i do not support the idea of the nation-state, in broad terms. the abolition of nationalism is one of the defining ideas on the actual, real left; an immediate way to identify a fake leftist is to observe their nationalism or listen to them speak about "national liberation struggles". such divide and conquer, bourgeois posh is not leftism at all.
no; i support the global emancipation of the nationless working class, via their seizure of the means of production, and the systems of oversight around it.
in the levant, a two-state solution is a regressive idea that sets the clock back. the ottoman empire was intentionally dismantled and cut into small pieces by the british and french in order to prevent it from being threatening; two states in such a small region, as defined by ethnicity, and fighting about and over it, is merely being controlled by anglo-american imperialism. rather, i support an integrated single nation state where all citizens have equal rights and where palestinian and jewish workers understand that they should not fight amongst themselves because they are in solidarity with each other against the bankers and bourgeoisie.
in such a framework, hamas is merely a mafia group of thugs that needs to be dismantled and imprisoned.
the byzantine term for the tactic of divide and impera was "barbarian management strategy". the byzantine empire almost always had a Bureau of Barbarian Management, which was designed to produce policy that would generate quarrels between the barbarians. this was a well paid position in the bureaucracy. the logic was that the barbarians were less threatening if they fought each other instead of the romans, and that actually worked in preventing collapse for centuries, until constantinople got sacked by the french, who were invited in.
generating an ethnic conflict between the arabs and the jews, then monophysites and...jews, would have been exactly what the bureaucrats at the bureau of barbarian management strategy would be paid to do.
you think i'm joking. i'm not.
in fact, the leaders of the barbarians mostly understand this; i'm actually explaining exactly what the theocratic despots in iran meant when they called the united states the great satan and israel the little satan. the context is generally not explored, but it was actually a discussion of divide and impera, via barbarian management strategy. i wouldn't expect to find those terms anywhere outside of a history book, and you'd have to even go back quite a ways at this point. i have found them used by a respected historian named jb bury.
you can look all this up.
