Note -- Aaron is Jewish. The last post was kind of amusing, albeit disoriented. The last writer should read my posts again carefully -- I know these strings can be hard to follow in a second language.

The point of my posts was that it is not okay for Hamas to kill innocent people in Israel. It is not okay for any group for any cause to use the tactic of terrorism. I think most Jews and moral people around the world only wish that was a universally held Islamic view ("Islamic dung" . . .).

look - we have all heard the islamic speak bs about all innocent life. we have also heard the islamics talk about the jew oppresors and they are not innocent and neither are their children.
so what you are really saying - innocent life does not include jews or their children.
you can never get an islamic to publically and specifically condem murdering jews in inrael. they always you islam speak.
and we all know that world peace to an islamic only means a world ruled by islam and no other religion is allowed.
so quit the double talk - we know your lies.
its like your saying that its all about israel and the jews when your moho child rapist lying dog - said to hate jews back in 620 ad.
so the real question is - DO ISLAMICS BREED LYING RAT CHILDREN OR DO THEY HAVE TO BE TAUGHT TO LIE?

(1) Mohammed Malek, thanks for your response. However, I think you misunderstood my post, as what you wrote did not make sense. Race is irrelevant here, and my post was not intended to invoke race as an issue. The protection of innocent HUMAN life, regardless of race, gender or religion, is what I advocate in my post.

The Apartheid struggle was largely along a black/white divide as a historical matter. Mandela was ANC leader whose group supported black rights in South Africa and an end to Apartheid. Although he fought against Apartheid policies supported by white South African leaders, he never planned the deliberate killing of white South Africans, nor did he condone the tactic of terrorism. I am not speaking for Mandela -- Mandela speaking on his own behalf does not condone terrorism as a tactic. Good for him for having a moral compass. That was my point. I do not believe you and I have a disagreement here, unless you think it is okay for any group under any circumstance to kill innocents to make a political point.

(2) Fitbeck said: "A freedom fighter is always a terrorist in the eyes of the opressor."

This is dead wrong, and we are doomed as humanity if we let ourselves believe that. Do not confuse causes and tactics. Terrorism is a tactic; it is the tactic of deliberately targeting innocent civilians in attacks to achieve a political or personal end. Terrorism as a tactic is wrong and nothing justifies it. Fighting for freedom is a cause. Freedom fighters can use good tactics or unacceptable tactics. Nelson Mandela, Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr. used just tactics. Similarly, Palestinian groups who fight with Israeli soldiers as part of their resistance but who do not target innocent civilians and hold that such attacks are wrongful are not terrorists.

Hamas, which deliberately attacks civilians in bus bombings, shootings, rocket attacks on peaceful villages, suicide bombings in crowded markets or cafes, is a terrorist group because of its TACTICS, not because of its CAUSE. Subjective opinions about who is a freedom fighter and who is an oppressor are irrelevant to the topic of terrorism; a terrorist makes himself a terrorist, objectively, by the tactics he chooses.

no, its just terrorist murder. lets call it what it is - the murder of innocents by islamic scum, as a way of making a blood sacrafice to their fake god and its child raping lying dog that pretended he talked to god.

Nelson Mandela was a terrorist, and rightfully so.A freedom fighter is always a terrorist in the eyes of the opressor and the group that disenfranchises the opressed of their land and liberty

BILL.HILL:

Moral high ground.?
Not enough.
Why not talk about moral high ground as a requirement for the oppressor too.?
Why only the oppressed is required to have a moral high ground (to qualify for your support).
This is an imperialistic ploy.
Mandela was locked up for 35 years in jail.
And now the white guys are saying 'oh well he was not a terrorist'.
We know who are the real terrorists.

The oppressors prefer the soft,pliant style. Someone with whom they can feel comfortable with.
Sure a white red neck would be more comfortable with MLK than with the imperious Malcolm X.
This is why Ghandi and Martin Luther King are preferred and eulogised because the oppressors find them nice and comfortable to deal with.

Ghandi delayed the freedom of India by atleast 20 years. Also remember dont be fooled by his style.
Ghandi actually spurred the creation of Pakistan.

You cannot have the same strategy for all situations. Homicide bombing will not work in Tibet because simply there are too many Chinese and they can afford to lose a million a day!!
Tibetans have to find their own way and not become a propaganda tool of the West.

Supporting the underdog without regard to his behavior is morally banckrupt. Do you see residents of Cyprus or Tibet practice homicide bombing and then demanding unconditional surrender without themselves taking any responsibility? The high moral ground is not always with the perceived underdog.

I fully endorse your viewpoint.

Aaron,

Don't you think that you are being more presumptuous than the neocon idiots to purport to speak for Nelson Mandela? You write " Nelson Mandela and other black South African leaders cannot be compared to Hamas. To do so is a great insult."

You reveal your deficient reasoning. I don't want to fall into the same trap as you, by purporting to speak for Nelson Mandela, but he thinks of people as people (maybe making a distinction between oppressed and oppressor) not, like you, as 'black South Africans' (as distinct from what, pray?).

I invite you to read my post where I list a few of the towering figures who successfully fought oppresssion, among whom Elizabeth Ruth, Joe Slovo, Ronnie Kasrils himself, etc. White, black , brown, green? These distinctions I leave to you to make.

SAM,PALISRA(PALESTINE PLUS ISRAEL) is a great idea and should work very well for all parties.In fact the idea of one secular state for all,on the South African Model,was prposed by Palestinans many years ago,but unfortunately it was rejected by Israel as they insist on having a Jewish state at the expense of non jews,moslems and christians.
It is exactly the apartheid mentality of Israelis that our great president Carter has warned agaisnt.

It is a sad situation that both Israelis and Palestinians have been fighting and killing each other for more than 60 years now and fortunately, no light could be seen at the end of this dark tunnel.

The geography and demography of the area that extends between River Jordan and the Mediterranean indicate the complexity of the current situation. Every party is trying hard to grab by mere force what is in the hand of the other. Many wars have been staged and thousands of innocent lives have been shed for this purpose.
Nowadays, almost everybody is talking about setting up two countries for both Israelis and Palestinians. This simply means that the land of historical Palestine will be divided between the two parties, Israelis and Palestinians.

I doubt very much that either party will be satisfied with his share of the cake. There are chronic problems like Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, borders, water resources that nobody on earth can sort out to the satisfaction of both parties.

The short vision of setting up two separate states could sow the seeds for more bloody conflicts in the future. Nobody can guarantee or secure permanent and lasting peace under this proposition.

A far better solution based on the South African Model should satisfy both parties and put an end to all complicated issues for ever. It is the establishment of one country for all on the whole territory of historical Palestine that includes the West Bank and Gaza besides Israel. Jerusalem will remain united for both parties, settlements could remain where they are now provided an appropriate compensation is made to the original land owners, natural geographical borders are already in place for the whole country and the issue of refugees could be settled by allowing refugees to return home. All citizens of the new state, PALISRA (Palestine +Israel), would enjoy equal rights and bear the same responsibilities.

The newly established state, PALISRA will emerge as a prosperous and safe country within a very short period of time, and citizens of this state will learn how to respect and even cherish each other. PALIRA will become a key player and an integral part of the Middle East as yesterday's enemies will become today's friends and allies for ever.

Aaron, Thank you for your wisdom. Enough said.

The quote describing the reasoning for South Africa's decision is curious and sadly misses the point. Nelson Mandela and other black South African leaders cannot be compared to Hamas. To do so is a great insult. Mandela was never a terrorist. He never advocated the deliberate killing of innocent white South African civilians.

Support for Palestinian independence and opposition to terrorism and terrorist leaders is entirely consistent. Repeat that sentence in your head until you understand it -- otherwise you will be unable to engage constructively on any side of this conversation.

The international community, Palestinians and most Israeli's and world Jewry support a Palestinian state. That same majority opposes terrorism. Hamas has always chosen to pursue their battle by killing innocent people -- bus bombings, shooting up civilian cars, suicide explosions in public markets, firing unguided missiles into civilian villages and worse. That TACTIC is terrorism. A group's cause can be legitimate or wrongful. The use of terrorist tactics is always wrong.

As long as Hamas continues to support terrorist tactics as its core strategy for Palestinian independence, they should be shunned by all self-respecting civilized nations. So long as they refuse to accept the idea of Israel living side by side in peace with a Palestinian state (and the objective fact is that Hamas still rejects the existence of Israel -- this cannot be talked around), they should face diplomatic pressure.

The day Hamas decides to pursue Palestinian independence using the tactics of Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., they will cease to be terrorists and should be welcome in South Africa. To invite them before that change brings great shame to South Africa.

Hamas has repeatedly stated that if Israel pulled back to its 1967 boundaries, it would enter into a "long term truce" with the Jewish state. If Israel were wise, they would take them up on it and see whether or not the Palestinians sincerely want peace. Then, if it turns out the Palestinians continue to attack Israel inside its internationally-recognized boundaries, Israel would have regained the moral high-ground to deal very harshly with the Palestinians in response- including, if necessary, the expulsions that some Israelis advocate. But first they need to try to make peace on terms that the rest of the world would recognize as legitimate, and the Palestinians also need to stop killing non-combatant Israelis if they wish their resistance to also be seen as legitimate. My feeling is that since neither side appears willing to do this, we invaded the wrong country. We should have invaded Israel and the Palestinian territories to impose a peace based on UN resolutions.

can you say dung boys and girls?

Thank you, Mr. Kuttab, for posting this additional statement by Honourable Ronnie Kasrils.
I am trying to get my own Government, Mauritius, to also invite Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh, since my country of birth is a stone's throw away from South Africa, and it is speculated that, from South Africa, PM Haniyeh might link up to Malaysia. Mauritius would, in that case be on his way.

Honourable Ronnie Kasrils, who is of Jewish faith, has been, along with towering figures such as Oliver Tambo, Elizabeth Ruth, Steve Biko, Maulana Haroun, Abubakar Asvat, the late first Chief Justice of South Africa, Ismael Muhammad and still-living personalities like Nelson Madela, Desmong Tutu, Ahmad Kathrada, a great hero of the greatest morality play, ex-aequo with the Palestinians' struggle for their homeland, that the human fraternity has witnessed and engaged in during recent times.