Add new comment

I don't know who has the superior military power or what the true military realities are. That is something I will research soon.

When we talk about framing though, I think the most appropriate way to even begin to approach the conflicts in the region is to map out the actual (political) relations first... as well as how those relations are different from the way a-political residents think, act, etc. It is pretty clear to me that understanding those relations has to begin with an understanding of this history of nationalism in the region that began during the Ottoman Empire. Then once those relations are at least mapped out, we could get into the weeds about military capacity, funding, so-called operations by the State, specific acts of terrorism, etc.

That said, I think it is rather obvious that anarchists are opposed to the State of Israel and to (most) Zionism... since (most) Zionism is a state-building nationalist project. But those oppositions are so obvious that, although worth repeating, do not contribute to what mainstream Palestinian solidarity from the Left is already saying. As an anarchist, I think the way we can contribute the most to this analysis and struggle is by doing what only anarchists can do... which is critique the fundamental (nationalist) values that everyone else except for us support to some degree. Only anarchists are sincere in their opposition to nationalism, so why isn't that opposition our primary contribution to the discussion?

There is a huge impact on the way the discussion unfolds when Jews are described as foreigners (occupiers) instead of as indigenous. There is a huge impact when the birth and reinforcement (and international relations) of Arab and Palestinian nationalism are left out of the analysis. An honest discussion should begin by recognizing that these are conflicts among indigenous people and not between one indigenous population and another colonial (white/Western) population. The reason why that needs to be part of the discussion is because the bottom-line is that all of these conflicts are about rights and entitlements to claim ownership and control of a territory. How, as anarchists, do we recognize who is right and entitled to live somewhere? We know what the Zionists think. We know what a lot of Arab and Palestinian Nationalists think. But what do we think when we are informed by past anarchists criticisms of nationalism and property rights in land and State sovereignty?

And last for this comment... I don't understand why anarchists seem to think it is irrelevant that Zionism isn't the only transnational movement involved in the region. As the article points out, Zionism is funded at a transnational scale. But so is Arab and Palestinian Nationalism! Gaza is ruled by a Hamas:

"Hamas was founded in 1987,[h] soon after the First Intifada broke out, as an offshoot of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood[23] which in its Gaza branch had previously been nonconfrontational toward Israel and hostile to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).[24]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamas

The PLO:

"The ideology of the PLO was formulated in the founding year, 1964, in the Palestinian National Covenant.[20] The document is a combative anti-Zionist statement dedicated to the "restoration of the Palestinian homeland". It has no reference to religion. In 1968, the Charter was replaced by a comprehensively revised version.[21]" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization

And the PLO is a member of the Arab League:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Arab_League

And then there is Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which Iran is part of. Iran... a country who recognized Israel before and now doesn't, won't even say the name "Israel" and calls it "Occupied Palestine" or "The Zionist State"...

It's terrible that Palestinians are subject to the fighting of these groups.

And Iran is party of the