Palestinians have legitimate right to unleash force against Hamas & Palestinian Authority to free themselves of oppression they are subjected to by their ruling classes.
Israelis have legitimate right to unleash force against their ruling class to free themselves of oppression they are subjected to by their ruling class.
That's the easy part.
Now to the challenging part (in my book).
Both Palestinians & Radical Palestinians (Hamas & rest) have legitimate right to unleash force against their oppressors.
Both Palestinians & Radical Palestinians (Hamas & rest) have legitimate right to unleash force against some beneficiaries of oppression.
Both Palestinians & Radical Palestinians (Hamas & rest) have legitimate right to unleash force against all beneficiaries of oppression.
Each of us draw our lines at various points within our own moral map & they wont ever align — which is good as we can hold each other to account when either of us deviate too far (or) enabling more harm than good with our dogma.
In my book, the moment Hamas loses legitimacy is the moment it starts exercising power only for the sake of having its authority (which it very well is & has been in many contexts — thats there for everyone to see).
The moment it actually acquires power, its automatically an enemy in my book. Even now, its an enemy but an enemy that nonetheless have legitimacy of its own, that's derived from it being a Palestinian resistance — as it has oppressors of its own.
Ofcourse, I too want the Anarchist society of the future where there are no Hamas, no Genocidal entity, no Empire, no dictatorships (so called "Democracies") each of us live in.
But those rules that are applicable then are not applicable now. Goes without saying: Where its not unreasonable to apply those exact rules without harming long-term vision (building the new in the shell of the old), we should follow it.
But being religious i.e rigid about one's ever evolving morality without us anywhere near or likelihood of reaching that future saner society of vision, rigidity will foreclose many effective options & makes it near impossible for us to reach there.
Yes, two wrongs dont make right - only as a rule of thumb, not applicable to every situation.
If you oppress others (or) are a beneficiary of oppression, know that you/someone you care about will pay the price for the oppression you engaged in. Then the options we are weighing in are: Cost of not taking action vs Cost of taking action.
In summary, My personal morality as of now (evolving always just like yours):
Be pragmatic yet be grounded to the principles you believe in.
PS: The imprecise sketch I drew represents sections of Israeli society. Its relevant to our societies too in a narrow way.
@almaember@flawed@palestine@israel What's insane to me is that anarchists try to communicate with other anarchists using the liberal ideals of "rights" and other strange normative attributions like "legitimacy".
Part of me makes me think that they are purposely using those terms in a self-aware non-cognitivist manner, but everything tells me not to assume as much, considering the idealistic narrow framework of interpretation of these problems.
@almaember@flawed@palestine@israel I mean, while I agree that that's where most self-proclaimed anarchists come from. Not all anarchists are bound by the language of radlibs. Many anarchists simply renounce the Marxist revolutionary methods, disillusioned or skeptical of vanguard parties being led by incompetent or bad faith actors, who are subject to the same biases and oversights that many well-meaning but counterproductive liberals tend to have due to their shallow, dogmatic personal understanding of dialectical materialism (or framework of choice)-- much like prophets declaring themselves saviors, and purposely or unwittingly (makes no difference) throwing everybody but their small group under the bus.
The idea is that without the masses being as well-versed in dialectical materialism as the would-be vanguard, the masses do not have a failsafe way to identify a good vs a bad actor within the revolutionary movement, such that the same mechanisms of social coercion and manipulation employed by social capital remain the pathway for the vanguard to become the vanguard in the first place. This necessarily gives bad faith actors a disproportionate advantage whether assuming leadership or enacting sabotage.
Because of this, many anarchists perceive leftist organization as an inherently doomed and fruitless endeavor that diverts effort away from more useful and fulfilling acts of genuine rebellion and care within their immediate proximity, at least within the imperial core-- that is, at least, until the material conditions change so much that it couldn't be the imperial core anymore.
For this reason, anarchists tend to simply act through free association and more 'spontaneous' acts of rebellion and care, while being wary of their initiatives ossifying into time-wasting, cannibalizing institutions.
Sadly, this also ends up sounding just like what self-centered, privileged redscare radlibs with an affinity for radical aesthetics pretend to believe in.