It doesn't take much to be called anti-semitic these days...

Remove all ads!

@Chev: If you want to go even a bit farther back in history, at the turn of the last century - when the superpowers of the age were discussing what to do with the remnants of the Ottoman empire, and there was neither a Jewish state nor a Palestinian one - a Zionist leader and an Arab leader had worked out a plan that would allow the two states to co-exist as partners in their mutual self interest of propserity and stability in the region. Alas, for what was lost.

 

I agree with you, but would actually take this argument even further. Terrorism has likely existed as long as government has existed.

 

Infact after the war the term “terrorism” was largely synonymous with outrages committed by the Jewish terrorists in Palestine – e.g. the blowing up of the King David hotel in Palestine.' But when the state of Israel was proclaimed the next year, the word soon became associated with Palestinians. What Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the PFLP or any other Palestinian militants does today is exactly what the Jews did when they set up the Stern Gang and blew up the King David Hotel in the 1940s and what the Israeli government continues to do through its military machine. Sadly, many Jews still revere the Stern Gang, even while they abhor the terrorism that ruins their lives today. All terrorism, not excepting Israeli terrorism, is abhorrent, something which is largely lost on most Zionists.

 

don't forget those pesky jewish zealots who poo-pooed the roman empire

 

Um....no one liked the Roman Empire. Except Romans. And some Greeks. I would hardly fault the Jews for disliking the Romans just like everyone else. To fault the Jews for having the exact same sentiments towards Rome as the rest of that little corner of the world would qualify as anti-semitic.

 

I'll try to stay on topic here...

The Jews did have much more of a problem with the Roman rule then other ethnic groups did (notably the Germanic tribes). The Romans valued citizenship, not ethnicity and conquered people themselves could become citizens (making Rome far more egalitarian then other nations of the time).

Historically the Jews have always felt persecuted (and often for good reason). Much of this out look on life coupled with their religious beliefs is why they've had such a hard time not being an autonomous group of peoples. The Jews have historically intentionally stood out from other groups of people which creates a tendancy to experience social problems.

Now the Jews intentionally separating themselves from others is no excuse for their experience, but because of how the Jews interact with other ethnic groups, any violence involving the Jews is most often going to be wholey different from outwardly similar circumstances involving different ethnic groups.

 

You're just jealous because those "pesky jewish [sic] zealots" were the only ones back in the day who could give the Romans a run for their money on the battlefield. Sure, maybe Rome won the wars in the end, but at a far, far greater military cost than it should have taken to put down a little uprising by a few "pesky jewish [sic] zealots". Some historians theorize that the Jewish Wars were the beginning of the end for Rome - so you're welcome.

 

There was a woman named Bouddica, Queen of the Bretons, who gave the Romans more than a run for their money. Her story is quite interesting, and it illustrates that Roman rule was less egalitarian in some instances.

 

@CtR: Good point, I'd forgotten about her. I hereby restrict my previous comment based on geography.

 

And to stay off topic, even Bouddica (Queen of the Iceni tribe in East Anglia, rather than the Bretons, who are linked with Britany in France) started off as a Roman sympatiser.

Besides which you're also forgetting the Goths and the Vandals who did rather well at defeating and sacking Rome.

 

Going to continue off-topic, the Romans were the best rulers around at the time. Sure by our standards they might have been a bit rough but by the standards of their time they were the best rulers anyone could wish for.

As for the Romans and the Jews, they were just one of hundreds of small peoples they controlled and of no importance whatsoever. When they made a fuzz they were put down, brutally and reasonably swiftly and I wonder if most of Rome even know there had been a rebellion thats the insignificance of it.

As for Boudicea she managed to unite all of Britain and field basically the whole domestic population after she had been maltreadet and burnt her way through the country killing and looting everything in her path. The first time she ran into organised Roman power her entire army was annihilated despite outnumbering the Romans with at least 5:1.

The Romans owned.

 

except when they face hannibal, Cannae=supreme ownage. to be fair however, hannibal probably did the most to start off the roman war machine, because the romans started adapting their tactics from a phalanx-like formation and tactics to a more flexible one. Alse after the second punic war there came to existence of latifundia (farms owned by rich aristocrats and worked by slaves) which were carved from the decimated farmlands of previous land holders.


wow im off topic sorry