You've probably thought Rome was responsible for destroying the Jew's Second Temple.

And you would of course be right, they did, but the point of this article is to prove that the Romans would never had destroyed the Jewish Temple had Jews not pushed to Romans into it using terrorism, hence, making its destruction inevitable.

---

---

Romans wanted to integrate everyone they conquered, who cooperated, into citizens of Roman, but the utter destruction of Carthage in 146 BC, after many Carthage rebellions against Rome, show that Romans have a short tolerance on rebellion in the Roman Empire against anyone who does not cooperate.

Jews in 66 AD had to have known the Roman history of Carthage, since they had been a part of Rome since 63 BC.

And Rome in 66 AD was not about to let even Jews show that Rome allows its provinces to rebel.


In 66 AD, the Roman Governor of Judea, Florus, violated the Roman rule on how to administer conquered territories -- the rule being, as much as possible, to make the conquered territories feel like they were not conquered.  That is, Latin was required for communication between provinces, but local languages were not forbidden, Roman taxes were expected to pay for the empire, but local taxes were for local use, Rome's gods were not forced on the conquered, but the Jewish God was tolerated, and on and on.

The [Jewish] revolt started when Florus broke a basic Roman rule. Rome dominated its known world not only with force but also by knowing better than to unnecessarily antagonize those it ruled. But the governor, who shared a general Roman contempt for the Jewish peoples stole a large amount of silver from Temple treasure. This outraged the Jews. Doomed To Repeat: The Lessons of History We've Failed to Learn, by Bill Fawcett

Since the entire Roman contingent and an entire legion from Syria were wiped out as a result of the theft of silver from the Temple, I think it safe to say that this Roman governor who stole the silver was in for a stiff reprimand from Rome for violating Rome's Golden Rule of "Conquer and then, Do onto others how you would want them to do onto you, so long as they do not revolt".

Reading between the line, Bill Fawcett makes a point to say the Romans had a "contempt for the Jewish peoples".

Always wise for an author who wants to get published to say, "Why, but oh why, do all the world hate the poor persecuted Jews?"

However, it does not seems to faze Mr. Fawcett when Mr. Fawcett spends quite a bit of his chapter on "terrorism" telling us how much the Jews had contempt for Romans before the 66 AD revolt, the revolt itself a contempt for Rome, as shown in Mr. Fawcetts' description of the Jewish Zealots killing every Roman they could find, and the Jews contempt for their own fellow Jews who cooperated with Romans when the Jewish Sicarii were running around killing every Jewish traitor they could kill.

Romans may indeed have had a contempt for Jews, but Bill Fawcett clearly tells us with facts that the Roman contempt was well justified.

Since the defeat of a legion was an example Rome could not afford to let stand, they reacted strongly. Judea was a poor backwater area, but what if somewhere important, like Egypt or Greece, got ideas? Doomed to Repeat, pg37

---

---

Let me tell you about the Jewish terrorist gang called the Sicarii.

We know about the Sicarii from a somewhat biased source. They are described in some detail  by a man who first was known as Joseph ben Mattathias. He was originally a Zealot who helped lead the revolt against Rome in 70 CE (sic). As a Zealot leader, he once tried to broker peace between the Zealots and Rome. When that failed, he changed sides and became a historian who eventually moved to Rome and took the name Flavius Josephus, Flavian being the name of the current emperor. His account of the Jewish War, written in 78 CE (sic), is history's main and almost only, source of information on the terrorists he called the Sicarii. It is likely that the actual teorrist group did not use a Latin name and that during their sixty years of assassinations, there were actually several small groups, each with its own name. Sicarii is the linquistic equivalent of "Anarchists" or "Terrorists". When an outright revolt against this [Roman] domination, led by Judas of Galilee (not to be confused with Judas Iscariot), in the year 6 CE (sic) was crushed, the Sicarii was formed. Their goal wasn't to attack the Romans - this they generally left to the Zealots, armed Jewish rebels who traveled in large numbers and attacked Roman soldiers and civilians in what we would today call a guerrilla war. Rather than use open, small-scale warfare, the assassins targeted those whom they felt were too close or too supportive of the Roman occupation. To do this they would hide daggers, called sicae in Latin, up the sleeves of their loose robes, and once near their targets, they would stab them. There was no way to distinguish a Sicarius from the general population. Anyone could be a Sicarius, and this added to the terror they invoked. The purpose was simply to terrorize anyone and everyone who considered cooperating with the Romans. This is the same technique used by the Vietcong on village elders, as well as in Iraq when the insurgency targeted those assisting the American occupation, such as interpreters or friendly government officials. Doomed to Repeat, pgs 35-37

---

---

Knowing the fact about the Sicarii,  we can discover why the relatively tolerant for its day Roman Empire, destroyed the Jewish Temple.

The response [to the Jewish revolt in 66  AD] was to send in sixty thousand crack legionnaires, led by their best general, Titus, would later become the Roman emperor. The three legions  (V Macedonica, XV Apollinaris, and XII Fulminata) landed on the Galilean coast and  spread through the area that was the heart of the revolt: Galilee. The Romans were plainly making an example of the Jews as they killed or enslaved more than one hundred thousand in Galilee alone. Those Jews who survived this attack fled to Jerusalem, where the moderate leaders knew they could not defeat the new legions and tried to make peace with Rome. Those moderates soon died at the hands of the Sicarii or the mobs urged on by the more radical revolutionaries. By 68 CD (sic), no leader in Jerusalem was left alive who would even suggest moderation or peace. The Zealots themselves were split and ill prepared. The different parts of Jerusalem were jealously controlled by the leaders of the various factions. Few were good military leaders and some were simply irrational. One group of fanatics even destroyed most of the food stored in the city just as the siege began. This was done with the foolish assumption that the people would fight harder and inspire divine intervention sooner. Before long, the countryside around Jerusalem was controlled by the Romans. When they finally put Jerusalem under siege, the result was inevitable and tragic. This is the point in time when Flavius Josephus went to Titus and tried to negotiate peace. When  it failed , he chose to stay with the Romans. Jerusalem fell in a series of bloody attacks, and the last of the Zealots retreated to an upper  fortress and held out until the Romans built  siege towers. Not only did Judea lose all independance and become a province, but the Second Temple was detroyed, and Flavius maintained that hundreds of thousands more Jews died or were sold into slavery. The elimination of the Jewish moderates by their own people doomed Jerusalem and the Second Temple. Doomed to Repeat

 
So the Jews did it to themselves. Not the Roman's fault to destroy the central tenant of the religion of Judaism.

But, but, but, you say, "It was still the Romans who destroyed the Temple (and killed Christ)!!!!" "You cannot seriously say self-hating Jews were the reason!!!!"

First off, you cannot believe Rome routinely destroyed the religious relics of others, because the facts do not support it. 

The poor oppressed Greeks, once proud defenders of the world's first democracy from invasions of the Persian Empire, masters of the known world under Alexander the Great, were now enslaved under the Romans only a few decades before the Jews were. They had fought Rome to keep their freedom and lost  And yet, their Parthenon temple to the Greek Gods still stands today.

What about pagen temples in Britannia, surely they were destroyed. Well... I visited Stonehenge, well within the Roman occupied part of Britain, and I can testify that it is still there even with it being a truly barbaric religion. In fact, Rome build the Hadian Wall because it found it could not subdue the entirety of the British people, and yet they did not take this half defeat out on the sun worshiping temple at Stonehenge.

Facts are that the Jewish Temple would still be here with us today, if not for radical Jews killing their own moderate Jewish neighbors.

...OK, true, the Muslims would have torn it down anyway.