Hamas the equivalent of jewish Zealots??

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for sibu_xgamer
sibu_xgamer

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#1 sibu_xgamer
Member since 2014 • 340 Posts

Isn't what Hamas is doing with Israel the same thing the jewish Zealotry movement did with the Romans? I mean the zealots wanted to free their land from the roman invaders and they started attacking roman citizens to pressure the romans, the romans retaliated by killing thousands of jews which provoked an even bigger reaction from the jews against the romans.

Seems that history repeats itself in various forms and even with inverted roles.

Avatar image for deeliman
deeliman

4027

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 deeliman
Member since 2013 • 4027 Posts

No, it's not.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

Avatar image for Master_Live
Master_Live

20493

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#4  Edited By Master_Live
Member since 2004 • 20493 Posts

Sure, but Zionism doesn't have an email account.

Avatar image for SaudiFury
SaudiFury

8709

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 12

User Lists: 1

#5 SaudiFury
Member since 2007 • 8709 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

ditto

Avatar image for JimB
JimB

3429

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 0

#6 JimB
Member since 2002 • 3429 Posts

@sibu_xgamer:

Big difference the Jews didn't hide behind their own people to get their freedom. .

Avatar image for sibu_xgamer
sibu_xgamer

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#7 sibu_xgamer
Member since 2014 • 340 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

I'm not trying to justify anything but the similarities are there. After all Hamas might as well be closer to that first century movement than to a 21st century superpower with a full blown army and technology.

The Romans won I guess but Rome also disappeared eventually in part due to internal pressure excerpted by the unwanted repression of multiple cultures.

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@sibu_xgamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

I'm not trying to justify anything but the similarities are there. After all Hamas might as well be closer to that first century movement than to a 21st century superpower with a full blown army and technology.

The Romans won I guess but Rome also disappeared eventually in part due to internal pressure excerpted by the unwanted repression of multiple cultures.

Rome disappeared? That's a bold statement. Did the de jure Roman Empire collapse? Sure, almost 3 centuries after the Jewish zealotry movement, and the Byzantine's controlled the Levant up until the 7th century, and the Byzantine's didn't lose control of the Levant because of a Jewish uprising (although there was another Jewish revolt around this time), it was because the Arabs invaded from the south.

To say that Rome disappeared is a bit of a stretch - we are still using their vernacular to this day when talking about the region. After the Jewish revolts in the 1st and 2nd century the Romans punitively changed the name of Judea to Palaestina in order to "de-Judaize" the region. This was before there was a significant Arab population in the region, Palaestina means "land of the Philistines." The Palestinians today aren't descents of the Philistines nor do they have any tangible cultural ties to them (unlike the Romans, they have disappeared). Before 1948 (you might be able to go as late as 1967) there was really no such thing as a "Palestinian" - if there was the Jews were as much "Palestinian" as their Arab neighbors were (for example, the Jerusalem Post was originally the Palestine Post). The fact that we still use the term "Palestine" is a testament to the longevity of Roman culture.

I'm not so sure you thought this analogy through - not only have you admitted the poor success rate of Hamas' strategy but you are inadvertently conceding the historical claim that the Jews have to the region.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#11 thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#12 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

So was Stalin, your point? Are you legitimizing these tactics?

The people getting executed in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians who had simply been demonstrating for peace. That's all someone has to do to be labeled a collaborator. And we have no idea as to how many Palestinians have actually been executed by Hamas because of the incredible difficulty to do actual journalism in the Gaza Strip.

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#13  Edited By thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

So was Stalin, your point? Are you legitimizing these tactics?

The people getting executed in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians who had simply been demonstrating for peace. That's all someone has to do to be labeled a collaborator. And we have no idea as to how many Palestinians have actually been executed by Hamas because of the incredible difficulty to do actual journalism in the Gaza Strip.

Legitimizing which groups tactics? The ANC's or Hamas'? Is there a difference?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#14  Edited By -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

So was Stalin, your point? Are you legitimizing these tactics?

The people getting executed in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians who had simply been demonstrating for peace. That's all someone has to do to be labeled a collaborator. And we have no idea as to how many Palestinians have actually been executed by Hamas because of the incredible difficulty to do actual journalism in the Gaza Strip.

Legitimizing which groups tactics? The ANC's or Hamas'? Is there a difference?

I'd say there's a pretty huge difference. You just have to compare the Mahlabanti Declaration of Faith to the Hamas Charter to see it.

And I mean "legitimizing these tactics" in a general sense.

Avatar image for sibu_xgamer
sibu_xgamer

340

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

#15 sibu_xgamer
Member since 2014 • 340 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

I'm not trying to justify anything but the similarities are there. After all Hamas might as well be closer to that first century movement than to a 21st century superpower with a full blown army and technology.

The Romans won I guess but Rome also disappeared eventually in part due to internal pressure excerpted by the unwanted repression of multiple cultures.

Rome disappeared? That's a bold statement. Did the de jure Roman Empire collapse? Sure, almost 3 centuries after the Jewish zealotry movement, and the Byzantine's controlled the Levant up until the 7th century, and the Byzantine's didn't lose control of the Levant because of a Jewish uprising (although there was another Jewish revolt around this time), it was because the Arabs invaded from the south.

To say that Rome disappeared is a bit of a stretch - we are still using their vernacular to this day when talking about the region. After the Jewish revolts in the 1st and 2nd century the Romans punitively changed the name of Judea to Palaestina in order to "de-Judaize" the region. This was before there was a significant Arab population in the region, Palaestina means "land of the Philistines." The Palestinians today aren't descents of the Philistines nor do they have any tangible cultural ties to them (unlike the Romans, they have disappeared). Before 1948 (you might be able to go as late as 1967) there was really no such thing as a "Palestinian" - if there was the Jews were as much "Palestinian" as their Arab neighbors were (for example, the Jerusalem Post was originally the Palestine Post). The fact that we still use the term "Palestine" is a testament to the longevity of Roman culture.

I'm not so sure you thought this analogy through - not only have you admitted the poor success rate of Hamas' strategy but you are inadvertently conceding the historical claim that the Jews have to the region.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "they have disappeared" argument. The Palestinians may not have had historical ties to the region but that doesn't make them non-existent or invisible. They're still human beings living there.

I have never disputed that the jews have a historical tie to the region, that would be like denying history but so have many other people before and after them. I'm again not sure why the israelis are entitled to the region more than anyone else. I have never claimed that Hamas strategy is effective or non-poor. My beef with all this is basically the way the israelis are handling the problem by basically doing a massacre and how they expect the world to be sympathetic with them when they dehumanize others so easily.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#16 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@sibu_xgamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@sibu_xgamer said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

You should probably begin to rethink things if you have to justify the tactics used by a 21st century organization with those used by a political movement in the first century.

Also, even if I concede the ridiculous premise (I don't) - which side won, the Jews or the Romans?

I'm not trying to justify anything but the similarities are there. After all Hamas might as well be closer to that first century movement than to a 21st century superpower with a full blown army and technology.

The Romans won I guess but Rome also disappeared eventually in part due to internal pressure excerpted by the unwanted repression of multiple cultures.

Rome disappeared? That's a bold statement. Did the de jure Roman Empire collapse? Sure, almost 3 centuries after the Jewish zealotry movement, and the Byzantine's controlled the Levant up until the 7th century, and the Byzantine's didn't lose control of the Levant because of a Jewish uprising (although there was another Jewish revolt around this time), it was because the Arabs invaded from the south.

To say that Rome disappeared is a bit of a stretch - we are still using their vernacular to this day when talking about the region. After the Jewish revolts in the 1st and 2nd century the Romans punitively changed the name of Judea to Palaestina in order to "de-Judaize" the region. This was before there was a significant Arab population in the region, Palaestina means "land of the Philistines." The Palestinians today aren't descents of the Philistines nor do they have any tangible cultural ties to them (unlike the Romans, they have disappeared). Before 1948 (you might be able to go as late as 1967) there was really no such thing as a "Palestinian" - if there was the Jews were as much "Palestinian" as their Arab neighbors were (for example, the Jerusalem Post was originally the Palestine Post). The fact that we still use the term "Palestine" is a testament to the longevity of Roman culture.

I'm not so sure you thought this analogy through - not only have you admitted the poor success rate of Hamas' strategy but you are inadvertently conceding the historical claim that the Jews have to the region.

I'm not sure where you're going with the "they have disappeared" argument. The Palestinians may not have had historical ties to the region but that doesn't make them non-existent or invisible. They're still human beings living there.

I have never disputed that the jews have a historical tie to the region, that would be like denying history but so have many other people before and after them. I'm again not sure why the israelis are entitled to the region more than anyone else. I have never claimed that Hamas strategy is effective or non-poor. My beef with all this is basically the way the israelis are handling the problem by basically doing a massacre and how they expect the world to be sympathetic with them when they dehumanize others so easily.

I didn't say the Palestinians disappeared, I said the Philistines did.

And Israel has long been accustomed to the world not showing much sympathy to them. That expectation never really existed.

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#17  Edited By thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

So was Stalin, your point? Are you legitimizing these tactics?

The people getting executed in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians who had simply been demonstrating for peace. That's all someone has to do to be labeled a collaborator. And we have no idea as to how many Palestinians have actually been executed by Hamas because of the incredible difficulty to do actual journalism in the Gaza Strip.

Legitimizing which groups tactics? The ANC's or Hamas'? Is there a difference?

I'd say there's a pretty huge difference. You just have to compare the Mahlabanti Declaration of Faith to the Hamas Charter to see it.

And I mean "legitimizing these tactics" in a general sense.

I asked if there was a difference in tactics, not in charter. Both were clearly engaged in terror irrespective of what was written in their respective mission statements. I don't legitimize their tactics. However, when a people are exercising their right for self-determination under occupation and/or annexation, it's not my place to dictate how a people should fight against such forces. If the people want to engage in civil disobedience (my preference but again, not my place to judge), that's their business. If they want to go the opposite route and fight fire with fire, as was done by the IRA, ANC, and just about every militant group you can think of, that's also their business.

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#18  Edited By -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Hamas' rocket firing doesn't even compare to the amount of brutal terror caused by the ANC or the IRA (see: the good guys). Those guys did far more than simply fire rockets.

Hamas has done a lot more than just shoot rockets. Look into what Hamas did during the second intifada. Hamas also terrorizes not only Israelis but its own population in the Gaza Strip - one thing that has gone under reported is the number of people being executed in the Gaza Strip by Hamas because they've been accused of being "collaborators."

So did the ANC. The ANC were notorious for punishing collaborators.

So was Stalin, your point? Are you legitimizing these tactics?

The people getting executed in the Gaza Strip are Palestinians who had simply been demonstrating for peace. That's all someone has to do to be labeled a collaborator. And we have no idea as to how many Palestinians have actually been executed by Hamas because of the incredible difficulty to do actual journalism in the Gaza Strip.

Legitimizing which groups tactics? The ANC's or Hamas'? Is there a difference?

I'd say there's a pretty huge difference. You just have to compare the Mahlabanti Declaration of Faith to the Hamas Charter to see it.

And I mean "legitimizing these tactics" in a general sense.

I asked if there was a difference in tactics, not in charter. Both were clearly engaged in terror irrespective of what was written in their respective mission statements. I don't legitimize their tactics though it's not my place to question them either. When it comes to a group's right to self-determination under occupation and/or annexation, it's not my place to dictate how a people should fight against such forces. If the people want to engage in civil disobedience (my preference but again, not my place to judge), that's their business. If they want to go the opposite route and fight fire with fire, as was done by the IRA, ANC, and just about every militant group you can think of, that's also their business.

Well again, there is a striking difference in tactics. Hamas killed more people during the second intifada than the ANC ever did. And the ANC didn't deliberately target civilians. Hamas does - not only does it target Israeli civilians but it does everything in its power to create as many Palestinian civilian deaths as possible for propaganda purposes.

And look, if you interpret these conflicts exclusively through the bipolar lens of "oppressor" and "oppressed" your analysis of the world will forever be infantile. The "oppressor" is not always in the wrong nor is the "oppressed" always in the right. It is one thing to be apathetic and say "that's their business," but don't be selectively apathetic. Your logic should also extend to the Israelis, how they choose to protect their right to self-determination should be "their business" as well.

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#19  Edited By thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

That's false. The ANC conducted most of their bombing campaigns in civilian areas; including shopping centers, court structures, a bar, an arcade, a bank, a stadium and civilian street corners. As far as creating Palestinians deaths, I not sure what that means. If you're suggesting "human shields", then I'd like to see some proof because Amnesty, HRW and the BBC's ME editor Jeremy Bowen saw no evidence of human shields. .

You state that The "oppressor" is not always in the wrong nor is the "oppressed" always in the right. I don't know what this "right" and "wrong" means. People have the right to fight against their occupation and annexation. It's a just fight and it remains just irrespective of some relativist perception of right and wrong. I apply this logic universally and this logic would extend to Israelis' if Israelis' were being occupied and annexed. But they're not, so it doesn't.

Looks like the Israelis did plenty of killing during the second intifada: http://www.aljazeera.com/photo_galleries/middleeast/2010103132115872256.html

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#20 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts
@thebest31406 said:

That's false. The ANC conducted most of their bombing campaigns in civilian areas; including shopping centers, court structures, a bar, an arcade, a bank, a stadium and civilian street corners. As far as creating Palestinians deaths, I not sure what that means. If you're suggesting "human shields", then I'd like to see some proof because Amnesty, HRW and the BBC's ME editor Jeremy Bowen saw no evidence of human shields. .

It was never the official policy of the ANC that civilians were fair game. Yes, civilians died at the hands of the ANC but it was never the official policy of the ANC to kill civilians. It is the official policy of Hamas that targeting civilians is justified. And in terms of creating Palestinian deaths, I'm not just talking about Hamas concealing their movements among civilian populations, or using civil buildings to hide their rockets - they have given PSA's to ignore Israeli warnings about potential military strikes. They have executed Palestinians because they might've had the nerve to tell the IDF where civilian homes were locate, or warning fellow civilians to evacuate an area. Also where are all the bomb shelters in Gaza? Don't tell me it's because they lack the cement to make them, they had plenty of cement to build all those tunnels going into Israel. Where are their priorities? Are you really telling me that you don't have any opinion on these tactics? Is the morally superior position to disregard what Hamas does and says because it's "none of our business"? Hamas consistently treats their own people like cannon fodder, the ANC never had such a depraved view of human life.

@thebest31406 said:

You state that The "oppressor" is not always in the wrong nor is the "oppressed" always in the right. I don't know what you're saying with this "right" and "wrong." People have a right to fight against their occupation and annexation. It's a just fight irrespective of a relativist perception of right and wrong.I apply this logic universally and this logic would extend to Israelis' if Israelis' were being occupied and annexed. But they're not, so it doesn't.

"We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are 'objectively' aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism…To criticize the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore "Trotskyism is Fascism". And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated.

This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions."

What Hamas says matters. What their intentions are matters. As a general principle Palestinians certainly are justified in resisting occupation and fighting for self-determination. But that doesn't give them carte blanche on everything they do. Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect. For liberal-minded people to sympathize, rationalize, and justify this type of organization is indefensible. I don't care how bad the occupation is - people have behaved better in the face of worse injustice.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#21 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

That's false. The ANC conducted most of their bombing campaigns in civilian areas; including shopping centers, court structures, a bar, an arcade, a bank, a stadium and civilian street corners. As far as creating Palestinians deaths, I not sure what that means. If you're suggesting "human shields", then I'd like to see some proof because Amnesty, HRW and the BBC's ME editor Jeremy Bowen saw no evidence of human shields. .

You state that The "oppressor" is not always in the wrong nor is the "oppressed" always in the right. I don't know what this "right" and "wrong" means. People have the right to fight against their occupation and annexation. It's a just fight and it remains just irrespective of some relativist perception of right and wrong. I apply this logic universally and this logic would extend to Israelis' if Israelis' were being occupied and annexed. But they're not, so it doesn't.

Looks like the Israelis did plenty of killing during the second intifada: http://www.aljazeera.com/photo_galleries/middleeast/2010103132115872256.html

People may have the right to fight against occupation, but they don't have the right to attack civilians/not-combatants as Hamas does. And besides if you go back far enough the same ethnic group that is complaining about people "occupying" their land, probably took that land from someone else and "occupied" it.

Avatar image for whipassmt
whipassmt

15375

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 24

User Lists: 0

#22 whipassmt
Member since 2007 • 15375 Posts

Hamas has very little resemblance to the Jewish Zealots who fought against Rome.

1. From what I understand, the Jewish Zealots committed mass suicide at Masada when they realized that the Romans were using Jewish slaves to build an incline for them to be able to breach Masada. The Zealots realized that in order to stop the construction of the incline they would have to kill the Jewish slaves that were working on it, and if they did not do so the Romans would breach their position and kill or capture them all. The zealots chose to commit suicide rather than kill their fellow Jews. Hamas would not have done so, they seem to have no qualms about causing the deaths of their fellow Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims.

2. As far as I know the aim of the Zealots was to get the Romans out of Israel and Judea, I don't think they cared about destroying the Roman Empire or taking Rome. From what I understand Hamas' stated purpose is not only to get Israel out of Gaza and the West Bank, but to wipe it off the face of the earth.

3. The Zealots did not have the capability to attack most of the Roman Empire. Apparently, 2/3 of Israel's population has to take shelter in bomb shelters because of Hamas rocket fire.

Avatar image for Darkman2007
Darkman2007

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#23 Darkman2007
Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

@whipassmt:

they do share one aspect, that being the hard headed "100% or death" idea.

one act the Zealots did during the siege of Jerusalem , was to burn the great food storehouses in the city, the idea was that the people would be so hungry, that in desperation they would break the siege to get food .Of course all it did was create misery and starvation.

Masada as an individual story is somewhat celebrated, but the general Jewish attitude to the Zealot movement is very mixed , not only due to the dumb mistakes, but also their use of nationalism to attack other Jews and total lack of unity , Even if the general idea of throwing the Romans out was celebrated.

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#24 thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@-Sun_Tzu- said:
@thebest31406 said:

That's false. The ANC conducted most of their bombing campaigns in civilian areas; including shopping centers, court structures, a bar, an arcade, a bank, a stadium and civilian street corners. As far as creating Palestinians deaths, I not sure what that means. If you're suggesting "human shields", then I'd like to see some proof because Amnesty, HRW and the BBC's ME editor Jeremy Bowen saw no evidence of human shields. .

It was never the official policy of the ANC that civilians were fair game. Yes, civilians died at the hands of the ANC but it was never the official policy of the ANC to kill civilians. It is the official policy of Hamas that targeting civilians is justified. And in terms of creating Palestinian deaths, I'm not just talking about Hamas concealing their movements among civilian populations, or using civil buildings to hide their rockets - they have given PSA's to ignore Israeli warnings about potential military strikes. They have executed Palestinians because they might've had the nerve to tell the IDF where civilian homes were locate, or warning fellow civilians to evacuate an area. Also where are all the bomb shelters in Gaza? Don't tell me it's because they lack the cement to make them, they had plenty of cement to build all those tunnels going into Israel. Where are their priorities? Are you really telling me that you don't have any opinion on these tactics? Is the morally superior position to disregard what Hamas does and says because it's "none of our business"? Hamas consistently treats their own people like cannon fodder, the ANC never had such a depraved view of human life.

@thebest31406 said:

You state that The "oppressor" is not always in the wrong nor is the "oppressed" always in the right. I don't know what you're saying with this "right" and "wrong." People have a right to fight against their occupation and annexation. It's a just fight irrespective of a relativist perception of right and wrong.I apply this logic universally and this logic would extend to Israelis' if Israelis' were being occupied and annexed. But they're not, so it doesn't.

"We are told that it is only people's objective actions that matter, and their subjective feelings are of no importance. Thus pacifists, by obstructing the war effort, are 'objectively' aiding the Nazis; and therefore the fact that they may be personally hostile to Fascism is irrelevant. I have been guilty of saying this myself more than once. The same argument is applied to Trotskyism…To criticize the Soviet Union helps Hitler: therefore "Trotskyism is Fascism". And when this has been established, the accusation of conscious treachery is usually repeated.

This is not only dishonest; it also carries a severe penalty with it. If you disregard people's motives, it becomes much harder to foresee their actions."

What Hamas says matters. What their intentions are matters. As a general principle Palestinians certainly are justified in resisting occupation and fighting for self-determination. But that doesn't give them carte blanche on everything they do. Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect. For liberal-minded people to sympathize, rationalize, and justify this type of organization is indefensible. I don't care how bad the occupation is - people have behaved better in the face of worse injustice.

Whatever the ANC's motives were, their criminal intent was evident. If a sane person plants a bomb in a populated area, as the ANC had done on several occasions, that sane person knows the predictable consequences of his actions - namely, the killing and injuring of civilians within civilian territory. So even if such a group had a mission statement promoting the preservation of life and all that jazz, their actions tell a different story; especially if such a group decides to perform the same sort of act again and again and again. I don't disregard one's motives but I don't allow motive to take priority over action.

I find these supposed magnanimous gestures of mercy from Israel forewarning the Gazans' of Israel's war crimes toward them to be a joke These gestures assume that Israel's war crimes are justified to begin with. They're not, so Israel's supposed altruism is lost on me.

"Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect"

Neither does the state of Saudi Arabia; the most repressive Islamic state in the world - and a good friend of the US and Israel. You wanna make an enemy of them too? Of course not. So what was the point of this rant if not for insidious reactionary purposes? And how does a regime's bigoted position justify annexation anyway? The US government could be the most misogynist, racist, homophobic place on earth and it still wouldn't justify a state's annexation of American territory

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

175723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#25 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 175723 Posts

@thebest31406: Why are you such an apologist for HAMAS and their desire to commit genocide while throwing their own people under the bus to do so? I just can't wrap my head around anyone from a progressive country agreeing with that. Where are you from?

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#26 thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@LJS9502_basic said:

@thebest31406: Why are you such an apologist for HAMAS and their desire to commit genocide while throwing their own people under the bus to do so? I just can't wrap my head around anyone from a progressive country agreeing with that. Where are you from?

Your strawman will be ignored. As for you're second question, which is a stupid one as you know the answer, I'm from the States

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#27 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

Whatever the ANC's motives were, their criminal intent was evident. If a sane person plants a bomb in a populated area, as the ANC had done on several occasions, that sane person knows the predictable consequences of his actions - namely, the killing and injuring of civilians within civilian territory. So even if such a group had a mission statement promoting the preservation of life and all that jazz, their actions tell a different story; especially if such a group decides to perform the same sort of act again and again and again. I don't disregard one's motives but I don't allow motive to take priority over action.

I find these supposed magnanimous gestures of mercy from Israel forewarning the Gazans' of Israel's war crimes toward them to be a joke These gestures assume that Israel's war crimes are justified to begin with. They're not, so Israel's supposed altruism is lost on me.

"Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect"

Neither does the state of Saudi Arabia; the most repressive Islamic state in the world - and a good friend of the US and Israel. You wanna make an enemy of them too? Of course not. So what was the point of this rant if not for insidious reactionary purposes? And how does a regime's bigoted position justify annexation anyway? The US government could be the most misogynist, racist, homophobic place on earth and it still wouldn't justify a state's annexation of American territory

This has nothing to do Israel's "supposed altruism." You asked how Hamas creates civilian casualties and I gave you your answer. I'll take your deflection as an implicit concession on that point. The comparison between Hamas and the ANC is simply not intellectually honest.

And what annexation are you talking about? Aside from fringe religious nutters Israel by and large has no territorial ambitions concerning the Gaza Strip. It offered the territory back to Egypt in 1979, they didn't want it back. They transferred authority to the PNA in most areas in the 90's as a result of Oslo. They offered the Gaza Strip in its entirety to Arafat in 2000 as part of a larger peace deal. They unilaterally removed the IDF and 8,000 settlers from within the strip in 2005. They offered it again to Abbas in 2008, again as part of a larger peace deal.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

175723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#28 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 175723 Posts

@thebest31406 said:

@LJS9502_basic said:

@thebest31406: Why are you such an apologist for HAMAS and their desire to commit genocide while throwing their own people under the bus to do so? I just can't wrap my head around anyone from a progressive country agreeing with that. Where are you from?

Your strawman will be ignored. As for you're second question, which is a stupid one as you know the answer, I'm from the States

It's not a straw man. You deny any blame for what's happening on HAMAS. And how the **** am I supposed to know where you live? You really aren't that interesting of an individual that I'd pay attention.

Avatar image for deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
deactivated-6127ced9bcba0

31700

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#29 deactivated-6127ced9bcba0
Member since 2006 • 31700 Posts

Sun_Tzu: Defender of Judaism. I'm going to get t-shirts made.

Avatar image for LJS9502_basic
LJS9502_basic

175723

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#30 LJS9502_basic  Online
Member since 2003 • 175723 Posts

@airshocker said:

Sun_Tzu: Defender of Judaism. I'm going to get t-shirts made.

Isn't he Jewish?

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#32 thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Whatever the ANC's motives were, their criminal intent was evident. If a sane person plants a bomb in a populated area, as the ANC had done on several occasions, that sane person knows the predictable consequences of his actions - namely, the killing and injuring of civilians within civilian territory. So even if such a group had a mission statement promoting the preservation of life and all that jazz, their actions tell a different story; especially if such a group decides to perform the same sort of act again and again and again. I don't disregard one's motives but I don't allow motive to take priority over action.

I find these supposed magnanimous gestures of mercy from Israel forewarning the Gazans' of Israel's war crimes toward them to be a joke These gestures assume that Israel's war crimes are justified to begin with. They're not, so Israel's supposed altruism is lost on me.

"Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect"

Neither does the state of Saudi Arabia; the most repressive Islamic state in the world - and a good friend of the US and Israel. You wanna make an enemy of them too? Of course not. So what was the point of this rant if not for insidious reactionary purposes? And how does a regime's bigoted position justify annexation anyway? The US government could be the most misogynist, racist, homophobic place on earth and it still wouldn't justify a state's annexation of American territory

This has nothing to do Israel's "supposed altruism." You asked how Hamas creates civilian casualties and I gave you your answer. I'll take your deflection as an implicit concession on that point. The comparison between Hamas and the ANC is simply not intellectually honest.

And what annexation are you talking about? Aside from fringe religious nutters Israel by and large has no territorial ambitions concerning the Gaza Strip. It offered the territory back to Egypt in 1979, they didn't want it back. They transferred authority to the PNA in most areas in the 90's as a result of Oslo. They offered the Gaza Strip in its entirety to Arafat in 2000 as part of a larger peace deal. They unilaterally removed the IDF and 8,000 settlers from within the strip in 2005. They offered it again to Abbas in 2008, again as part of a larger peace deal.

You gave an answer yes, but again, it assumes that the bombing is justified to being with. It would be like Russia sending PSA's to my neighborhood warning us of their targeting of our homes. The Russians would have no business bombing my place to begin with. So who's to blame?

The comparison between Hamas and the ANC is simply not intellectually honest.

Totally devoid of articulation so I'll just ignore it.

So I take it you're unaware of the Occupied Territories. They consist of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Golan Heights and though the IDF and settlers are gone, Israel still maintains control of Gaza's airspace and coastline and is, in effect, occupied territory according to the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, Amnesty, HRW, ICJ, etc...

Avatar image for thebest31406
thebest31406

3775

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#33 thebest31406
Member since 2004 • 3775 Posts

@LJS9502_basic: You keep asking the same dumb ass question "where you from? where you from?" I tell you every time. So now you know for like, the tenth time. So what is your point?

Avatar image for -Sun_Tzu-
-Sun_Tzu-

17384

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#34 -Sun_Tzu-
Member since 2007 • 17384 Posts

@thebest31406 said:
@-Sun_Tzu- said:

@thebest31406 said:

Whatever the ANC's motives were, their criminal intent was evident. If a sane person plants a bomb in a populated area, as the ANC had done on several occasions, that sane person knows the predictable consequences of his actions - namely, the killing and injuring of civilians within civilian territory. So even if such a group had a mission statement promoting the preservation of life and all that jazz, their actions tell a different story; especially if such a group decides to perform the same sort of act again and again and again. I don't disregard one's motives but I don't allow motive to take priority over action.

I find these supposed magnanimous gestures of mercy from Israel forewarning the Gazans' of Israel's war crimes toward them to be a joke These gestures assume that Israel's war crimes are justified to begin with. They're not, so Israel's supposed altruism is lost on me.

"Hamas is a fascist organization. They have no regard for free speech, free press, freedom of religion, women's rights, minority rights, gay rights, ect"

Neither does the state of Saudi Arabia; the most repressive Islamic state in the world - and a good friend of the US and Israel. You wanna make an enemy of them too? Of course not. So what was the point of this rant if not for insidious reactionary purposes? And how does a regime's bigoted position justify annexation anyway? The US government could be the most misogynist, racist, homophobic place on earth and it still wouldn't justify a state's annexation of American territory

This has nothing to do Israel's "supposed altruism." You asked how Hamas creates civilian casualties and I gave you your answer. I'll take your deflection as an implicit concession on that point. The comparison between Hamas and the ANC is simply not intellectually honest.

And what annexation are you talking about? Aside from fringe religious nutters Israel by and large has no territorial ambitions concerning the Gaza Strip. It offered the territory back to Egypt in 1979, they didn't want it back. They transferred authority to the PNA in most areas in the 90's as a result of Oslo. They offered the Gaza Strip in its entirety to Arafat in 2000 as part of a larger peace deal. They unilaterally removed the IDF and 8,000 settlers from within the strip in 2005. They offered it again to Abbas in 2008, again as part of a larger peace deal.

You gave an answer yes, but again, it assumes that the bombing is justified to being with. It would be like Russia sending PSA's to my neighborhood warning us of their targeting of our homes. The Russians would have no business bombing my place to begin with. So who's to blame?

The comparison between Hamas and the ANC is simply not intellectually honest.

Totally devoid of articulation so I'll just ignore it.

So I take it you're unaware of the Occupied Territories. They consist of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), Golan Heights and though the IDF and settlers are gone, Israel still maintains control of Gaza's airspace and coastline and is, in effect, occupied territory according to the United Nations Security Council, the United Nations General Assembly, Amnesty, HRW, ICJ, etc...

We can argue about the legality and/or justification of specific areas that have been targeted, although until the conflict is officially over and investigations can be done all we can do is speculate about these things. But you seem to be arguing something even more extreme than that, are you implying that Israel has no legal right to strike Gaza as a matter of principle?

And look, I'm fully aware of what the occupied territories are. Occupation =/= annexation. The Golan Heights have effectively been annexed (although this was never Palestinian territory to begin with), East Jerusalem has been annexed, but none of the west bank has been annexed (although if there is ever a peace deal, some percentage of the territory will be annexed by Israel) and the Gaza Strip has definitely not been annexed nor are there any serious intentions to do so. While it's true that Israel still maintains a great deal of control over Gaza's airspace and borders (as does Egypt), this is done for security reasons (some would argue it's also to inflict collective punishment, and I can't completely dismiss that as a factor as well). The reality is that for decades, at least up until 2007, Israel had consistently ceded away authority over the strip, and the strip has never really been a matter of dispute during negotiations with the PLO.

Israel doesn't want the Gaza strip, you said they're trying to annex the territory and that's simply not true.