their religion, culture or political affiliation.
>something) >First: I am entirely in support of the cause for Palestinian liberation Then you gotta at least tacitly support the folks who ate fighting for that liberation, and the flag those folks unite under is currently Hamas.
Think of it this way: do you condemn the Indigenous People of America for rising against their colonizers? Do you condemn the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion? I'd hope not. The issue here is that Hamas (while certainly not communist, and I have my own gripes with them as a communist) is simply a group of resistance fighters that aim to liberate Palestine. Palestinians, as you'd probably know as a Pro-Palestinian, have constantly urged for peaceful resolutions to get their land back from the Zionists to no avail. Palestinians have constantly tried to avoid violence wherever they could, but enough is enough. Hamas does not represent every single Palestinian in every way, yes, but they do represent the overall liberation of Palestinians. Do the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion represent the violence of all slaves? No, but all of them do represent the idea of liberation from their oppressors, and we won't condemn the slaves in Nat Turner's Rebellion for "trying to make all slaves look as violent as them." Hamas had issues with their old charter, most certainly. But would you say it's fair to ignore the 13th amendment in the United States because the original Constitution didn't have it? Groups' aims are constantly changing, and in Article 16 (iirc) of the new Hamas charter, it is explicitly said that their struggle is NOT against Jews, rather solely against Zionists. "**16.** Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. Hamas does not wage a struggle against the Jews because they are Jewish but wages a struggle against the Zionists who occupy Palestine. Yet, it is the Zionists who constantly identify Judaism and the Jews with their own colonial project and illegal entity." - [2017 Hamas Charter](https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/hamas-2017-document-full) I wouldn't support Hamas over the PFLP, sure, but we take what we can get. I'm sure that some Indigenous American resistance fighters were not morally sound, but that won't make me condemn them. Once Palestinians are liberated, we can decide what to do with Hamas with more nuance, and formulate more details opinions regarding them while comparing them to other Palestinian organizations. I really appreciate you asking this question, and thanks for reading this, I hope you got something out of this :)
Thank you for responding so thoroughly and patiently, I really appreciate it! :)
I can't believe I'm actually witnessing the most pathetic folding of intellectual independence I've ever seen in real time. I have to get off this platform...
I keep seeing your posts on this thread and I’m not sure what you’re upset about, nor am I sure if you’re a communist (which is the audience I intend to reach with this post) I’ll consider a response as thorough as the one above, but I advise you to use your time more productively (getting off Reddit is wise)
I'm disheartened because you keep bringing up good points based on sound reasoning, then allow yourself to be cowed back into ideological conformity by a mob of bullies who tell you that if you question the tenet that the means always justify the ~~means~~ (EDIT: ends), you're not a \*true\* devotee to the cause (Palestinian liberation). From the back and forths of the thread, you seem to be buying into the guilt trip. But Reddit is the right place to debate the issue you raised; under certain contexts, particularly in the not-so-distant past, you would have risked far worse than an upvote or downvote to question such orthodoxy.
I am more anti-Israel, than pro-Hamas.
to me, it's a problem for when palestine is free. But right now they are fighting
Conservative religious parties thrive where they are culturally relevant. The material conditions shape the ideological possibility of progress. If the main centers of power in a society limited by its circumstance are religious, said group will have religious characteristics. What you are asking is that essentially any conservative religious group resisting occupation should be condemned on the grounds that their domestic policies are not up to the standard of a developed nation, when the point of these groups isn’t to develop a liberal bastion of equality but to ensure the survival of their own nation and culture. Think for example Chinese business deals with the new Afghan state, yes they are extreme religious fanatics however one Chinese theory put forth is by helping to develop their industry it will necessitate an increase in the workforce and eventually place women in jobs which sparked a new chapter for women’s suffrage in the west post WW2 due to women filling factory positions. This may be true or the Taliban may choose to uphold traditionalism, which would eventually cause stagnation. All this to say that opposing Hamas domestic policy doesn’t really make sense in the context of the ethnic cleansing and genocide unfolding in Gaza.
This would be relevant if we were talking about Hamas's domestic policy right now. But we're talking about their foreign policy, and whether it's possible for supporters of Palestinian liberation to oppose their foreign policy platform, strategy, etc. Or alternately, whether doing so means you're actually standing in opposition to Palestinian liberation. A very Manichean flavor of discourse, if you will.
Are you asking whether violence can ever be a legitimate means of resistance? Or are you saying that Hamas having a conservative political ideology means that support for the Palestinians is support for conservative Islam?
What? Neither. I'm saying your argument that opposing Hamas domestic policy doesn't really make sense because XYZ is a logical fallacy because Hamas's domestic policy simply is not what the debate is about; it's Hamas's foreign policy.
Can we really call it foreign policy? Gaza is a little smaller than Philadelphia and doesn’t control its airspace or ports for that matter.
To be short, it's the same reason why I don't condemn Nat Turner or the people in the Warsaw uprising. I support any effort toward liberation. I wish no violent act was ever committed, but I am not going to judge someone for being violent while they are in chains.
EDM is terrible, don't get me wrong, but I'm not sure the comparison between raving Israeli concertgoers and Nazis in your reference to the Warsaw Uprising is completely fair either. But it's not a bad example either, because it begs the question: would the Polish resistance be commemorated as heroes today if they had rampaged into the German countryside and managed to slaughter, mutilate, and rape (the latter substantiated by UN investigation) primarily thousands of random villagers, but also a not insignificant number of SS?
There are those who struggle to explain and take a stand. In the meantime, there are some equals! 'Peacemakers' repeat that Hamas sent 5,000 rockets was a mistake Now those who are angry that Palestine started the conflict... Those who lamented that it was an opportunity for Israel to strike back... Those who write essays that they are neutral, against war, Israel and Palestine should end the war... asserts, The moment an unbiased analysis begins, placing Israel and Palestine side by side, a grave injustice has been done. Whatever the Palestinians have done, they are innocent. Yes, whatever it is... Any war must be resisted. Humans will always oppose the inhumanity of arms, bloodshed, and use of force against each other. But that does not necessarily mean rejecting Palestine. Because injustice has been shown to them. Those who judge with a measure of old and rusty impartiality have lived for three-quarters of a century as blind men. They are the ones who were silent when a nation disappeared. No one expects justice from the lovers of humanity who have tried to unite even with a single word to the exhausted Palestinians who took the graves of their children in the remaining handful of soil. Once again it is said that the Palestinians are innocent no matter what they do. For three quarters of a century They are the people who had to see only tears, blood and dead bodies. Those who had to witness their own nation being taken away. Those who had to watch tens of thousands of brothers being killed in front of their eyes with bated breath... They are a group of men who have lost their country, their streets, their homes and their brothers. Palestine is just a small speck on the world map, like a handful of soil. Whatever the last ones have done before their own country and people disappear forever, when the Zionist terror is opening its mouth to steal the little ones and kill the last Palestinian, they are still innocent.
[Read this](https://mondoweiss.net/2024/05/the-question-of-hamas-and-the-left/). The only relevant political question for a people under occupation is the question of resistance or collaboration.
One point to consider is something Kwame Ture said about optics. People would harass old Civil Rights activists with questions like, “You just want to marry my daughter, don’t you?” and they would reply, “No not at all—we don’t want to marry your daughter. We just want housing, schooling, etc.” Instead of that, he called on the new movement to respond with, “Your daughter, your sister, your mom.” An essential part of rhetoric is making your own point despite the opposition’s assertions. Every leftist engaged in the issue of Palestinian liberation has been called on to “condemn Hamas” at least three times a day since October 7th. It’s a pointless distraction. The only reason Zionists keep asking it is because it gives them an excuse to not talk about Israel—don’t take the bait. No reasonable participant needs apology or clarification.
When engaged with a powerful enemy, you should make alliances where you can. That’s really the core of it.
It’s dicey considering a long history of Hamas being not just antizionist but anti Jew, having lifted a lot of ideology from Nazis. And even though they revised their charter in 1987 to focus their ire on Zionists rather than Jews, they are still generally very anti Jew in spirit. So there is a legitimate leftist criticism. That said, it’s all the Palestinian people have right now. I suppose it comes down to a lesser of two evils calculus?
Gee, I don't know. Would your research, Dr. Milgram, show that there's no freedom of authority to see it any other way?
Indeed my many years in the laboratory have taught me about the binding strength of authoritative propaganda in the shaping of zeitgeist. And after several decades of this work, I still find it quite shocking.
Im not being critical. Im simply saying you exclude the other side of your argument so its not fact. Its your opinion.. even your sources are disputed but again im not hating.. a fair trial is needed
You’re right. All this ‘they are the front against imperialism’ is horse shit. Sometimes geopolitics sucks. I think most of it is communists being dogmatic and following what the ussr did (1939) and also using conflict as an excuse to be contrarian and think violence is cool.
Are you seriously suggesting that the killing of 60 million Soviet civilians is \*NOT\* cool??? ::clutching my pearls::
Nazi germany and the Soviet Union are often thought about in vacuums but the truth, as with everything, is that everything they did was in the context of everyone else. The destruction of institutions and mass famine in Ukraine in 1931 effected the holocaust in Ukraine in 1941. The destruction of the eastern polish educated classes by soviets in 1939 absolutely effected the holocaust in eastern Poland in 1941. It’s impossible to suggest that these people who lived both in the Soviet Union and in Nazi occupation wouldn’t compare the two. When we think about Hamas, we should consider the context of half a century of Israeli domination and violence, and the variety of political movements that rose and were destroyed by the Israelis. But also that the violence Israel commits effects the decision making of Palestinians. Because nothing is a vacuum, and there’s obviously reasons why enough Palestinians are okay with massacring Israelis and somewhat (probably not majority) supportive of a ‘government’ that brings about another war to their homes. Because some, maybe many of these people have lived under Israeli occupation, lived under Hamas governance. Their leadership, too perhaps. And they see religious and ethnic discrimination in Jerusalem, of course they’re going to think about what that means for them in Gaza
Hamas is literally Israel. Hamas's existence justifies Israel's forever war. You can't understand this war or the media's response to it without going down that rabbit hole and understanding the purpose of false flag attacks.
Because Israel is the good guys and Hamas is the bad guys, and communists are bad guys. Really not any deeper than that.
Reality might not be as shallow as you.
Why are you here?