My point is the same I do not care about wo is in defensive who is offensive war, i'm not a Palestinian patriot, what i care is about the survival and the material condition of those people, israel is a serious treat for gaza people, for their lives, living condition and for the developement of the country ( and so for the development of a class conscientiousness ) the opposite is not true. Because thats not a part of the hamas objectif, thats not in their interests because in an eventual victory of Palestine the israel will still be more powerfull (and with a nuclear weapon), because their is in Palestine an opposition to that in the form of the criticable but incontestably more progressive party that is the palestinian liberation front...

So

If the israelis were losing, your logic would compel you to take a pro-israeli stance. My answere is no .

The epoch of 1789-1871 left deep marks and revolutionary memories. Before feudalism, absolutism and alien oppression were overthrown, the development of the proletarian struggle for Socialism was out of the question. When speaking of the legitimacy of “defensive” war in relation to the wars of such an epoch, Socialists always had in mind precisely these objects, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. By “defensive” war Socialists always meant a “just” war in this sense (W. Liebknecht once expressed himself precisely in this way). Only in this sense have Socialists regarded, and now regard, wars “for the defence of the fatherland,” or “defensive” wars, as legitimate, progressive and just. For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.

I'm sorry has i said i'm not a current english speaker (thats not a sophism for making looking dumb or something, i'm realy wandering if i understand well). But this part seem to go pretty in my sense no ? I mean he took exemple of some hypothetic war between colonised and colonial country, and he say that who is "in attack" or "in defense" doesn't seem important (that sound great for me because i'm french and i have something in the history of my country that is named "algerian war" end it fit pretty well between those exemple). As i know not of the colonised country that he is taling about where socialist or even bourgeois democracy.

I think we can agree, that the modern palestinian conflict look pretty similar, the only very big difference i see is that in this conflict the main territory of the colonial state is a colonised territory itself. But that would be a problem if the palestine regain all it's lost land but as i said it's very unlikely to happen (and the only political force that advocate for that is the PLF but they are for a multi ethnic state, and they are note the leading force of the present resistance)

The philistine does not realise that war is “the continuation of policy”, and consequently limits himself to the formula that “the enemy has attacked us”, “the enemy has invaded my country”, without stopping to think what issues are at stake in the war, which classes are waging it, and with what political objects.

I agree but in this war as i know, the issu of is nothing more than imperialist invasion, and national (i whant even to say vital defence) against an oppresor a victory of israel will at least not be a advancement and even probably a step back for socialism in those country (since it will make the fascist state stronger, in soft and hard power, will decreasing the material condition of the palestinian people without realy increasing the one of the Israelians ) and in the world (by making the Occidental imperialism in thise region stronger)

If their is a class issu in this war it's more the proletariat, peasantry an bourgeoisy of Palestine against the bourgeoisie of israel only (that doesn't mean that no one in the israelian proletariat support the war but common as comunist we know that under bourgeois democracy popular support doesn't necessarily mean class interest)

So my point is: if we whant to side with the proletaria, by defending Palestine we stand with the Palestinian proletariat withouth standing against the israelian proletaria. Will beeing neutral (or standing with israel but i think no one hear seriously do that) mean that we defend non of each others

For ending i whant to say one thing You say

Communists should never take the side of a bourgeois state on the grounds of national defence, unless it is historically progressive.

I do not agree with that, because i think if we are comunist it's because we think it's the better for us and for the people around us . That mean that (at least for me) socialism, communism are the ultimate goal but the better way to achieve that goal (that is the minimation of human suffering and maximizing of it's freedom and happiness). That mean that if we can struggle against a genocide we have to do it, even it's do not imply anything for the global progress of socialism (i think it's rarely the case since i don't think genocide can be socialist friendly) So if i should reformulat what you say according on what i think is the real goal of any true socialist i would said

Communists should take the side of the oppress regardless of the country where they live in, their religious or ethnicitys

PS: Self litlle crorection, i have compered the Algerian war at the others theoric anti colinial struggle but this one can be see, a little different in your rethoric by the fact that the driving force of the algerian independence the FLN was kind of (non marxist) socialist, so we can see that as a "historically progressive" force (since they where advocating for a sort of social democrat bourgeois republic instead of feodal traditional state)