Palestinians fighting for their survival are not reactionary
If you think that then you aren't a Marxist. Of course within Gazan society and Hamas you have reactionaries and reactionary actions. Are all? No. Plenty of groups that are or were active in Gaza aren't reactionary. Read Marx's https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/
Taking hostages is fine, and wtf are you supposed to do if you take parents hostage? Just leave the children there in the middle of a war zone alone?
Israel is small. You can leave the children and the videos of the kids show that the children are not protected, they are hit with sticks and batons and insulted as Jews. Besides that, yes. Those kids are not Tsarist kids. Save your gray propaganda for good goals. You can also find a video in which parents are killed and a child is taken. Or children that are killed. For the outcry that a targeted and thus killed journalist by IDF forces took this ignores that there is a strategic level of Hamas which obviously encouraged what happens, as it is wide spread and communicated via established Hamas video channels and thus shown, it also got an individual vengeance and revenge component.
The actions of Hamas do show their regressive reactionary nature and that the solidarity for socialist groups in Israel is not existent within them. What we know now, too, is also that it doesn't seem to have been a unified operation, meaning that the PFLP and other Marxist groups within Gaza are not really having impact on the strategic operations or are shut out completely.
This means that critical solidarity ought to be critical. If you do a large incursion like that you really argue that shooting young ravers and killing some after taking them hostage, is the best use of your short lived incursion? In any case I have yet to have seen text based Marxist reasoning which isn't vibes based or goes beyond "national liberation justifies any violence".
What is the aim here is to say any person - which includes plenty of Israeli Arabs (at least 20% of the population), also some who were at the rave - outside of Gaza and West Jordan is a legitimate aim to be killed, tortured, (sexually) assaulted, kidnapped. The terror of the guillotine and the committee for hygiene was more targeted and more in line with progressive politics than that. The "no excuse for the terror" doesn't mean it is arbitrary terror, it is focused on revolutionary goals. They also could've had Marxist and pre Marxist reasoning. The operation in Palestina and Israel was not one of national liberation with a class based analysis, but one in which there are people assigned as oppressing colonialists (everyone at the rave i.e. who wasn't coming from Gaza).
The goal of course is to weaken Israel's tourism industry, to unify power within Gaza, to divide Israel and Saudi Arabia and have hostages to do prisoner swaps. Though it is somewhat unlikely that this nearly 60 year old practice will work as before with the current right wing government in Israel and the lack of current good will. It did strengthen unity in Israel.
This is a stance that would mean that any person buying US/UK/French/Iranian/Turkish/South Korean/Philipine/Maroccon/Brazilian/Mexican products deserves to die.
It is a moralistic idealist claim, not a Marxist one.
Abducting kids is not okay, hitting them is not okay, sexual violence is not okay, targeting tourists at a rave is not okay.
Is there any evidence that Hamas have been committing sexual violence?
Yes. Even inside of Gaza i.e. against some people deemed gay, some "traitors". Within torture it is mostly not complementary with sexual violence. So within this conflict there will be some cases, the question will be if it is widespread policy (unlikely), if it is "lack of oversight+patriarchy+spaces without law+antisemitism", etc.
However in any case the limit for certain types of violence and certain targets of violence is important. During the last day we did see that plenty on this site aren't really differentiating or equating everyone in Israel as guilty and therefore fine to be killed (without making clear if they mean targeted, or as collateral damage i.e. car bombings that kill civilians in front of military bases).
The line of the ANC's MK was different in that regard that not all violence and all targets were seen as acceptable or justified. So the site's line is more regressive than feminist Marxists ought to be.
*Edit: Hamas did shit the bed in this operation. *
The GDR imported some food items from Vietnam and other fraternity socialist countries. Those items were often not so well stocked in the FRG. You can ask around in urban centers after gentrification today would they rather have bananas only rarely but a flat that is theirs or bananas but no flat?
2/3 In 1985, Canada initiated an independent investigation and established The Commission of Inquiry on War Criminals in Canada (the Deschênes Commission). None of the members of the Division "Galicia" who had settled in Canada were found guilty of committing war crimes.
I knew they would use the commission which did actively walk back from the Nuremberg decision - based on a ton of evidence - to declare the (Waffen-)SS a criminal organization due to its part in the Holocaust and Shoa.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palikrowy_massacre
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huta-Pieniacka-Massaker
To name just two.
The commission was a really fucked up thing, too. It didn't look into Nuremberg archives, didn't acknowledge scholarly work, it didn't ask neither Eastern Europe nor the Soviet Union for information or access to archives.
After the commission ended more empirical scholarly work was done which also strengthened the link between Galicia members (and sometimes even before they joined that unit) to war crimes and worse.
CW One of the commission consequences
As a result of the Deschenes commission, the Criminal Code was amended in mid-1987 to allow the trial of suspected Nazi war criminals living in Canada. In December of 1987, charges were laid against Imre Finta. (See also Finta Case.) Finta was the first Canadian to ever be prosecuted for war crimes under the new amended Criminal Code. He was accused of forcibly confining over 8,600 Jews in a brick factory located in Szeged, Hungary, in 1944, from which they would then be sent to the Nazi death camps at Auschwitz and Stasshof. Finta was ultimately found not guilty, and no further war crimes trials of Nazis or Nazi collaborators were ever held in Canada afterwards.
The jury was stacked and his involvement in the Holocaust clear: https://journals.lib.unb.ca/index.php/unblj/article/download/29656/1882524838/1882525145
Finta was accused of being in charge of bringing Jews from the ghettoes to the concentration centre in Szeged. He was allegedly in charge of the concentration centre and his responsibilities supposedly included making sure that the Jews were kept in the brickyard and could not escape. He also took charge of taking valuables from them and his trial counsel admitted that Finta made daily announcements demanding that the prisoners relinquish all valuables on pain of death. Finally, he allegedly supervised the loading of the prisoners onto boxcars which took the Jews to their deaths at Auschwitz or to forced labour in Strasshof.
The evidence against Finta is overwhelming and unanswered. Finta presented no evidence to answer the charges brought against him, either at his libel trials or at his criminal prosecution. When asked at his criminal trial if he wanted to call evidence on his own behalf, he declined. Yet, Finta was acquitted. How is it possible that Finta could win his case when he called no evidence on his own behalf and the evidence against him was overwhelming? The answer is that there was a stacked jury and an appeal to racial prejudice.
"Both the appeal and the cross-appeal were dismissed by the Court by a narrow margin of 4:3."
The Crown's case depended in large measure on the testimony of 19 witnesses who had been interned at Szeged and deported to the concentration camps. The evidence of these survivors fell into four general groups. Six witnesses who knew respondent before the events in issue testified as to things said and done by him at the brickyard and at the train station. A second group consisting of three witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand identified him as having said or done certain things at the brickyard and at the station. A third group consisting of three witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand also testified as to things said and done at the brickyard and at the station. However, this last group based their identification of respondent on statements made to them by others. The fourth group, consisting of eight witnesses who did not know respondent beforehand and did not identify him, gave evidence as to events at the brickyard and the train station. In addition to the evidence of the survivors, the Crown relied on photographs, handwriting and fingerprint evidence to identify respondent as a captain in the Gendarmerie at Szeged at the relevant time. Expert and documentary evidence was tendered to establish the historical context of the evidence, the relevant command structure in place in Hungary in 1944 and the state of international law in 1944.
and
Douglas Christie made the purport of these remarks quite dear later in the trial. He asked, “It is very difficult for a Jewish person to be unbiased about the subject of the Holocaust?” and “You [Randolph] advance the Jewish understanding of history?”36 This Holocaust denial-oriented questioning of Braham was prolonged and elaborate. Christie’s questioning of the witness Wolfgang Scheffler was similar. In one exchange, Christie tied together his themes of Holocaust denial and Jews as greedy people.
He suggested that Jews deny the Holocaust in order to make money through reparations. Douglas Christie asked, “Dr. Scheffler, the Holocaust is big business, isn’t it?”37 The Crown objected and Christie replied, “It is my intention to suggest that there is a motive on the part of many people who are Zionists to exaggerate these things [the Holocaust] to inflate their claims [for reparations].” The ruling of the judge was to “go ahead.”
CW
Canada did not even sentence people when there were 6-19 eye witnesses of their participation in the Shoa - without threat to their lives. Don't give a fuck about the commission.
He joined in 1941-1943 (one source said with 16, another said the volunteer unit was founded afterwards), there is quite a lot of evidence that Ukrainian volunteer troops in that time did partake in the Shoa, in "anti-partisan" actions and also genocides against polish and others.
Nationalists did try to diminish those facts, or did blame other units.
Lenin worked with Germany and took resources from them. Marx raised money for the Ottomans. Yes, it in fact does mean opposing your own empire by supporting its opponents (and getting supported by its opponents, in Lenin's case) and sabotaging your own empire.
The question is who you support though, and revolutionary socialists, including Lenin, didn't give money to the Tsar, Metternich, or George V. They sought out different avenues. Supporting revolutionary groups, articles, only in limited cases sabotages, some criminal acts which disturbed the military supply chains and agitation within the military.
This is a far cry from thinking it is enough to be public about critical support of governments online. The latter would be the equivalent of :vote: for anti-imperialists. The former a principled response that actually figures out what the critical means.
revolutionary defeatism means critically supporting the opponents of your own side
Lenin didn't meant that the SPD has to gather money to send to the Tsarist army though.
This is the Thinker from Yehud, a statue preceding thinking as something modeled after boxers to look masculine by nearly 4000 years.
Far from reducing extreme poverty, the expansion of capitalism from the 16th century onward was associated with a dramatic deterioration in human welfare. This is according to a study carried out by the Institute of Environmental Science and Technology of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (ICTA-UAB) in collaboration with Macquarie University, Australia, which shows that this new economic system saw a decline in wages to below subsistence, a deterioration in human stature, and a marked upturn in premature mortality.
...
"This is because capitalism is an undemocratic system where production is organized around elite accumulation rather than human needs," explains Sullivan. "To maximize profitability, capital often seeks to cheapen labor through processes of enclosure, dispossession, and exploitation."
Finally, the authors find that recovery from this prolonged period of immiseration occurred only recently: progress in human welfare began in the late 19th century in Northwest Europe and the mid-20th century in the global South. Sullivan and Hickel note that this coincides with the rise of the labor movement, socialist political parties, and de-colonization. "These movements redistributed incomes, established public provisioning systems, and attempted to organize production around meeting human needs," Jason Hickel says. "Progress appears to come from progressive social movements."
Don't try black propaganda here, not in any way did I claim that. You are ignoring the structures of Gazan orgs and society, you are talking without investigating and you are disturbing. I recommend you disengage.