Per usual, everyone seems to be jumping to conclusions without a lot of information. At this point I have more questions than answers… As someone who has participated in and has always justified confrontation with fascists, I have no problem with Amsterdam residents confronting ultra-nationalist football hooligans and ejecting them from town. When the National Socialist Movement (NSM) came to Phoenix, AZ my comrades helped to organize a bloc of Diné, O’odham, and anarchist/anti-authoritarian militants that would attempt to disrupt their march and prevent it from reaching its destination. Like the situation in Amsterdam, we knew that these fascists would be in town and where they would be. We had a lot of time to think about how we wanted to respond. There are of course some big differences between the NSM coming to Phoenix, AZ and a football team bringing its fans to Amsterdam. The first and obvious difference is that Tel Aviv Maccabi fans in general are not fascists. Like many football teams, there are some ultra-nationalist fans that are commonly called “hooligans”. Second, from what I can tell so far, the conflicts that occurred were first between Maccabi hooligans and activists from a pro-Palestine march and then later, mobs of Palestine supporters who organized at specific locations to target Israelis and/or Jews. It’s unclear when the latter began organizing, how much of it was spontaneous and in response to the hooligan’s antics, and to what extent they were distinguishing between Maccabi fans, Israeli nationals, and Jews. But

The United States just had an election and for me that means my liberal friends will annoy me about who won instead of annoying me about who they think I should vote for. This makes voting topical; so, what are my views on voting? The practice of voting in any given context itself doesn’t bother me. I think it’s fine to use voting processes for all sorts of things because I’m comfortable with the ambiguity of life and consequently, the lack of consensus that a given group of people will share on a particular issue. However, I am also a student of social psychology and I take the implications of things like Henri Tajfel’s Minimal Group Paradigm experiments very seriously. Simply put, even arbitrarily dividing people creates strong in-group/out-group behaviors. This is something that anarchists should be trying to avoid, given the value of equality. The way to avoid that is to reinforce a sense of group identity that can overcome such divisions. Now, when it comes to the type of voting that we’re talking about during the United States Presidential Elections, we’re talking about voting for specific people who are members of specific political parties and who will obtain specific rights to carry out specific duties in the interests of a specific nation. That is a context that changes a lot of things about what it means to vote. But the meaning of voting for a presidential candidate and the objective consequences of voting for a presidential candidate are

Subject piece of discussion: https://crimethinc.com/2024/10/03/ya-ghazze-habibti-gaza-my-love-understanding-the-genocide-in-palestine A recent piece published by Crimethinc is described as “in-depth account, an anarchist from occupied Palestine reviews the history of Zionist colonialism and Palestinian resistance, makes the case for an anti-colonial understanding of the situation, and explores what it means to act in solidarity with Palestinians.” It is certainly an extensive account, but when it comes to depth there is always deeper one can go with this issue. That being the case, a response to such an account could easily be double or triple its size if it attempts to go any deeper. But the issue that I have with this account is not its depth, it’s a fundamental assumption that a good deal of the rest is built upon. That assumption can be seen easily here: “We must be honest about what we’re saying. For example, in the debate about the phrase “from the river to sea,” about whether it means democracy or the abolition of Israel—the simple answer is that it means both. Decolonization on Palestinian conditions—the abolition of Zionism, the return of the refugees, the end of military rule, and equal civil rights—will mean that Palestine goes back to what it was before Zionist colonization, a majority Arab land.” A majority Arab land… As the author themselves notes early in the piece, the land in question has a long history of changing hands: “Gaza, which has always been a central point for passing empires, trade routes, occupations, and cultures, owing to its

ChatGPT Generated – not bad! The Maple-Ash-Farmer-Wilson (MAFW) project in Tempe, Arizona, is a prime example of contemporary anarchist community organizing. This initiative, named after the streets Maple Avenue, Ash Avenue, Farmer Avenue, and Wilson Street, focused on resisting gentrification, promoting community autonomy, and fostering mutual aid among residents. Overview of MAFW The MAFW project emerged as a grassroots response to urban development projects that threatened the character and affordability of the neighborhood. It was particularly vocal against the city’s “Safe and Sober” initiative, which was perceived as intrusive policing of underage drinking. Through persistent advocacy, MAFW succeeded in getting this initiative terminated and even led to the firing of the police chief. Size and Impact The MAFW project had a robust online presence, particularly through its Facebook group, which included hundreds of members actively engaging in discussions, organizing events, and sharing resources. The group’s impact extended beyond online activities, manifesting in numerous community actions and events. Noteworthy Events Example of 21st Century Anarchist Activity MAFW exemplifies 21st-century anarchist activity through its focus on direct action, mutual aid, and horizontal organization. The group’s efforts to resist gentrification, enhance community resilience, and promote self-management resonate with contemporary anarchist principles. Conclusion The Maple-Ash-Farmer-Wilson project stands as a testament to the effectiveness of anarchist organizing in urban environments. By emphasizing community autonomy, direct action, and mutual aid, MAFW not only improved the lives of local residents but also set a precedent for similar initiatives elsewhere.

When I was becoming interested in politics, the 1999 “Battle of Seattle” had recently happened and the leftwing discourse was heavily oriented towards critiques of transnational corporations, international policies and state actions that favored their interests, and the consequences of the former on the populations who got the bad end of such deals. This was sometimes called “neoliberalism,” or “neocolonialism,” or “globalization”. Israel’s role on the frontlines enforcing these things in the Middle East was widely understood, including the impact this had on Palestinians. And this was when secular, nationalist forces were more predominant in the Middle East. With 9/11 and the Global War on Terror, things changed in some important ways, but the underlying geopolitical strategy of the United States and its allies was seen by the Left as basically the same as before. Perhaps Islamist terrorism pushed various nationalisms to the side, but the basic aim of ensuring a secure, stable region for business that favored Western transnational capital was still what left-wingers took aim at. In other words, “Zionism” wasn’t especially important for our analyses of the geopolitical situation in the Middle East. It wasn’t hard to see that without Zionism, Israel’s national interests as a civic state would likely make it even more of a Western ally… one that graduated from elementary 19th/20th Century ethno-nationalism to the latest fashion of hiding real ethnic inequalities with a facade of equitable ethnic representation and multiculturalism. Israel would still be on team USA, pushing against the nationalist and/or Islamist

The anti-Zionist position is either redundant, or a collaboration with our enemies. Everything that is wrong with Zionism is covered in a general critique of nationalism. If you are an anarchist, you are already an anti-nationalist in the same way that you are already an anti-fascist, an anti-racist, an anti-sexist, and against other forms of inequality, domination, subjugation, etc. Likewise, you are already against particular forms of these relations of power: like patriarchy, anti-Blackness, antisemitism, or anti-Nazism. Within a conversation about any of these particulars, it makes sense to specify you are against them. The language is useful for analyzing all the unique features of a relation and tailoring specific responses. In the larger context of social struggle though, you are replacing the specificity of your anarchist ideas with the generality of a single issue, a usually generic, lowest common denominator point of agreement to focus masses of diverse people. What this hopefully leads to is collaboration; but that happens in both good and bad ways. With Antifa, it led to collaboration with authoritarian Marxists and radical liberals, statists. With anti-Zionism, it leads to collaboration with an even broader spectrum of politicians, including nationalists of the most despicable variety. Sometimes it makes sense to downplay one’s anarchism for the sake of progress on a single issue. However, in many cases, those single issues are wedge issues in a conflict between much stronger, much more significant opponents of one another. As anarchists, participating as advocates for one side of such conflicts