I hate to see it

Land is a means of production, which is by definition owned by bourgeoisie. Israeli workers dont own any land, thats why they are workers.

If workers aquire land through colonial means they could change classes into the bourgeoisie, petty bourgeoisie, or a kind of yeoman. In two of these cases they may very well not be huate bourgeoisie but overall I think your point here stands. Land acquisition can alter class character. As im sure you are aware, this is part of why settlers are not proletarian.

Their higher living standard is only because israeli bourgeoisie chose to give them value extracted from palestinian workers, as a way to bribe them into supporting colonialism and genocide, they are the labor aristocracy.

Maybe im being nitpicky here, but I contest the idea that this is a mere choice of the bourgeoisie. I’d say its closer to a natural law of capital. If the bourgeoisie failed to make this choice, the may well lose leverage over the colonized and laboring masses, and thus lose their class position. Labor aristocracy is a fundamental part of imperialism, not a mere decision to add icing to the cake or some unique mass bribe scheme. Its a major organ that keeps imperialism alive.

Once surplus value from colonized palestinians isnt enough to sustain israeli capitalism, they will start extracting value from israeli workers too, thus getting them out of the labor aristocracy.

This is simply false. If they cant get surplus from Palestine, they will get it from Syria or Lebanon. Or Bangladesh, India, Indonesia etc etc. Or, they just evict more Palestinians. This idea that immediately the huate bourgeoisie would liquidate their occupation force IMO demonstrates a lack of understanding how these classes form and function together. Furthermore, there would have to be surplus value to extract. There would have to be a monumental reshaping of the global economy in order to facilitate exploitation of the current labor aristocracy to make up for even a fraction of the falling rate of profit. It needs, again, to be emphasized that a drop in quality of life for the labor aristocracy (especially as the actual global proletariat largely is also experiencing lowered quality of life) has little consequence toward changing its class character. Its like if some bourgeoisie lad lost 3 out of 80 employees and people decided this was a fundamental shift in their class character.

The bribing of the labor aristocracy is only in their interests SHORT term, due to the falling rate of profit as explained above. Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.

I disagree fundamentally with your notions of the labor aristocracy having the same interests as any other worker, especially explicitly colonized workers. Lenin himself was clear that rich countries would have to be ready and willing to endure a major downturn in quality of life in the wake of revolution because it would have to put an end to imperial spoils. The labor aristocracy’s interests are maintaining its quality of life, especially in comparison to the world’s working masses. Sakai also closes Settlers with an entire chapter on Strategic vs Tactical interests that is extremely relevant to this and I recommend you read it, as it states why colonized people have different strategic interests from settlers, but occasionally have similar tactical interests.

The labor aristocracys selfish proimperialist interests can only last a certain time due to falling rate of profit, and is thus only a SHORT term interest, with the LONG term interest being socialism.

I might again be simply nitpicking, but it is not mere selfishness anymore than the bourgeoisie’s enforcement of capitalism is mere greed. There certainly are dialectics at play that create moments of qualitative change, and certainly pressure will be put on the labor aristocracy before it is directly put onto the huate bourgeoisie, but this doesn’t make a compelling case that socialism will come about from these specific pressures and contradictions. Socialism is the result of a process of history that unfolds from contradictions embodied in the global proletariat, not the petite bourgeoisie, the global house slaves (to be crass), or the yeoman settlers of settler colonial empires.

Also im not sure how you can really say its actually short term. Wage earners, yeoman, and bourgeoisie settlers alike have held land stolen from Indigenous people for generations, passing it down to their children or selling it to other settlers while Indigenous people are held in open air prisons. Beyond that, capitalism can reset itself through imperialist wars that the labor aristocracy and settlers have routinely supported.

This is my point, basic marxism leninism.

Maybe a bit too basic tho?

Thus, all workers have the same interests LONG term, both colonized and colonizer, the socialist revolution and establishment of DotP.

#NotAllColonizers

Why is it so hard for you patsocs to accept that the garrison of settler troops, even if they are poor, derive real material benefits from imperialism? Hell, the city that I used to live in was built on land stolen from indigenous americans. Its suburbs now. The indians? Forced onto reservations.

LONG term interest of israeli workers to support palestinians

The palestinians are demanding their land back. That’s their primary demand, for israeli occupiers to leave. They don’t want “solidarity” with the colonizers who are and historically have been killing them. Who the fuck are you to tell them “israeli workers have a right to that land”?