Keeponstalin

I could much more easily call Israel a terrorist state, and by looking at cases of actual acts of terror, it's clear that Israel does magnitudes more. But while acknowledging acts of terrorism is important, giving the label of terrorist to an entire group is not really useful. It's mostly use to de-legitimize acts of resistance against colonialism and occupations. Such is the case with Ireland, Vietnam, Algeria, South Africa, and many more.

Both the Occupier and the Occupied can and do use acts of terrorism to further their aims, but the aims are diametrically opposed. The aim of the occupier is to continue the occupation, that requires violence to maintain, and ethnic cleansing. The aim of the occupied is to end the occupation, by any means possible, and gain emancipation. We see that one is a reaction to the other, Israel's perpetual violence towards native peoples is the underlying cause of these conflicts. Solutions to ending the violence of anti-colonialism can only come from ending the underlying violence of the colonialism.

We see that permanent occupation develops into an Apartheid, as the settlers / occupiers have rights upheld by the State and Military, while the natives / occupied have no rights and subjected to violence from both the Settlers and Military. The State, who holds the monopoly on power, uses terrorism to suppress resistance to the occupation in order to maintain it. The occupied, having no power, uses terrorism as a means to resist the occupation.

Israel has no interest in peace, it has interest in land grabbing, which is in complete opposition to peace. This is fundamental to Zionism. Which is why an end to Zionism and a regime change, where a Secular Bi-National One-State that gives equal rights to Palestinians and Israelis is the only way for the conflict to really end. Not only with Palestinian resistance, but with all resistance groups that were created by Israeli occupation.

Mass starvation once again, the Genocide isn't over

If that's as surface level as you care to engage with the subject matter, I'm not sure engaging with theory or historian works (Micheal Parenti is a historian if you weren't sure) would interest you but I'd be glad to be wrong. There clearly wasn't unity, the SPD during the 1920s shifted to a more centrist platform and fought much more against worker uprisings than fascist movements despite enacting progressive policies when in power. If you have no interest in how capital interests affected the political landscape of Germany at the expense of the working class and in favor of more right-wing populism, we can just agree to disagree. I focus on material analysis, class warfare, and the interests of capital owners. Don't know why you called me a tankie when I've never supported authoritarianism but whatever

That's not really true. It was a coordinated effort to dismantle any and all worker protections, rights, and organization.

::: spoiler Blackshirts and Reds - Michael Parenti - Ch 1

In Germany, a similar pattern of complicity between fascists and capitalists emerged. German workers and farm laborers had won the right to unionize, the eight-hour day, and unemployment insurance. But to revive profit levels, heavy industry and big finance wanted wage cuts for their workers and massive state subsidies and tax cuts for themselves.

During the 1920s, the Nazi Sturmabteilung or SA, the brown-shirted storm troopers, subsidized by business, were used mostly as an antilabor paramilitary force whose function was to terrorize workers and farm laborers. By 1930, most of the tycoons had concluded that the Weimar Republic no longer served their needs and was too accommodating to the working class. They greatly increased their subsidies to Hitler, propelling the Nazi party onto the national stage. Business tycoons supplied the Nazis with generous funds for fleets of motor cars and loudspeakers to saturate the cities and villages of Germany, along with funds for Nazi party organizations, youth groups, and paramilitary forces. In the July 1932 campaign, Hitler had sufficient funds to fly to fifty cities in the last two weeks alone.

In that same campaign the Nazis received 37.3 percent of the vote, the highest they ever won in a democratic national election. They never had a majority of the people on their side. To the extent that they had any kind of reliable base, it generally was among the more affluent members of society. In addition, elements of the petty bourgeoisie and many lumpenproletariats served as strong-arm party thugs, organized into the SA storm troopers. But the great majority of the organized working class supported the Communists or Social Democrats to the very end.

In the December 1932 election, three candidates ran for president: the conservative incumbent Field Marshal von Hindenburg, the Nazi candidate Adolph Hitler, and the Communist party candidate Ernst Thaelmann. In his campaign, Thaelmann argued that a vote for Hindenburg amounted to a vote for Hitler and that Hitler would lead Germany into war. The bourgeois press, including the Social Democrats, denounced this view as “Moscow inspired.” Hindenburg was re-elected while the Nazis dropped approximately two million votes in the Reichstag election as compared to their peak of over 13.7 million.

True to form, the Social Democrat leaders refused the Communist party’s proposal to form an eleventh-hour coalition against Nazism. As in many other countries past and present, so in Germany, the Social Democrats would sooner ally themselves with the reactionary Right than make common cause with the Reds.3 Meanwhile a number of right-wing parties coalesced behind the Nazis and in January 1933, just weeks after the election, Hindenburg invited Hitler to become chancellor.

Upon assuming state power, Hitler and his Nazis pursued a politico-economic agenda not unlike Mussolini’s. They crushed organized labor and eradicated all elections, opposition parties, and independent publications. Hundreds of thousands of opponents were imprisoned, tortured, or murdered. In Germany as in Italy, the communists endured the severest political repression of all groups.

Here were two peoples, the Italians and Germans, with different histories, cultures, and languages, and supposedly different temperaments, who ended up with the same repressive solutions because of the compelling similarities of economic power and class conflict that prevailed in their respective countries. In such diverse countries as Lithuania, Croatia, Rumania, Hungary, and Spain, a similar fascist pattern emerged to do its utmost to save big capital from the impositions of democracy.4

Citing sources

Good, that documentary deserves it 100%

You can still find it on apkpure or something like that for those that want to avoid the app store

For anyone wondering, yes the BDS Movement is having an impact. If anyone wants to join, the No Thanks App (created by a Palestinian developer) Apple / Android makes it as easy as a quick search or barcode scan

Affirming the role the BDS movement has played in the Israeli economy’s “spiral of collapse,” as 130 leading Israeli economists describe it, in September, the Chairman of the Israeli Export Institute said: “BDS and boycotts have changed Israel’s global trade landscape.” He added, “Economic boycotts and BDS organizations present major challenges, and in some countries, we are forced to operate under the radar.” Israel’s projected annual GDP growth rate for 2024 is 0%, according to leading credit rating agency S&P, and some 60,000 Israeli businesses are projected to have shut down during this year of ongoing genocide.

https://bdsmovement.net/Indicators-BDS-Global-Impact-July-December-2024

Not on policy

I highly recommend Leeja Miller to understand what needs to be done and how much of that the Democrats are doing currently

We certainly are