The nature of Hamas

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous, thanks for the brief history lesson. Sorry for side-tracking you.

Yes, Israel has been attacked repeatedly in aggression. I do not believe that this excuses the treatment served out to Palestinians in the occupied territories or justifies the occupation (at least fully). I also do not believe that my support for peaceful protest toward the aim of ending the occupation reveals in any fashoin an anti-Jewish perspective on my part. You are free to your observations and I would never attempt to censor you, but I hope you can keep in mind that regardless of religion I would criticise Israel's actions when I feel they are unjust.

One can have anti-Jewish tendancies and arguments and not be willing to admit it and not hold an active, virelent anti-Jewish sentiment. That is, one can have anti-Semetic prejudices without realizing it and without actually being hateful. The identification of an anti-Semetic argument therefore is not an ad hominim, when the cricism is directed toward the argument alone and not the person.

 

[YmirGF]

...but it seems that Israel has tried to make peace, given up land in an attemt to do so, and for it's trouble is constantly the target of continued attacks into their own territory.

Precisely. When the Arab solution subtracts Israel from the equation, you are left with a solution that just does not add up.

Jews have been indigenous to the region for thousands of years... it would only seem right that that qualifies them for their own homeland. Denial of this simple fact, other than in subjegated Dhimmintude, is simply unrealistic.

It is sort of like the Toronto Maple Leafs demanding to be given the covetted Stanley Cup because they won it once before, regardless of the fact of whether they are still even contenders or not.

In wars, morally speaking, there are no winners. Traditionally however, in a war, there is a clear victor and a clear loser. The loser if forced to capitulate and is at the mercy of the victor. Snivelling after the fact does not change these very basic realities.

Again, you do not hear the citizens of Rome screaming for the return of lands that were theirs long ago. In fact, if they DID, we would all kill ourselves laughing. I really don't think this situation is that much different from this rediculous scenario.

If I am missing something you are all welcome to point out the error of my thinking.

 

[Yerda]

One can have anti-Jewish tendancies and arguments and not be willing to admit it and not hold an active, virelent anti-Jewish sentiment. That is, one can have anti-Semetic prejudices without realizing it and without actually being hateful.

There is evidence to suggest we all have biases, however negligible.

The identification of an anti-Semetic argument therefore is not an ad hominim, when the cricism is directed toward the argument alone and not the person.

My argument is not anti-Jewish, it is anti-oppressive, anti-abusive, anti-imperialist, anti-authoritarian. It is pro-civilain, pro-community, pro-peace, pro-freedom. Religion comes into the issue nowhere, that is certain and visibly clear from all I've said.

There is no basis for assuming an anti-Jewish bent to my words unless you want to suggest that by opposing the actions specific Jews I oppose Jews in general (i.e. I despise Sharon therfore I hate Rabbi Schwartz, Rabbi Klein, and Rabbi Lev which is untrue, I have as deep a respect for those people as I have a dislike for Sharon). I suggest that you would have me dislike every group of people on Earth on that basis.