• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Israeli soldiers shoot blindfolded, handcuffed Palestinian as he tried to flee

CJ 2.0 said:
Nope. If you want to play traveling back in time, the original sin was the Arab conquests of territory that was controlled by Europeans since Alexander and tied directly into the Mediterranean, or perhaps the Roman conquest of Hellenized territory.

Recognizing that is a bit silly (yet accurate), we need to understand why the Palestinian issue is so unlike the impact of displacements which were beyond common in the 1940s.

And the reason is how the Palestinians were manipulated for political purposes by the Arab world and how the internalization of a national identity based entirely on destroying Israel, coupled with the systematic oppression of descendants of Palestinians all across the Arab world, has caused this conflict to fester while all of the other conflicts (which included mass purposeful expulsions which dwarfed all displacements of Arabs from this one) have played themselves out.

Nonsense in second paragraph ignored for sanity.
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

Europeans controlled the Middle East between Alexander the Great's death and the Arab Conquest? You realise that the Successor States and Byzantium were Asian powers and that Rome and Early Byzantium were barely in charge of the Middle East except along the Meditteranean coastline. The Parthians and later the Sassanid Persians were the major players at this time and the Romans were hard pressed to hold onto Judea. So, no your back-step is not valid historically from the European perspective.

Furthermore the idea that the Arab conquest brought Arabs to the Levant for the first time is wrong. There were Arabs in the Levant in the Bronze Age and Ethan's before and they never left. So again the back-step is flawed from the Arab perspective too.

The issue was the "original sin" (not my term; see post #89) leading to the establishment of the modern State of Israel and the drivers of its establishment were European anti-semitism and the resulting reactionary Zionism within European Jewry. The Arabs were already there but European Jews were the people who migrated and later forcefully displaced a pre-existing Arab majority population.

So history does no bear your back-step out.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

Europeans controlled the Middle East between Alexander the Great's death and the Arab Conquest? You realise that the Successor States and Byzantium were Asian powers and that Rome and Early Byzantium were barely in charge of the Middle East except along the Meditteranean coastline.
Click to expand...

Sorry, where is Israel?

The Parthians and later the Sassanid Persians were the major players at this time and the Romans were hard pressed to hold onto Judea. So, no your back-step is not valid historically from the European perspective.
Click to expand...

Looks like you may have found another "original sin"...

Furthermore the idea that the Arab conquest brought Arabs to the Levant for the first time is wrong. There were Arabs in the Levant in the Bronze Age and Ethan's before and they never left. So again the back-step is flawed from the Arab perspective too.
Click to expand...

So the original sin was the exodus of homo sapiens from Africa?

The issue was the "original sin" (not my term; see post #89) leading to the establishment of the modern State of Israel and the drivers of its establishment were European anti-semitism and the resulting reactionary Zionism within European Jewry. The Arabs were already there but European Jews were the people who migrated and later forcefully displaced a pre-existing Arab majority population.
Click to expand...

Yes I understand. That was not the original sin, though, because the settlement of Jews from Europe in their historic homeland with the agreement and facilitation first by the Ottoman empire and later by the world under the League of Nations and the subsequent transfer of the entire Arab world's Jewish population to Israel and other countries was not the original sin which made this conflict intractable. What did that was a combination of Arab rejectionism, Muslim bigotry and perceptions of superiority, and the way the Palestinian masses were manipulated by the Arab world to weaponize them against the Jews. Were it not for that, the conflict would not exist today.

So history does no bear your back-step out.
Click to expand...

Also doesn't bear out you backstepping before the Arab efforts to weaponize the Palestinians.

Which is my point.

Incidentally, since we are playing the who cares about the Jews game a bit with this original sin being Israel's existence nonsense, how do you think Jews would have fared in the middleeast if they did not have Israel and were stuck as minorities in Iraq, Syria, and other Arab countries?

Seems like it worked out better for them than the Kurds under Saddam or the Yazidis over the past few years? Jolly good thing they had a country like Israel to be cleansed into by the Arab world before all that stuff started happening, no?
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Sorry, where is Israel?



Looks like you may have found another "original sin"...



So the original sin was the exodus of homo sapiens from Africa?



Yes I understand. That was not the original sin, though, because the settlement of Jews from Europe in their historic homeland with the agreement and facilitation first by the Ottoman empire and later by the world under the League of Nations and the subsequent transfer of the entire Arab world's Jewish population to Israel and other countries was not the original sin which made this conflict intractable. What did that was a combination of Arab rejectionism, Muslim bigotry and perceptions of superiority, and the way the Palestinian masses were manipulated by the Arab world to weaponize them against the Jews. Were it not for that, the conflict would not exist today.



Also doesn't bear out you backstepping before the Arab efforts to weaponize the Palestinians.

Which is my point.
Click to expand...



:lamo You guys are looking for the "original sin" in the 20th century? Oy vey...
 
CJ 2.0 said:
Sorry, where is Israel?



Looks like you may have found another "original sin"...



So the original sin was the exodus of homo sapiens from Africa?



Yes I understand. That was not the original sin, though, because the settlement of Jews from Europe in their historic homeland with the agreement and facilitation first by the Ottoman empire and later by the world under the League of Nations and the subsequent transfer of the entire Arab world's Jewish population to Israel and other countries was not the original sin which made this conflict intractable. What did that was a combination of Arab rejectionism, Muslim bigotry and perceptions of superiority, and the way the Palestinian masses were manipulated by the Arab world to weaponize them against the Jews. Were it not for that, the conflict would not exist today.



Also doesn't bear out you backstepping before the Arab efforts to weaponize the Palestinians.

Which is my point.

Incidentally, since we are playing the who cares about the Jews game a bit with this original sin being Israel's existence nonsense, how do you think Jews would have fared in the middleeast if they did not have Israel and were stuck as minorities in Iraq, Syria, and other Arab countries?

Seems like it worked out better for them than the Kurds under Saddam or the Yazidis over the past few years? Jolly good thing they had a country like Israel to be cleansed into by the Arab world before all that stuff started happening, no?
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

You do realise that the Arab States you say weaponised the Palestinian population did not exist when Zionism began its project of transferring European Jewry to the Levant? So no. The Palestinian hostility was in reaction to the mass migration of European Jewry into the Levant. The Palestinians were not weaponised by the Arabs. They were forcibly displaced by the Jewish Agency and later the State of Israel. The Palestinians were the victims of the State of Israel's creation and expansion, not the weapon of later Arab scheming. Israelis stole the land which the Palestinians as individuals and families had recognised legal claim to under Ottoman and later British Mandate Law. Their hostility was the result of that still on-going theft and the violence done to them by the State of Isreal to enforce that theft. Their violence is a reaction to that theft, violence and the creation of the modern State of Israel and not the product of other Arab nations which have supported them in their struggle since that theft.

The shooting of the bound and blindfolded Palestinian suspect was a good example of that violence. Does the IDF bind, blindfold and shoot Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories when they are suspected of crimes against local Palestinians and arrested? No.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

You do realise that the Arab States you say weaponised the Palestinian population did not exist when Zionism began its project of transferring European Jewry to the Levant? So no. The Palestinian hostility was in reaction to the mass migration of European Jewry into the Levant. The Palestinians were not weaponised by the Arabs. They were forcibly displaced by the Jewish Agency and later the State of Israel. The Palestinians were the victims of the State of Israel's creation and expansion, not the weapon of later Arab scheming. Israelis stole the land which the Palestinians as individuals and families had recognised legal claim to under Ottoman and later British Mandate Law. Their hostility was the result of that still on-going theft and the violence done to them by the State of Isreal to enforce that theft. Their violence is a reaction to that theft, violence and the creation of the modern State of Israel and not the product of other Arab nations which have supported them in their struggle since that theft.

The shooting of the bound and blindfolded Palestinian suspect was a good example of that violence. Does the IDF bind, blindfold and shoot Israeli settlers in the Occupied Territories when they are suspected of crimes against local Palestinians and arrested? No.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

The Palestinians were weaponized first by Husseini but really by the Arab states following their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Will leave the CT stuff for a CT forum, and remind you that what happened to the Palestinians pales in comparison to what happened to hundreds of millions of people in the first half of the 20th century, none of which have remained the "refugees" the Palestinians are today. They lost their homes when they fled or left. So did hundreds of millions of others. Jews who made it back to Poland after millions had been killed found their houses taken by the Polish who murdered some and attacked many who tried to come back. There are not millions, or hundreds of thousands, of "Jewish Polish refugees" today in spite of that because the Jews didn't build their entire identity around denying the Poles any rights. And that is one of countless examples.

The original sin in all of this is that, rather than come to terms with Israel's existence, the Arab world refused to accept it, refused to allow the refugees from the 48 war to integrate, subjected them to systematic apartheid (the real kind), and weaponized them to keep fighting against the Jews.

And then the Arab world tried to destroy Israel again and made it worse.

I know you don't like this because it doesn't fit into your narrative, but it's reality.
 
CJ 2.0 said:
The Palestinians were weaponized first by Husseini but really by the Arab states following their failure to destroy Israel in 1948.

Will leave the CT stuff for a CT forum, and remind you that what happened to the Palestinians pales in comparison to what happened to hundreds of millions of people in the first half of the 20th century, none of which have remained the "refugees" the Palestinians are today. They lost their homes when they fled or left. So did hundreds of millions of others. Jews who made it back to Poland after millions had been killed found their houses taken by the Polish who murdered some and attacked many who tried to come back. There are not millions, or hundreds of thousands, of "Jewish Polish refugees" today in spite of that because the Jews didn't build their entire identity around denying the Poles any rights. And that is one of countless examples.

The original sin in all of this is that, rather than come to terms with Israel's existence, the Arab world refused to accept it, refused to allow the refugees from the 48 war to integrate, subjected them to systematic apartheid (the real kind), and weaponized them to keep fighting against the Jews.

And then the Arab world tried to destroy Israel again and made it worse.

I know you don't like this because it doesn't fit into your narrative, but it's reality.
Click to expand...

CJ 2.0:

Using the argument that the first half of the 20th Century was so barbarous that Israel's actions against the Palestinians pale in comparison is hogwash. Many wrongs don't make lesser wrongs right. If they did then we could point to the carnage of WWII or China's Great Leap Forward and Cultiral Revolution to discount German/European culpability for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a monsterous crime against the Jews and the continuing seizure of the Palistinians' lands and birthrights is a monsterous crime against the Palestinians too. The treatment of Palestinian suspects like the man shot in the legs by the IDF is just one micro-moment in that monsterous crime.

Palestinians were fighting Jews long before the 1947-1949 Israeli War of Independence when King Hussein was still a student. The Palistinianmilitias were fighting for their familial patrimonies and their national existence, not for King Hussein.

Refusing to come to terms with European invaders who want all of your land without you on it is not original sin, it's common sense. Ask the remains of the New World's indigenous peoples.

We are not allowed to use the term "apartheid" on this forum. If we were, I would refute your argument that it was the Arabs who are responsible for using the strategies of forced displacement and the creation of unsustainable "homelands" and it was another state which has done this for the purpose of destroying Palestinian nationalism. But I can't, so I won't.

The narrative writer and crafter is you in this case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
Are Israeli soldiers so unfit that they can't catch a blindfolded, handcuffed person trying to run away? How fast and far do you think someone blindfolded can run?
Click to expand...

They probably feared for their lives. They have a right to defend themselves. Alternatively, "shot while trying to escape" apparently worked for the Nazis. For a while, anyway.
 
Evilroddy said:
CJ 2.0:

Using the argument that the first half of the 20th Century was so barbarous that Israel's actions against the Palestinians pale in comparison is hogwash. Many wrongs don't make lesser wrongs right. If they did then we could point to the carnage of WWII or China's Great Leap Forward and Cultiral Revolution to discount German/European culpability for the Holocaust. The Holocaust was a monsterous crime against the Jews and the continuing seizure of the Palistinians' lands and birthrights is a monsterous crime against the Palestinians too. The treatment of Palestinian suspects like the man shot in the legs by the IDF is just one micro-moment in that monsterous crime.

Palestinians were fighting Jews long before the 1947-1949 Israeli War of Independence when King Hussein was still a student. The Palistinianmilitias were fighting for their familial patrimonies and their national existence, not for King Hussein.

Refusing to come to terms with European invaders who want all of your land without you on it is not original sin, it's common sense. Ask the remains of the New World's indigenous peoples.

We are not allowed to use the term "apartheid" on this forum. If we were, I would refute your argument that it was the Arabs who are responsible for using the strategies of forced displacement and the creation of unsustainable "homelands" and it was another state which has done this for the purpose of destroying Palestinian nationalism. But I can't, so I won't.

The narrative writer and crafter is you in this case.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

You are drifting (and wrong but I’ll leave that). Once again, the point of comparison to everything else that happened is to note for you and the class that unlike all those others we don’t have permanent refugee populations festering because they don’t have the “original sin” that we have here, which is that Arab leaders and Arab countries purposely did this to the Palestinians and continued to try to destroy Israel. Without that, there would be no occupation of the WB and Gaza (other than by Jordan and Egypt) and the Palestinians would not be completely unwilling and unable to get past the core of their “nationalism” which is all about destroying Israel.

I’m sorry you think you need to just down each and every garden path and give your tangential (and not correct) views, but can’t we try to stay on it for more than 1 post?

I’m also sorry, incidentally, that you think it is a “sin” that the Jews in the Arab world were somewhere else when ethnic violence destroyed so many other communities but did not do to those Jews what it did to so many other distinct groups, but we’re sort of done putting up with that sort of thing and now if they want to keep coming after the Jews they are going to have to deal with the IDF.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom