A-Infos (en) Italy, Trieste, Germinalts: We trample all the flags from the river to the sea (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

7th of Otober ---- The ongoing genocide has its causes in a history far 
longer and more complex than the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023. It is 
not our intention here to retrace the long colonial and violent history 
of the Israeli state; we take it for granted. But it is clear that 
failing to provide a detailed examination of it here in no way implies 
ignoring or minimizing the facts, the starting point for all subsequent 
reasoning. ---- It's clear that oppression-of any kind-leads to a 
reaction, and October 7th must be seen as a striking episode in the 
Palestinian people's struggle against Israel's decades-long apartheid 
regime. We don't live there, so we can only imagine the level of 
suffering, pain, desperation, and anger that situation can generate. The 
level of violence deployed by Hamas and other fighting groups, with the 
support of a significant portion of Gazans, didn't surprise us. For the 
Palestinian population, running over barbed wire and jumping over 
burned-out tanks was certainly a moment of freedom, albeit brief. In a 
situation of armed conflict, of war (however asymmetric), attacks on 
military facilities and personnel are always legitimate. But attacks on 
civilian buildings, raves, and the kidnapping of civilians are another 
matter: as far as we're concerned, these are radically different 
strategies. It's certainly not the first time: who remembers the period 
of suicide bombings on buses in the 2000s? 2 We didn't support those 
choices then, we don't today.

Any uprising, especially those fought, necessarily, even with weapons, 
must address the "ethics of combat"; we believe this is an essential 
step. In this sense, the experience of Rojava shows us, despite a 
thousand limitations and errors, that a struggle, even armed and bloody, 
is possible that seeks to establish ethical lines of conduct.

We find the hatred and desire for revenge that has built up over the 
years among the Palestinian population completely understandable. But 
understanding does not necessarily mean uncritically supporting it. We 
do not reject violent struggle on principle. However, we demand the 
right to choose which struggles to support; or rather, which forms of 
struggle to serve as a mouthpiece for. Our voice is limited, but that 
does not make it any less important to decide how to use it. Attacks on 
civilians, indiscriminate kidnappings, rapes (also used as a propaganda 
war waged once again on women's bodies) are not actions we can support, 
in Palestine or anywhere else in the world. If the future we want to 
build is one of freedom, equality, and respect, the means employed 
cannot go in a completely opposite direction. "By any means necessary" 
is not a concept we can subscribe to.

Those who define October 7th as the beginning of a revolution, or 
uncritically support it, often superimpose their own desires and 
perspectives onto it, ultimately projecting their own values. It may be 
a revolution, but it's not our revolution.

Furthermore, an event that resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands 
of people, the injury of hundreds of thousands more, and the almost 
total destruction of Gaza, does not seem to us to be something that can 
be celebrated as liberating or positive.

We find it appalling to refer to all those who died in Gaza as 
"martyrs." Martyrdom-a term we already dislike-should be a conscious 
choice; how can anyone argue that those tens of thousands who died under 
Israeli bombs had any choice whatsoever?

Hamas

We're talking about Hamas here as the main political-military-religious 
organization, but the same applies, with due specificity, to other 
Islamist groups as well. We're not interested here in retracing its 
birth, history, and the support it received from Israel; we're 
interested in the political level.

When on some occasions we expressed our total opposition to Hamas's 
political ideology, we were criticized for our "Western perspective," 
because "Hamas is the expression of the Palestinian people," but also 
because "publicly criticizing Hamas delegitimizes the Palestinian 
resistance."

It's clear that our perspective is conditioned by our political, social, 
and cultural positioning-this applies to us, it applies to everyone. 
But, that said, if a political project goes in a direction totally 
opposite to the world we're fighting for, why should we support it?

Hamas is an expression of the galaxy of "political Islam," a phenomenon 
entirely inherent to contemporary times, but which coalesces around the 
idea of a mythical and imaginary purity of original Islam to be aspired 
to. The goal is therefore the construction of a theocratic state, which 
can then decide to be more or less "tolerant," but which has religious 
law as its foundation, in a particularly rigid and ideally "ahistorical" 
and immutable interpretation. A highly authoritarian, exclusionary, 
patriarchal, macho, and transphobic social model.

To say this, we rely on official Hamas documents and statements, which 
everyone can read.

We are against all this, at any latitude, and there is no "Western gaze" 
that can hold us back.

There's no question about Hamas having a large popular following... so 
what? In the 1930s, the fascist regime enjoyed mass support; were those 
in other countries wrong when they refused to support it? The women's 
resistance in Afghanistan certainly doesn't enjoy majority support in 
the country, but is that a good reason not to support them (as is 
indeed, culpably, happening)?

Let's not forget the internal opposition movements, which many were 
quick to dismiss as manipulated from outside, but which tell us that 
support for Hamas is widespread, but not total and/or unconditional.

In any era, at any latitude, woe betide anyone who identifies an entire 
population with its government, whatever it may be and whatever 
consensus it enjoys.

We must not allow ourselves to be caged by stadium cheering.

The question of religions

In the internal debate on the left, there are major repressions; one of 
these concerns religions.

The religious element in this conflict has always been present, but in 
recent years it has assumed absolute centrality.

In Israel, the messianic right has a growing hold on the political and 
social spheres; in Palestine, Islamist groups have progressively 
marginalized the secular and left-wing elements.

This advance of religious fundamentalism is taking place throughout the 
world and is an element that must be kept in mind.

Whatever the sacred text, whatever the doctrines, organized religions 
have one common trait: they embody "revealed truth"; consequently, their 
vision must, in one way or another, be imposed on the rest of society.

It is for this reason that religions are, ultimately, one of the 
obstacles to human liberation.

We understand very well that, in the face of colonial oppression, 
whether secular or religious, retreating into cultural and religious 
identity is a form of "resistance," but it is a resistance that, alas, 
is the harbinger of new oppressions.

This radical critique of religions, including Islam, is not an attack on 
anyone's individual beliefs, nor an a priori rejection of any form of 
spirituality. But we are convinced that no liberation can occur under 
the banner of any church/religion. Just as we fight here against the 
power of the Catholic Church, we also stand in solidarity with those who 
refuse to submit to Islamic, Jewish, Hindu, or any other theocracy.

The Great Absentee: The Opposition Inside Israel

We believe that one of the shortcomings of the great Palestine 
solidarity movement was its failure to recognize the important political 
value of internal opposition to Israel.

Since the day after October 7, some Israelis have taken to the streets 
to protest their government's genocide, confronting police violence. 
They have done so every day, for over two years. Furthermore, the number 
of those refusing military service and facing prison for it continues to 
grow. We know we are talking about extremely small groups; we do not 
pretend to ignore that government policies-and the genocidal policies 
themselves-have widespread support in the country. However, these groups 
exist, and from our perspective, they should be supported in every way 
possible, not only because they are a speck of sand trying to hamper 
Israel's war machine, but also because they expose its propaganda, lies, 
and false myths. And also because they seek to build bridges, bonds, and 
sisterhood with those on the other side. Of their existence, from what 
we have read and heard over the past two years, there is virtually no trace.

Our internationalism, our anti-imperialism

Internationalism is a central element of our vision. It translates 
concretely into active solidarity with the struggles of oppressed and 
exploited people around the world, regardless of their origin, as long 
as they fight for their own freedom and not to overthrow oppression. A 
solidarity that seeks to break down state borders, that rejects national 
divisions and that has class as its defining factor.

It is in this spirit that we actively support the struggles in Rojava, 
the Zapatista communities in Chiapas, the Iranian and Afghan women 
rebelling against theocracy, and in general we stand in solidarity with 
populations suffering war, genocide, and persecution.

Internationalism cannot be reconciled with support for states, or 
para-state structures, simply because they fight against Western 
imperialism, thus avoiding the fight against other forms of imperialism.

Of course, we live here, and therefore our goal is to oppose the 
policies pursued by this country's government and its allies. But just 
as we fight against the policies of Italy, the European Union, NATO, and 
all their allies, we would also like the other actors in the global 
inter-imperialist conflict-be they Russia, China, India, or elsewhere-to 
disappear from the face of the earth. This is far from the "multipolar 
dawn," as we have sadly heard in some squares recently.

No state is the solution

"Free Palestine from the River to the Sea" is certainly a powerful and 
evocative slogan. But what does it mean?

We believe that at its core lies a huge and difficult issue to address. 
It's often said that "Israel shouldn't exist," and so far, there's no 
objection; but what about the people who live there? We're certainly not 
referring to those who recently moved, from the United States or who 
knows where else, to build the "kingdom of God" in the West Bank, but 
rather to the people who have lived there for generations. Should they 
simply disappear into thin air? Or do we think that, like the Israeli 
right that wants a mass deportation of Palestinians, we should advocate 
an equally mass deportation of its Jewish inhabitants?

Moreover, "from the river to the sea" is a slogan used equally by the 
Israeli nationalist right and by the settlers, speaking of a "Greater 
Israel".

We know how much easier it is to speak from the comfort of your own 
backside; this applies to everyone, even those who advocate "the 
destruction of Israel," not only as a state entity, but as a whole. It's 
rightly said that when we have privilege, it's our duty to use it; 
should we perhaps exploit it to support further deportations, suffering, 
and refugees? We believe the best way to use it is to support, however 
we can, all those individuals, groups, and organizations seeking to 
break down walls and build bridges of solidarity and shared resistance. 
They are few and fragile, but they exist. And it's our duty as 
privileged people to seek to support them and give them a voice and space.

Only by moving beyond borders and states, adopting federalist forms 
built from the bottom up, where everyone is guaranteed the full freedom 
to live according to their ideas and beliefs, can we break the spiral of 
hatred and war. The competition over who is the "original people" of 
those lands-and therefore who has the right to live there-is not ours: 
we don't believe it can constitute a basis for building a future. As far 
as we're concerned, even the concept of people must be subjected to 
radical critique, as an all-encompassing and often deliberately 
constructed cultural entity.

We believe that considering the Palestinian question solely in terms of 
people and national liberation takes us far from a possible solution. We 
believe the concept of "oppressed peoples" is insufficient to understand 
the dynamics of exploitation. The definition of "people" conceals within 
it class contradictions and every type of social or gender 
discrimination (in some cases even religious or ethnic). All liberation 
movements born and bred in the name of nationalism, even when they 
achieved the goal of overthrowing the colonial regime, have created 
states in which the nouveau riche exploit the working classes, new 
powers oppress them, and new police forces control them.

One Nation, One People, One Land is a triad that, wherever it is 
applied, brings only suffering and war.

In recent months, we've read many statements and positions in which 
"Palestine" takes on a total and all-encompassing centrality: "there is 
no future without Palestine," "there is no feminism without Palestine," 
"Palestine shows us the way." These are certainly evocative, romantic 
words; all too often, in our opinion, these declarations are a 
distillation of what is much more the desire of those who pronounce them 
than an attempt to analyze reality. "Palestine" thus becomes a mythical 
object, an imaginative construction that, erasing all complexity, 
mirrors our desires: a discourse by us, about us, for us. Are we sure 
that the colonial gaze that went out the door isn't coming back in 
through the window?

For all these reasons, we have never waved the Palestinian flag; 
although it has been adopted as a symbol of freedom and the struggle 
against colonialism, it nonetheless evokes a national inspiration, the 
desire to build new states and new borders to replace the old ones.

As we have tried to explain in these pages, we do not value apparatuses, 
political structures, borders, or imposed cultural constructs. We value 
people, with all the richness they bring within, with all their stories. 
For us, there will be a chance for liberation when we trample on all 
national flags everywhere, to try to build a different world, free from 
exploitation and hierarchies, where there is room-truly-for everyone, 
each with their own diversity, cultures, aspirations, and desires.

1) We do not use the recurring term "Zionist entity" because we do not 
believe that not defining Israel as a state-which it is-contributes to 
clarity. It seems that calling it a state somehow legitimizes its 
policies or history; but states have always been hierarchical structures 
that claim a monopoly on violence, using it against internal and 
external enemies, and perpetuating class division and exploitation. 
Israel is no exception.

2) During the early 2000s, Palestinian armed groups resorted to a form 
of struggle based on suicide bombings, in which a militant packed with 
explosives blew himself up in public places (buses, shops, stations, 
etc.), aiming to cause as many victims as possible. This form of 
struggle could be defined as terrorism, as it struck indiscriminately. 
In the case of attacks on Israeli checkpoints, there were also many 
deaths among Palestinian civilians queuing up.

https://germinalts.noblogs.org/post/2026/02/03/calpestiamo-tutte-le-bandiere-dal-fiume-fino-al-mare/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en