The flags of Hamas and Hezbollah were waved among the crowd of demonstrators during a march in New York City on Monday, reported the American right-wing media Freedom New TV (FNTV) and according to...
They’re not “just” freedom fighters: they ARE freedom fighters, but they are also conservative religious freedom fighters who utilize indiscriminate violence to advance their cause of by any means necessary.
They are not morally upright heroes. I can’t support what they did. They are, however, also still freedom fighters. And it makes me very, very angry that their tactics have been successful after non-violence failed in 2018. It shouldn’t have come to this.
As Kennedy astutely observed, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
I cannot endorse the violence Hamas employs, but I also understand in such a context why others do. This was an inevitable outcome of extreme political disenfranchisement, and that makes me equally furious at the joint responsibility I see for the atrocities that have resulted.
I didn’t downvote, but I would argue that you can’t call someone a freedom fighter if their ideology or political position fundamentally opposes freedom, just because they are fighting for the cause of one particular oppressed group. To put a comparison: some Ukrainians that fought against the Soviet Union during WWII could have seen themselves as freedom fighters who were fighting for the right of self-determination of their nation (as they were fighting a dictatorship, and that was probably their main intention), but you absolutely cannot call yourself a freedom fighter when you’re helping the nazis occupy half of Europe.
Banderites were fascists and contributed to plenty of massacres but they also fought the Nazis because they didn’t feel like bending the knee to Hitler, unlike, say, the Ustaša. In that sense they weren’t collaborationists. It’s why the whole national hero emotionality surrounding Bandera gets so frustratingly complicated.
Makhno is a much more suitable national hero but he was on nobody’s mind as the very idea or existence of Anarchism was suppressed in the USSR while Bandera was a suitable boogeyman. “Enemy of my oppressor is my hero” kind of mechanism.
They’re not “just” freedom fighters: they ARE freedom fighters, but they are also conservative religious freedom fighters who utilize indiscriminate violence to advance their cause of by any means necessary.
They are not morally upright heroes. I can’t support what they did. They are, however, also still freedom fighters. And it makes me very, very angry that their tactics have been successful after non-violence failed in 2018. It shouldn’t have come to this.
As Kennedy astutely observed, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable”.
I cannot endorse the violence Hamas employs, but I also understand in such a context why others do. This was an inevitable outcome of extreme political disenfranchisement, and that makes me equally furious at the joint responsibility I see for the atrocities that have resulted.
That was well put, I don’t know why all the downvotes?
I didn’t downvote, but I would argue that you can’t call someone a freedom fighter if their ideology or political position fundamentally opposes freedom, just because they are fighting for the cause of one particular oppressed group. To put a comparison: some Ukrainians that fought against the Soviet Union during WWII could have seen themselves as freedom fighters who were fighting for the right of self-determination of their nation (as they were fighting a dictatorship, and that was probably their main intention), but you absolutely cannot call yourself a freedom fighter when you’re helping the nazis occupy half of Europe.
Banderites were fascists and contributed to plenty of massacres but they also fought the Nazis because they didn’t feel like bending the knee to Hitler, unlike, say, the Ustaša. In that sense they weren’t collaborationists. It’s why the whole national hero emotionality surrounding Bandera gets so frustratingly complicated.
Makhno is a much more suitable national hero but he was on nobody’s mind as the very idea or existence of Anarchism was suppressed in the USSR while Bandera was a suitable boogeyman. “Enemy of my oppressor is my hero” kind of mechanism.
Still, I hope my metaphor went across.
Ok, fair enough