# Lest we forget...



## Challenger (Apr 11, 2016)

This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
"The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Apr 11, 2016)

Oh boo hoo and hogwash


----------



## Pogo (Apr 11, 2016)

Challenger said:


> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> "The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre



Thanks for this.  Historical context is always appreciated.  You can't study history without a context.  It was only fairly recently I learned of the King David Hotel bombing, which will be 70 years this summer.  History books seem to have a knack for finding something crucial to ignore.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj_wILZ_YbMAhXFkoMKHfghCL4QFggcMAA&url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12304&usg=AFQjCNGaT9A8Dlhj1On_1ymbTb34wAkrjQ&sig2=zD7LAppz9VklKyB2duXSHQ&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

For 64 years, since 1948, the recollection of the so-called "massacre" of the Arab village of Deir Yassin has been a crucible and a formative experience in Arab Jewish relations, in Israel in particular, but also throughout the whole Arab world.

The massacre story has been an important factor in establishing the idea of a Palestinian nation.

The so-called massacre has also been exploited by Israel’s left to undermine acceptance of and confidence in the Zionist state.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 11, 2016)

Challenger said:


> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> "The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre








 And your best source is some islamonazi propaganda media outlet that reports LIES as if they were truth.

 You lose again rat boy as the so called massacre was nothing of the sort, a massacre is like what Jordan did in the 1970's when they fired on caged Palestinians mass murdering 50 thousand by some accounts


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 11, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> ...








 Did you learn that it was a military target in reply to the mass murder of Jews refused entry to Palestine and sent to death camps in Cyprus ?


----------



## Hossfly (Apr 11, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


The Pro Pals here always argue that terror attacks , rockets, car rammings, knife attacks and other attacks against Israeli civilians is justified, but a guerrilla bomb attack on a military headquarters is a war crime. Go figure.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

Is the entire Arab Muslim diatribe built on nothing but half truths and outright lies ? 

Certainly seems so.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 11, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is the entire Arab Muslim diatribe built on nothing but half truths and outright lies ?
> 
> Certainly seems so.








 Of course as they have nothing else to base it on


----------



## Pogo (Apr 11, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj_wILZ_YbMAhXFkoMKHfghCL4QFggcMAA&url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12304&usg=AFQjCNGaT9A8Dlhj1On_1ymbTb34wAkrjQ&sig2=zD7LAppz9VklKyB2duXSHQ&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc
> 
> ...



Wiki says it's a thing.

>> The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community's main paramilitary force—and by the area's two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for Israel sent Jordan's King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed.[1] Abdullah held the Jewish Agency responsible for the massacre, because they were the head of Jewish affairs in Palestine.[5] He warned about "terrible consequences" if more incidents like that occurred.[6] <<​
Now why would they send such a letter of apology for a myth that never happened?  

Your link OTOH is an OpEd.  Says so right in the header.

Fact -- opinion.  Know the difference.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 11, 2016)

Notice how the Hasbara comes out in force when facts are presented.  They are like the Holocaust deniers, only they deny the crimes of the Zionists instead of the Nazis.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> ...




Um

WIKI is an op ed

Says so on every page. 

The link I provided was to an article about a book. 

Try this one on for size ;--) 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QoWmZ6cW13OqiZlMzOw2ow&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote 

In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state.  He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war.  He said "_this was our biggest mistake_", because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.


Nusseibeh describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... _'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,_'. He said_, "We must make the most of this._ _So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities_" 


In the video clip Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, told the BBC that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "_There was no rape. But Khalidi said, We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews_."


This false press statement was released to New York Times correspondent, Dana Schmidt leading to an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1948, claiming that a massacre took place at Deir Yassin that was reprinted worldwide and cited even in Israel as proof of Israeli atrocities

End Quote


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 11, 2016)

And then there's this, and interview with one who was there:


----------



## teddyearp (Apr 11, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Is the entire Arab Muslim diatribe built on nothing but half truths and outright lies ?
> 
> Certainly seems so.


You're learning, you're learning.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Notice how the Hasbara comes out in force when facts are presented.  They are like the Holocaust deniers, only they deny the crimes of the Zionists instead of the Nazis.




You seem to have difficulty sticking to the topic, particularly when the topic is proven just more Arab Muslim hasbara.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 11, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> ...








 Wiki is hardly a valid source of evidence as anyone can edit entries there, just ask monte as he admitted to doing so about a year ago


----------



## Roudy (Apr 11, 2016)

It happened during a civil war in which the Arabs started in their effort to wipe out the Jews. 

If we were to hold anniversaries to commemorate all the days that Arab Muslims have committed mass murder and massacres on Jews and non Jews, there wouldn't be a non anniversary day left on the calendar.

But lets consider this one, which is what started it all, when Arab Muslim animals attacked the ancient Jews of Hebron in 1929 and committed genocide and ethnic cleansing:


----------



## Pogo (Apr 11, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Uh yeah actually it is, because it's multiple sourced.  And if somebody posts bullshit there's an entire international community ready to correct it.

I don't have any idea who the fuck "monte" [sic] is but I do know what the term "OpEd" means.



Boston1 said:


> Um
> 
> WIKI is an op ed



Uh -- no Peewee, Wiki is not an "op ed".  Never has been.  Clearly you don't have a clue what you're babbling about.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Any fool can write in to wiki. Its not even remotely a valid source. Not sure if you've ever been to school ;--) but referencing WIKI on any assignment ( in your own language )  is strictly verboten ;--)


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 11, 2016)

Challenger,  et al,

Yes, true but geared to be a non-objective perspective.  Yes, in the conflict that has continued for a nearly a century, each side has suffered losses.



Many have anniversaries to remember.



Challenger said:


> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> "The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre


*(COMMENT)*

This month marks the 96th Anniversary of the San Remo Agreement of the Allied Powers that granted to Britain the Mandate for Palestine _(the territories that include the area of present-day Israel, Jordan, West Bank and the Gaza Strip)_, and the decision to set the terms of the Balfour Declaration in the Mandate.

In order to achieve the ultimate goal of elimination the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of either party (Arab-Israeli), one must first attempt to dispense with the propaganda rhetoric.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians are not the only victims to a "massacre."   

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Pogo (Apr 11, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Again --- it's *sourced*.  That means it cites places that document the info (which we call "sources").  It also means Wiki itself is not the source --- it's a central assembling place FOR those sources.  Now if Wiki ever presents info that doesn't cite sources -- usually biographical -- then it says so in big bold letters at the top.  This one..... does not say that.  Because it has source links --- some of which were even copied into my quote.  Which you can click on and go directly TO that source.


81 footnotes, three dozen references, looks like 16 publications under "further reading".

I can't believe you have an internet account and didn't know this.  It's like teaching Internet Kindergarten.

What the domain name is when the material is sourced, is irrelevant.  That's like saying "I don't believe what I just heard on the radio because that station has an odd numbered frequency and I only believe in even numbers".  If you don't like what historical fact is -- tough.  It ain't going away just because you launch a whine about it.

SMFH

Oh sorry -- that means "shaking my head".  I'll leave the F to your imagination.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.

And I'm guessing you haven't been to any places of higher education lately. Wiki is strictly verboten as a reference.

So lets just step back and take a look at your precious WIKI OP ED story

Quote

The Jordanian newspaper _Al Urdun_ published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[59] In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party andDavid Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[60] Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by _The New York Times_ on April 13.[61] In 1987, in a study regarded as authoritative, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[41]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[62] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[63]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[64] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[62] "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."[62] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[65] A villager known as Haj Ayish stated that "there had been no rape". He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts which "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters".[66] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[67]

End Quote

But why depend on spin from WIKI that would never be admissible in an academic setting

You talk about kindergarden as if your some kinda expert, sorry but I left that far far behind and moved on to employ the principals of higher education.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 11, 2016)

Here is the ICRC's eye witness report.  It was authored in French.  You can't get more original than that.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 11, 2016)

Yeah I got something in French for you ;--) 

So eye witnesses aren't good enough for you eh. Thats brilliant


----------



## montelatici (Apr 11, 2016)

The only credible source is the ICRC.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The only credible source is the ICRC.


"....... because I say so"

There. Fixed that for ya'.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 11, 2016)

Well, of course you would believe Hasbara propaganda before you would believe the Red Cross.  You are a Zionist nutter.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 11, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, of course you would believe Hasbara propaganda before you would believe the Red Cross.  You are a Zionist nutter.


Well, of course you would believe any source that appeals to your biases. The Red Cross is one account among many. Just because it's one account that you found convenient to cut and paste does not make it a reliable account.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...








 No it has one source but multiple outlets. Don't confuse al Jazeera and maan as sources as they aren't.


 He is another of the ardent team Palestine propagandists that wants to see the mass murder of the worlds Jews. Posts a bit on here until he is ridiculed and then he goes and hides.   You might know him as montelatici   

 Wiki is a collection of alleged facts that anyone can edit, this makes it a very poor source of evidence as your link could be altered as soon as you post it.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, of course you would believe Hasbara propaganda before you would believe the Red Cross.  You are a Zionist nutter.









 Once again proving to the world that you are a seriously warped Jew hater and Nazi


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Well, of course you would believe Hasbara propaganda before you would believe the Red Cross.  You are a Zionist nutter.







 When you bear in mind that they have been found guilty of anti Jewish bias then it makes you an islamonazi propaganda cretiun


----------



## Challenger (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.



Wiki is constsantly reviewed, nowhere more so than any topic relating to this conflict. Wiki articles are generally useful for basic outlines of what went on, but it's always best to check the sources the articles are based on and it often pays to look at how many times they've been edited and by who.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So eye witnesses aren't good enough for you eh. Thats brilliant



See the "eye witness" at 1:26


Seems there was a massacre there after all.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 12, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Well, of course you would believe Hasbara propaganda before you would believe the Red Cross.  You are a Zionist nutter.
> ...



Don't tell me, the red Cross is a well known biased Islamonazi organisation...


----------



## Challenger (Apr 12, 2016)

When I posted the OP, I fully expected the Hasbara machine here to step into overdrive with denials, obfuscations, strawmen arguments, especially about moral equivalency and outright insults. Seems the Zionists are still terrified of Deir Yassin, just one massacre amongst the many they committed in 1947-48, a collective guilty conscience perhaps?


Who We Are


----------



## Kondor3 (Apr 12, 2016)

Hossfly said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Hypocrisy is their stock-in-trade; an attribute they share with a great many Liberals, who climbed in bed with these Neanderthal (Hamas) types years ago.

Besides, an ancient victory by paramilitaries, before Israel was even established, and, the resulting erased village, does absolutely nothing to change the situation, and whining about it gets us nowhere.

Maybe those dumb-ass Arabs should have planned better, and executed better - although it's hilarious to reflect that they got their asses kicked as hard as they did, by such a small handful of Adversaries.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.
> ...







 You never know we might come across your ID one day altering the truth into islamonazi lies, just as monte admitted to doing just last year.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > So eye witnesses aren't good enough for you eh. Thats brilliant
> ...









 Did you check the source rat boy, or did you not bother


Ahmed Hany elSherif's channel

Possible islamonazi propaganda outlet ? ? ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...







It is biased against the Jews and Israel if you check


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> When I posted the OP, I fully expected the Hasbara machine here to step into overdrive with denials, obfuscations, strawmen arguments, especially about moral equivalency and outright insults. Seems the Zionists are still terrified of Deir Yassin, just one massacre amongst the many they committed in 1947-48, a collective guilty conscience perhaps?
> 
> 
> Who We Are








 Left wing looney tunes are no better than islamonazi propagandists. They both want world domination at any cost


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


I will tell you, because you prefer your ignorance vs. facts.

Monty's cut and paste is not on ICRC letterhead so I have no reason to accept the comments are endorsed by or represent the fact-finding of that agency. If you had taken the time to look at the document, you might have noticed that it represented the views of one individual.

Are we to believe that your taqiyya-speak is anything other than your usual, hysterical flaming? ...


----------



## Humanity (Apr 12, 2016)

I always find it funny how the apologists for Israel always try and discredit legitimate news sources simply because they show that their 'perfect' homeland is not so perfect!

The zionut ability to try and argue with historical fact is, at best, hilarious!


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Hollie said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



Challenged's debating skills are weak at best. He seldom follows links and doesn't really read much before he goes off on some tangent, easily refuted. 

Nice catch on the letter head. 

The fact is that the whole massacre story is a lie. Numerous links have proven it, the Arabs even admitted it. 

Its a non issue. Unless that is one is desperately clinging to the Arab Muslim narrative, which is based entirely off half truths and outright lies.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Humanity said:


> I always find it funny how the apologists for Israel always try and discredit legitimate news sources simply because they show that their 'perfect' homeland is not so perfect!
> 
> The zionut ability to try and argue with historical fact is, at best, hilarious!



Why am I not surprised 






So once again you refuse to follow the links. Refuse to study the issue. Refuse to read the Arab Muslim accounts which categorically deny any form of massacre happened and refuse to accept the countless eye witness accounts which have been linked to which refute the propaganda of the times. 


Looks like the only substance of your argument Inhumanity is sticking your head in the sand and pretending none of the evidence to the contrary exists, again. 





Try this one and see how your reading skills are today 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QoWmZ6cW13OqiZlMzOw2ow&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Humanity said:


> I always find it funny how the apologists for Israel always try and discredit legitimate news sources simply because they show that their 'perfect' homeland is not so perfect!
> 
> The zionut ability to try and argue with historical fact is, at best, hilarious!







 We don't try, we succeed in showing that news sources like mondo are outed as biased racist outlets every time. Just as we prove that the biased racists that use them as a source of evidence are shown to be using blood libels and not true facts.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 12, 2016)

Hollie said:


> If you had taken the time to look at the document, you might have noticed that it represented the views of one individual.



Who happened to be the Chief of the ICRC delegation in Palestine. Like it or not his views can't be ignored. Oh, when did the ICRC start using letter headed paper? What evidence can you provide to show it's either a fake or the account is inaccurate?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > If you had taken the time to look at the document, you might have noticed that it represented the views of one individual.
> ...


You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I never claimed the cut and paste was fake. I did identify it was the opinion of one individual. What can you show to demonstrate that, that individual's subjective account is all-inclusive and accurate? You're defending it. Provide your evidence.

Read the above a few more times so as to reduce your confusion.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > If you had taken the time to look at the document, you might have noticed that it represented the views of one individual.
> ...








 Why cant they be ignored then, you ignore any views that go against your POV and claim they are just hasbara lies. Not once have you produced any evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 12, 2016)

I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this.  I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes?  And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes?  And we all agree that people died, yes?  

Are the anti-Israelis trying to make the case that in this one village the Palestinians were all just sitting around drinking tea one day and Israel came in and slaughtered the lot?  


It seems to me that we are not arguing facts here, so much as narrative -- what it means.  Obviously it will mean something different to the Palestinians than to the Jewish people.  The Jewish people would see it as a necessary military objective to achieve their goals of independence.  The Palestinians will mythologize it to "prove" that they are victims of Israel's "evil".


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Shusha said:


> I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this.  I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes?  And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes?  And we all agree that people died, yes?
> 
> Are the anti-Israelis trying to make the case that in this one village the Palestinians were all just sitting around drinking tea one day and Israel came in and slaughtered the lot?
> 
> ...



One side will "see it as a necessary..." the other side will "mythologize it"?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

This seems to be a pretty decent and succinct accounting of the massacre, it's sourced and it makes some interesting observations: Deir Yassin: The Evidence « Israel-Palestina Informatie

_The most symbolic incident for Arab Palestinians has been, for many years, the conquest and massacre in the village of Deir Yassin, near Jerusalem, by forces of the Revisionist Etzel (IRGUN) and Lehi {Lochamei Herut Yisrael or “Stern Gang”} groups, on April 9, 1948. *At the time, the Jewish leadership did not deny that there had been a massacre, by forces not under its control, and in fact apologized to King Abdullah of Jordan. *This sad and bloody deed has become a part of our common heritage.


In recent years, as Israeli political opinion has moved rightwards,* revisionists and their apologists have tried to deny the magnitude of what happened at Deir Yassin, to shift blame onto the Haganah or to deny that there was a massacre entirely*. Morton A. Klein, President of the Zionist Organization of America, published a report entitled Deir Yassin History of a Lie1 that claims there was no massacre at Deir Yassin. Others have quoted this study widely and published their own denials. For Palestinians, Deir Yassin has become symbolic of the conflict. What happened at Deir Yassin undoubtedly influenced the rest of the war of Independence, and perhaps subsequent IDF conduct. It is thus important that we establish the facts to the best of our ability.


*A precise account of what happened at Deir Yassin will probably elude us forever. Each eye-witness tells a different story with a slightly different timetable. Some key documents are still classified*. Nonetheless, it is possible to relate the broad outlines of what must have happened with a good degree of confidence. I shall do that below in summary form, and then I shall detail the reasons for reaching each of the major conclusions. Some of the most important references are appended as exhibits, listed in the Introduction._​It certainly seems odd that in 1948 there was an acknowledged massacre and suddenly, in 2016 there is no massacre?

Why are documents still classified, almost 70 yrs later?

_Deir Yassin was a village near the entrance to Jerusalem, north west of Givat Shaul. Not wishing to endanger itself, *it had concluded a peace pact with Givat Shaul that was approved by Yitzhak Navon, who headed the Arab division of Haganah intelligence. A similar pact was made by the village of Abu Ghosh. There is every indication that Deir Yassin kept to this pact. *They had repeatedly and actively resisted alliances and offers of help from irregulars headquartered in Ein Kerem,3 though it is possible that some Palestinian irregulars were quartered there against the will of the inhabitants. The village was separated from the Jerusalem road by a high ridge, and villagers could only reach the main road through Givat Shaul. There was no possibility of controlling the main road or firing on the main road from the village. Estimates of village population at the time range from 450 to 1,200, including refugees from nearby Romema and Lifta. 4_​
_At the beginning of April Irgun and Lehi commanders met and decided to attack Deir Yassin. They rejected suggestions by their own commanders, and by Haganah commander David Shaltiel, to attack strategically important targets (Sheikh Jerakh, Ein Kerem, Qoloniya) because they felt they were too difficult for their inexperienced and ill-equipped soldiers. 5They investigated and found, to the best of their knowledge, that Deir Yassin was a quiet and peaceful village, and decided to attack it nonetheless. It was later claimed that Deir Yassin served as a base of attacks and or quartered foreign soldiers, but these were not part of the considerations involved in deciding upon the attack. During some of the preliminary meetings the idea of a massacre was discussed and rejected.6 David Shaltiel gave the Etzel/Lehi commanders a letter saying he had no objection to attacking the village, provided they could hold the village thereafter. 7


The Irgun and Lehi attacked on the morning of Friday April 9, 1948. The map shows the general plan of the area and of the attack. The attack went poorly, because, as Haganah intelligence reported, the two dissident groups had no training, no coordination, no knowledge of how to provide cover fire or carry out leap-frog attacks in which squads provide each other with cover in turn. While the Lehi advanced in the northeast quarter of the village, the Etzel people were unable to make any progress in the south western part of the village allotted to them, in part because of rifle sniper fire from a vantage point in the Mukhtar’s house located on the western heights. This was finally and quickly neutralized by Haganah units using a mortar sometime between 10:00 or 12:00 A.M, after which Haganah units left. 8


There was no longer any resistance, but the village did not surrender. Most of the men had fled, and perhaps there was no recognized leader who could surrender. At this point, or perhaps before, *during the heat of battle itself, Etzel and Lehi soldiers began going from house to house and shooting the inhabitants, usually women and children. Groups of prisoners were also taken out of Deir Yassin and paraded on trucks in the streets of Jerusalem before jeering inhabitants before being passed over to the Arab sector. One group of about 15 to 25 men was returned to the village, taken to the village quarry and shot. This specific incident is described by then Captain Meir Pail of the Palmach*. 9_​


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this.  I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes?  And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes?  And we all agree that people died, yes?
> ...



Bottom line is "what really happened"

I rank this one right up there with the Arab Muslims version of the war of independence. They call it the big screw up or the day we made the biggest mistake of our lives, or something like that, and parade around in black, mourning the loss of, um, well, the rest of the mandate area that was never theirs in the first place.

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I don't think so....I think that this event is fairly well documented.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim. 

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on. 

Pallywood has its costs.


----------



## Kondor3 (Apr 12, 2016)

Humanity said:


> I always find it funny how the apologists for Israel always try and discredit legitimate news sources simply because they show that their 'perfect' homeland is not so perfect!
> 
> The zionut ability to try and argue with historical fact is, at best, hilarious!


The Palestinian (_and their silly-assed Western apologists_) ability to try and argue with land-possession and military fact is, at best, hilarious!

Talk about swinging after the bell, or, more to the point...


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Better yet, we should forget. 

We should forget all the hasbara and lies the Arab Muslims run up the flag pole at every opportunity. 

Its an amazing moment in propaganda that history will remember as being the failed effort to slander the great state of Israel

From one native to another, congratulations Israel for overcoming all the hatred and bigotry.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this.  I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes?  And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes?  And we all agree that people died, yes?
> ...




Is the implication here that one narrative is "worse" than the other?  I don't see it that way.  And I did not intend it that way.

The one side tends to minimize the emotional and traumatic effect done to the other in their narrative.  The other side over-emphasizes the emotional effect and trauma and tends to minimize their own responsibility.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

..


Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical.  Am I misunderstanding your intent?

Which side here is "minimizing" their own responsibility?  To me, it is the revisionist historians.  In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians.  The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.

And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted.  There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it.  Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre.  It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash.  It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Better yet, we should forget.
> 
> We should forget all the hasbara and lies the Arab Muslims run up the flag pole at every opportunity.
> 
> ...



Why should a massacre ever be forgotten?

Should the Holocaust be forgotten?  (No!)

But you want the Palestinians to forget this?  Why?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> ..
> 
> 
> Shusha said:
> ...



What makes you think it was clearly a massacre ? The same people who cried wolf then are crying wolf now. And we know how the Arab Muslims love to make up stories. 

For instance they celebrate the ( oh did we ever screw up this time ) nabka and yet don't recognize that they themselves started the war in the first place. 

They claim Gaza is occupied yet Israel withdrew at great cost in what 91 ? 

When its one lie after another I'd think taking anything the Arab Muslims say at all with a grain of salt is only prudent.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



Who cried "wolf" in 1948?

Why did Israel specifically apologize for the massacre?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Because it never happened, or at least not as the Arab Muslim narrative would have it. 

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



So, you agree with revisionist historians then?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time. 

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



No one has "admitted" the massacre was an "accident".  You don't "accidently" shoot children in their homes.  The only one's denying there was a massacre are a handful of revisionist historians trying to white wash what was a tragic event.  In that regard, they're very similar to the holocaust deniers.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

This massacre took place while Irgun was under the leadership of Menachin Begin - a time when some of the bloodiest attacks on civilian targets took place.  This massacre falls right in line with what they were doing.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



But you are assuming children were shot in their homes. Your assuming the Arab Muslim narrative, after all the ridiculous stuff they've claimed, is true.

I'm suggesting calmer heads prevail and we not pass judgement until a clearer picture emerges.

What we do know is that some pretty wild stories are a regular occurrence in this conflict and this certainly looks like just another wild story.

PRT 2

No it falls right in line with what the Arab Muslims claim they were doing. Very little evidence supports the Arab Muslim narrative.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 12, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



I'm assuming, given the reputation of Irgun at the time, that the accounting is quite likely true.  70 years is more than enough time for clear pictures


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Nonsense

The accusation includes mass rape and murder of children in their beds.

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

Or of entering homes and killing dozens of children as they sleep ?

take your time ;--)

Again you might find one rogue soldier who's guilty of one or the other but mass rape and murder by entire Judiac oganizations ? , I call BS


----------



## Shusha (Apr 12, 2016)

Coyote said:


> ..
> No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical.  Am I misunderstanding your intent?



Yes, you are.  I don't intend to legitimize the one while delegitimizing the other.  I intend to show how both sides grow narratives from their points of view.  Neither narrative is "better" or "worse" than the other.  They just are.  



> In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians.  The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.



What makes you presume that they stuck to a peace agreement?  Why do you presume that?  



> And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.



Perhaps we have different definitions of what "massacre" means.  It carries a certain connotation to me.  Do you reject the idea that there was a legitimate military objective to be gained by taking the village?  Do you reject the idea that the villagers fought back?  Do you reject the idea that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers?


----------



## Challenger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The fact is that the whole massacre story is a lie.



That's the Hasbara approach to "facts". The massacre happened. That's the fact. Some of the more salacious elements may have been exaggerated for propaganda puropses, much like the "Rape of Belgium" stories in WW1; Germans accused of bayonetting babies and smashing their skulls against walls in front of their mothers who were then raped, etc. Much of this has since been debunked but the facts remain that German troops did commit atrocities during their invasion of Belgium in 1914, and Zionist thugs murdered civilians in Deir Yassin and other places in 1948.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 13, 2016)

Even BoSton1's main source, professor Uri Milstein disagrees with him,

"The historian Uri Milstein, a myth-shatterer, corroborates Yitzhaki’s assessment regarding the massacres’ extent and goes even further. “If Yitzhaki claims that almost in every village there were murders, then I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. In all Israel’s wars massacres were committed but I have no doubt that the War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all. All over the world, massacres constitute an integral part of the norm of war and it is in fact the fundamental basis of human conduct in a situation of battle. The idea behind a massacre is to inflict a shock on the enemy, to paralyze the enemy. In the War of Independence everybody massacred everybody, but most of the action happened between Jews and Palestinians.”

Milstein adds: “In my opinion, the regular armies of Arab states were less barbaric than the Jews and the Palestinians. Until the entry into the battle of the Arab armies, the concept of taking prisoners was unknown. The regular armies, especially that of Jordan and Egypt, were the first in the region who did not kill prisoners, as a matter of principle. Not that they were exceptional, but they killed the least of all, relatively speaking. The Jordanian Legion even succeeded to stop Palestinians of massacring Jews in Gush Etzion, at least in a part of this area. The education in the Yishuv (7) at that time had it that the Arabs would do anything to kill us and therefore we had to massacre them. A substantial part of the Jewish public was convinced that the most cherished wish of say, a nine-year old Arab child, was to exterminate us. This belief bordered on paranoia.” Not only Deir Yassin |  SHOAH


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

main source my ass. 

I presented multiple sources. 

Sounds like more terrorist supporters hasbara 

The facts are simple, the massacre story is a lie. 

Stories of mass rapes and the killing of children as they slept are wildly exaggerated 

Its all just more Arab Muslim hasbara nonsense

The accusation includes mass rape and murder of children in their beds.

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

Or of entering homes and killing dozens of children as they sleep ?

take your time ;--)

Again you might find one rogue soldier who's guilty of one or the other but mass rape and murder by entire Judiac oganizations ? , I call BS


----------



## Challenger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> main source my ass.
> 
> I presented multiple sources.



Well 2 actually; One in post#4 and another in post #12 which you repeated again in post #44



Boston1 said:


> The facts are simple, the massacre story is a lie.



According to the facts, the massacre took place; even your main source agrees, but according to Zionist Hasbara, "nothing happened" or "it was an accident" .


----------



## Challenger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?



No because Judaic forces don't exist and have never existed. Zionist Jewish forces on the other hand...let me look into it. Obviously nice Jewish boys would never touch nasty Arab women...oh wait, that's what the Nazis said about good German boys...and of course the German army never committed rape, neither did the American or British armies..


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?
> ...



In other words your whole rape charge is pure hasbara and you don't have a leg to stand on other than to make false equivalencies.

Again you are a poor debater at best.

Also that nonsense about the sources disagreeing with me. You clearly again haven't followed the link and haven't quoted anything to support your view as I did in my previous.

Again your debating skills are seriously lacking.

Among others you missed post 22 which presents multiple references, not just two as you falsely claim 

Quote 
Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.

And I'm guessing you haven't been to any places of higher education lately. Wiki is strictly verboten as a reference.

So lets just step back and take a look at your precious WIKI OP ED story

Quote

The Jordanian newspaper _Al Urdun_ published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[59] In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party andDavid Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[60] Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by _The New York Times_ on April 13.[61]In 1987, in a study regarded as authoritative, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[41]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[62] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[63]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[64] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[62] "This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."[62] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[65] A villager known as Haj Ayish stated that "there had been no rape". He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts which "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters".[66] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[67]

End Quote

But why depend on spin from WIKI that would never be admissible in an academic setting

You talk about kindergarden as if your some kinda expert, sorry but I left that far far behind and moved on to employ the principals of higher education.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



Because the author of the article states that there is no evidence that they didn't and unless that evidence is provided, then I believe it.




> > And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps we have different definitions of what "massacre" means.  It carries a certain connotation to me.  Do you reject the idea that there was a legitimate military objective to be gained by taking the village?  Do you reject the idea that the villagers fought back?  Do you reject the idea that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers?



Yes, I reject the idea that it was a legitimate military objective and that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers -  based on the article I quoted:

_*Was Deir Yassin a legitimate military target?*_
_

Revisionists and their apologists, including Uri Milstein in his book , and Morton Klein in the ZOA report, have tried to make a case that Deir Yassin was a legitimate military target, that the Haganah viewed the attack on Deir Yassin as part of their plan, that there were foreign Arab soldiers quartered there and shooting from Deir Yassin.


We can establish that :

_

_The motivation for attacking Deir Yassin *had nothing to do with military considerations.*_
_*The attack was not instigated by the Haganah or desired by the Haganah or part of any specific Haganah plan*. David Shaltiel showed poor judgment and moral bankruptcy in permitting the attack, but he could not have known there would be a massacre._
_There may have been a few foreign or irregular Arab soldiers in Deir Yassin, *but they were not there in appreciable numbers on April 9, and there is no real evidence of foreign or irregular Arab soldiers stationed there in force except for the 150 that entered and were asked to leave in March.*_
_ 
The justification for these conclusions is given below. remembering that *Deir Yassin had had a pact with the Haganah and Givat Shaul and had, according to the Haganah, adhered scrupulously to the pact.* This was known also to the Irgun and the pact was publicized in their newspaper Ma’as, three weeks before the attack. 30_​


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?
> ...



There is no substantial evidence showing rapes occurred - I think people tend to add mass "rape" claims to inflame the public even if there is little evidence - it's happening today.

_*Were there rapes?*_
*
*
_*There is no solid evidence to support earlier claims that there were rapes. They are in fact denied by every villager who has been interviewed.* In the BBC/WGBH documentary on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Hazam Nusseibeh of the Palestine Broadcasting Service news in 1948, admits that *he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims.* Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948, said “We said, ‘there was no rape.” He goes on to say that Khalidi replied “We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.”


However in his new book,* Righteous Victims*, Benny Morris notes that Yizhak Levy, head of the Shai, reported to Haganah headquarters that Lehi members had told him that Irgun soldiers had raped and later murdered a number of girls, though Levy added, “We don’t know if this is true.”63 Levy did not cite this material in his own book. While this is certainly hearsay evidence, we cannot longer dismiss the rape claims as totally unfounded._​


----------



## Challenger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



That was your commentary on another's post sourcing Wikipedia, which you disparaged and still do above. Then bizarrely you use the same Wikipedia article to support your contentions.


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> main source my ass.
> 
> I presented multiple sources.
> 
> ...


*'I Saw Fit to Remove Her From the World'*
Newly revealed documents obtained by Haaretz tell the long-hidden story of what Ben-Gurion described as a 'horrific atrocity': In August 1949 an IDF unit caught a Bedouin girl, held her captive in a Negev outpost, gang-raped her, executed her at the order of the platoon commander and buried her in a shallow grave in the desert. Twenty soldiers who took part in the episode, including the platoon commander, were court-martialed and sent to prison.
read more: 'I saw fit to remove her from the world'


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this.  I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes?  And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes?  And we all agree that people died, yes?
> ...








 While a third side will sit back and ask what all the fuss is over one tiny village when bigger mass murders have been committed by other people at the same time. Like the deaths of hundreds of Jews at the hands of the British who stopped them from landing in Palestine


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

fanger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > main source my ass.
> ...



Thats an awfully detailed account for not having any references. ;--)

Not one.

What documents ? When interviewed ( when, where and by who'm ) none of the supposed eye witnesses actually claim to have seen anything or been involved. If Yehuda is to be believed, how does such a complex plan be relayed through sign language among a group of men who don't speak Hebrew ? how does Yehuda even know what conversations took place if he doesn't understand the language and spoke mostly in sign as he claims ? 

It might also be of note that the entire story surrounds foreign nationals fighting for the newly formed IDF. If the story can be believed at all.

So where are these newly released documents ? What is the story based off of ? It would be clear from the op eds initial few paragraphs that none of the soldiers still alive today actually saw or participated in.

But lets review.

You claimed that a massacre of epic proportions occurred. Including mass rape and the murder of children in their beds.

You were asked to substantiate the claim and all we got was a bunch of hasbara nonsense from WIKI part of which directly refutes your claim.

You were asked to provide some framework for your claim and make note of any other incidents of mass rape and murder.

Instead you provide one single undocumented Op Ed piece, with exactly zero references claiming that 1 girl was raped by a group of foreign recruits.

Kinda looks like your hasbara doesn't stand up to scrutiny there Finger.

I'll repeat, its a war and in war bad things happen, however, even if your bed time story without references of a single rape by a group of foreign nationals fighting for the IDF 60 years ago is true. How does that compare to Arab Muslims stabbing pregnant woman in the streets today ? Or the murder of Israeli children by Arab Muslims today ? How does it compare to using children as human shields by Arab Muslims today ?

You are right.

Lest we ever forget, where the real atrocities are occurring. Right now, today, the Arab Muslims are committing one horrendous act after another. Lest we ever forget


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 13, 2016)

fanger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > main source my ass.
> ...









 Apart from being a deflection and of topic it shows that the Jews are prepared to hold their own accountable for their actions. What do you islamonazi scum do when one of yours is found guilty of rape, you murder the raped person and give the rapist money to staqrt a new life.



 By the way an IDF unit is not "an entire Judiac organization" is it


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> .
> 
> Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?
> 
> ...


I posted one example as reported in 'I saw fit to remove her from the world'

Here is another account
¨
These guilty men also claim that the IDF personnel of the Sdom Battalion were “a rabble,” soldiers pressed into service with no military background nor even prior ties to the State, since they were almost all new immigrants from diverse nations.  He even claims the soldiers could barely communicate and had to use hand signals to make themselves understood.  This claim is undercut by the narrative itself, which includes reference to a vote taken by the men about the fate of the Bedouin girl.  When the commander asks the men to vote on whether to rape her or make her a kitchen slave, they’re heard to cheer in unison: “We want to fuck.”  They seem to have been able to communicate this quite well despite the alleged language barriers.

What happened at Nirim would’ve been buried in the dustbin of history were it not for the trial of those responsible for the Kfar Kassem massacre during the 1956 War of 50 Palestinian villagers returning from work, who knew nothing about a shoot to kill curfew. The Border Police killed scores of these innocent Palestinians. Defense lawyers in the case offered the Nirim incident as an example of previous IDF murders of civilians to show a pattern of such conduct. One of the lawyers brought the case files to the Tel Aviv University law school archives, where they were preserved until two Haaretz reporters reported this tragedy in 2003.¨
Israel’s Historic Disregard for Lives and Rights of Negev Bedouin


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

The *Kafr Qasim massacre* took place in the Israeli Arab village of Kafr Qasim situated on the Green Line, at that time, the de facto border between Israel and the Jordanian West Bank on October 29, 1956. It was carried out by the Israel Border Police (_Magav_), who murdered Arab civilians returning from work during a curfew, imposed earlier in the day, on the eve of the Sinai war, of which they were unaware.[1] In total 48 people died, of which 19 were men, 6 were women and 23 were children aged 8–17. Arab sources usually give the death toll as 49, as they include the unborn child of one of the women.[2]

The border policemen who were involved in the shooting were brought to trial and found guilty and sentenced to prison terms, but all received pardons and were released in a year.[3] The brigade commander was sentenced to pay the symbolic fine of 10 prutot (old Israeli cents).[4] The Israeli court found that the command to kill civilians was “blatantly illegal”.[5]

In December 2007, President of Israel Shimon Peres formally apologised for the massacre.
The new curfew regulations were imposed in the absence of the laborers, who were at work and ignorant of the new rules.[8] At 4.30 p.m., the mukhtar (mayor) of Kafr Qasim was informed of the new time. He asked what would happen to the about 400 villagers working outside the village in the fields that were not aware of the new time. An officer assured him that they would be taken care of. When word of the curfew change was sent, most returned immediately, but others did not.

Between 5 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., in nine separate shooting incidents, the platoon led by Lt. Gabriel Dahan that was stationed in Kafr Qasim all together killed nineteen men, six women, ten teenage boys (age 14-17), six girls (age 12-15), and seven young boys (age 8-13), who did not make it home before curfew.[9]One survivor, Jamal Farij, recalls arriving at the entrance to the village in a truck with 28 passengers:

'We talked to them. We asked if they wanted our identity cards. They didn't. Suddenly one of them said, 'Cut them down' - and they opened fire on us like a flood.'[10]

One Israeli soldier, Shalom Ofer, later admitted: 'We acted like Germans, automatically, we didn't think', but never expressed remorse or regret for his actions.[11]

The many injured were left unattended, and could not be succoured by their families because of the 24-hour curfew. The dead were collected and buried in a mass grave by Arabs, taken for that purpose, from the nearby village of Jaljuliya. When the curfew ended, the wounded were picked up from the streets and trucked to hospitals.
Kafr Qasim massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*Israel does not target civilians *


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Interesting to see you minimizing a massacre.  Good job.  

_
*How many were killed?*


There is no way to determine the exact number of casualties at Deir Yassin. On the evening of the attack, Irgun commander Mordehai Raanan manufactured his second easily detectable falsehood of the day, and reported that ‘we counted 254 dead.’ Later he said that he had invented a large figure to scare the Arabs. Bodies were scattered about in the houses and buried under rubble, and no body counts at all had been made. A study by Bir Zeit University researchers in 1987 concluded that there were 107 civilian dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 fighters. This study was based on interviews of refugees native to the village. 26


However, since the population of the village was swelled by refugees to as many as 1,200 people, it is possible, even likely, that villagers did not happen to know all the people who were casualties.


In the body count estimates, we find that *Haganah intelligence officer Mordehai Gihon who came on April 9, said, “I estimated that there were four cisterns ( or pits) full of bodies, and in each pit there were 20 bodies, and several tens more in the quarry.” 27 This might add up to around 110.*


On April 12, 1948 doctors Avigdori and Druyan of the Histadrut Medical association reported seeing: “*in the Wadi 25 bodies, one over the other, uncovered, children and women.”* 28


Yehoshua Arieli, Gadna Youth leader who came on April 12 as well (apparently after the doctors) said, “There were three or four concentrations of bodies. Each in the corner of a house… It was difficult to get the bodies out of two houses. We got permission to blow up the houses with the bodies. In the morning we did it. *We buried about seventy bodies in a communal grave and blew up two groups, with about twenty bodies in each.” 29*

 Again, we get about 110 bodies, but they could not all be the same bodies. Even assuming that the bodies in the corners of the houses were actually in cisterns or pits outside the houses, the bodies in the quarry found earlier by Gihon are not the same as the ones in the two houses that were blown up. They could not be, since the bodies would not have been moved from the quarry back into the houses and placed in such a way that they could not be extracted!. *This suggests that there were more than 110 dead, perhaps 140. *But we still have not accounted for 25 bodies that were in the Wadi, as reported by the doctors. These could have been moved sometime on April 12th and thrown into cisterns, but it seems unlikely._​


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

The *Eilabun massacre* was committed by soldiers of Israel Defense Forces during Operation Hiram on 30 October 1948. A total of 14 men from the Palestinian Christian village of Eilabun (Eilaboun) were killed, 14 of them executed by the Israeli forces after the village had surrendered.[1][2] The remaining villagers were expelled to Lebanon,[1] living as refugees for some months before being allowed to return.[1]
Eilabun massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
*Lest we forget, Israel does not target civilians*


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

The *Deir Yassin massacre* took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Zionist paramilitary groups Irgun and Lehi attacked Deir Yassin, a Palestinian Arab village of roughly 600 people near Jerusalem. The assault occurred as Jewish militia sought to retaliate against the blockade of Jerusalem by Palestinian Arab forces during the civil war that preceded the end of British rule in Palestine.[1] The Palestinians tried to resist the attack, but the village fell after fierce house-to-house fighting.


During and after the battle for the village, 107 Palestinians were murdered, including women and children—some were shot, while others died when hand grenades were thrown into their homes.[2] Several villagers were taken prisoner and may have been killed after being paraded through the streets of West Jerusalem.[3] Four of the attackers were killed, with around 35 injured.[4]

The killings were condemned by the leadership of the Haganah—the Jewish community's main paramilitary force—and by the area's two chief rabbis. The Jewish Agency for Israel sent Jordan's King Abdullah a letter of apology, which he rebuffed.[1] Abdullah held the Jewish Agency responsible for the massacre, because they were the head of Jewish affairs in Palestine.[5] He warned about "terrible consequences" if more incidents like that occurred.[6]

The deaths became a pivotal event in the Arab–Israeli conflict for their demographic and military consequences. The narrative was exaggerated and used by various parties to attack each other—by Palestinians against Israeli forces; by the Haganah to hide their complicity in the affair; and by the Israeli left to accuse the Irgun and Lehi of violating the Jewish principle of purity of arms, thus exposing Israel's behaviour to the world.[7] News of the killings sparked terror among Palestinians, encouraging them to flee from their towns and villages in the face of Jewish troop advances, and it strengthened the resolve of Arab governments to intervene, which they did five weeks later.[1]
Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shusha (Apr 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Yes, I reject the idea that it was a legitimate military objective and that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers ...



Why would a hill overlooking the major highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv NOT be a military objective during the siege of Jerusalem?


----------



## fanger (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0ahUKEwj_wILZ_YbMAhXFkoMKHfghCL4QFggcMAA&url=http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/12304&usg=AFQjCNGaT9A8Dlhj1On_1ymbTb34wAkrjQ&sig2=zD7LAppz9VklKyB2duXSHQ&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc
> 
> ...


*Op-Ed: Book Review... oh a book review*


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, I reject the idea that it was a legitimate military objective and that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers ...
> ...



One reason would be that Deir Yassin had had a pact with both Haganah and Givat Shaul and there is no evidence given that they violated it.  Haganah did not need to bother with it, and could set it's sights on more strategic targets.  Participants have stated that the reason was economic (booty) and to panic the Arabs.

Even if it were a legitimate military target (and I do not believe it was) - how does that justify walking into homes and killing in cold blood of women and children?  Keep in mind that the people who instigated this massacre (Irgun and Lehi) were the same ones who were also involved in numerous terrorist acts - market bombings, bus bombings etc aimed at civilians.

68 years ago today - The Deir Yassin Massacre Israel forces murder 200 Palestinians including women and children - American Herald Tribune

_During the 1936-1939 Arab revolt in Palestine in protest of the mass Jewish immigration into the country, the Irgun’s tactics included bus and marketplace bombings. The Lehi broke away from the Irgun in 1940, and carried out assassinations against the British to force them out of Palestine.

The Irgun and Lehi commanders approached the Haganah commander in Jerusalem at first, seeking his approval.* He did not agree at first, because the villagers had signed a non-aggression pact*, and suggested that they attack another village instead. He eventually yielded to their demand, on condition that they remain in the village so that it would not become an Arab military base. *The Lehi further proposed than any villagers who would not flee should be killed to terrify the others and make an example out of them.*


The head of the Red Cross in Palestine visited Deir Yassin on April 11th, and noted that more than 200 men, women, and children were dead. An Irgun fighter would testify years later that they executed 80 prisoners after the fighting was over.


*Irgun and Legi troops took some of the survivors, including women and children onto trucks to West Jerusalem. There, they were spat at, and stoned, their hands above their heads. Their bodies were later discovered in quarries.*_​


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Why was Deir Yassin a target?

*Deir Yassin Massacre: A Target by Default*
_Deir Yassin wasn’t in the Haganah’s sights. The Haganah was aiming to conquer the more strategically important village of al-Kastal, and *was looking for help wherever it could get it—even from rivals it did not particularly respect or consider quite as legitimate*, such as members of Irgun Zvai Leumi and the Lehi, or Stern Gang (two Jewish underground organizations that, beginning in the 1930s, engaged in terrorist operations against Palestinians and British Mandate personnel).

*But militants from both Irgun and the Stern Gang were uninterested in joining forces at al-Kastal. They wanted to make a statement of their own, for two reasons: by mounting an independent operation against a high-visibility target of their choosing, they’d be entering the war against Arabs in earnest*—grabbing a piece of the vistory pie they were betting on—and lifting their own profile in what was then seen as the Jews’ battle for independence. As such, Irgun and the Stern Gang’s agendas would get a lift, too—or so they hoped. (This would be Irgun’s and the Stern Gang’s first joint operation since 1942.)

*Their second aim was more sinister, but not a secret, as it fell in line with Irgun’s Revisionist beliefs, which opposed either the partition of Palestine or its sharing with Palestinians: killing residents of the village they’d choose for their target—those residents who did not flee—as a means of terrifying the country’s other Palestinian residents, and inducing them to take flight as well*. The Haganah approved—and agreed to provide covering fire during the operation.

The target Irgun and the Stern Gand chose: Deir Yassin._
​


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

fanger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > .
> ...



Please, the only references in your second op ed piece is back to the first. 

Although there was a reference to "her rant" which didn't have anything to do with the alleged incident.

If you were in grade school this level of non existent references wouldn't fly. Let alone in higher education. 

Oh and check the bibliography of that book ;--) and of course the reference section ;--)


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

fanger said:


> The *Kafr Qasim massacre* took place in the Israeli Arab village of Kafr Qasim situated on the Green Line, at that time, the de facto border between Israel and the Jordanian West Bank on October 29, 1956. It was carried out by the Israel Border Police (_Magav_), who murdered Arab civilians returning from work during a curfew, imposed earlier in the day, on the eve of the Sinai war, of which they were unaware.[1] In total 48 people died, of which 19 were men, 6 were women and 23 were children aged 8–17. Arab sources usually give the death toll as 49, as they include the unborn child of one of the women.[2]
> 
> The border policemen who were involved in the shooting were brought to trial and found guilty and sentenced to prison terms, but all received pardons and were released in a year.[3] The brigade commander was sentenced to pay the symbolic fine of 10 prutot (old Israeli cents).[4] The Israeli court found that the command to kill civilians was “blatantly illegal”.[5]
> 
> ...




Really ? more from WIKI ? 

Please. Is there really no way we can step up the conversation a little


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



More Arab Muslim hasbara. 

I see no evidence to support these wild accusations. 

What we do know is that both sides found it advantageous to spread stories of violence and atrocities trying to scare the other away. 

Is there so much as ONE person alive today who can corroborate any of it and if so how do we know they are being truthful.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The article provides sources sweetcheeks...including eyewitness testimony


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Check it again

The article provided Zero links. No references and is an op ed piece with a picture. 

there is not a shred of corroborating evidence offered


----------



## Coyote (Apr 13, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...


Look at the other article I linked t  which says the same and includes footnotes.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 13, 2016)

The ICRC eye witness report says the same thing.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

So we have a number of different reports all based off unsubstantiated claims

I think we should change "lest we forget" to "best we forget





Oh and I just followed the response links. I'll try and go back and see if I can find the other link you suggest.

However.

I don't think we have anything resembling an equivalence here. Firstly is there any other incident showing where this type of thing is a trend. Or is it one single incident committed by foreign nationals ?

The claims are just wild enough that they just seem a little beyond believability, that and you seem to be struggling to substantiate them.


----------



## jillian (Apr 13, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> ...



the difference is, the the king david hotel was the base for british military operations. and the jews told the brits to get out of the hotel so they wouldn't be hurt.

the deir yassin attacks were allegedly committed by irgun (not haganah) in retaliation for blockading the jews. that said, ultimately the hagganah purportedly apologized on behalf of the jewish population and even wrote a formal letter of apology to jordan.

you ever see an arab group apologize for attacking jews?

don't encourage terrorist supporters. and don't ever believe anything from arab sources about israel.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 13, 2016)

*BEST WE FORGET *


----------



## theliq (Apr 13, 2016)

jillian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Too Little Too Late I'm Afraid.....You do the Crime you should do the Time


----------



## Shusha (Apr 13, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Why would a hill overlooking the major highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv NOT be a military objective during the siege of Jerusalem?
> ...



The designation of whether or not a particular place is of military value is not the existence of a peace pact between two nearby villages.  

Deir Yassin was of military value because it could serve as a potential base for attacks on the main highway between Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.  The INTENT of the Arab forces was to cut off supplies, military reinforcements and the majority of the Jewish population from Jerusalem.  Deir Yassin, and other nearby locations had, in fact, been used to attack convoys of supplies in the previous days and months.  It was also considered, by the Jewish forces, as a place to build an airstrip.  Thus it was important to ensure it did not fall into the hands of enemy forces.  

And we know that enemy forces were attempting to do just that -- use it as a base to attack the highway to Jerusalem.  That is part of the reason the peace pact was made in January in the first place -- the agreement spelled out that those from Deir Yassin would not permit Arab forces to set up shop there.  There is a general agreement that no Arab forces were within the village at the time of the attack -- but there is no dispute that Arab forces had been in the village in the days prior to and had requested repeatedly to set up shop there.  There are police records of the villagers of Deir Yassin calling the police forces to rid themselves of the Arab forces.  

Further to that, there are the winds of war.  The intent of the peace pact between the two neighboring villages was to avoid conflict.  Once they realized conflict was upon them and likely unavoidable the villagers of Deir Yassin made preparations for that -- including gathering weapons and training and digging ditches and creating a town watch.  They may have wanted to avoid the war (as the residents of Gival Shaul did), but that may not have been possible.  

My point being that the peace pact alone does not unmake the value of military objective.  Your claim that the village held NO military objective is proven false.  

Did you want to argue this specific point further, or shall we move on?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 13, 2016)

jillian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Actually I'm neither "encouraging" nor "believing" anything.  I'm certainly not qualified to do that.  I'm just noting that there is history out there that needs to be known as context for the present.  And in response to poster above, that we don't get to cherrypick which histories we like and discredit those we don't.  Far as I know Wikipedia is an international source, not "Arab".

I don't believe there is such a thing as any historical event that it's a good thing to not know.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 13, 2016)

theliq said:


> Huh,your vision of reality is Marred by your Ignorance



Feel free to enlighten me and show me to be wrong then.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

We damn sure should forget 

the whole story line is one huge pile of BS 

Not one shred of coroberated evidnec ehas been offiored 

thw whole thing is a corsk co shit


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

*BEST WE FORGET*


----------



## theliq (Apr 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> We damn sure should forget
> 
> the whole story line is one huge pile of BS
> 
> ...


re-write in English


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

*Best we forget *


----------



## Challenger (Apr 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> *BEST WE FORGET*



OK, if you are so keen to forget massacres....






...let's forget them all.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 14, 2016)

As for rape and the IDF, this is what Professor Pappe has to say on the subject:

"We have three kinds of sources that report on rape, and thus know that severe cases of rape did take place. It remains more difficult to form an idea of how many women and young girls were victimised by Jewish troops in this way. Our first source is the international organisations such as the UN and the Red Cross. 

They never submitted a collective report, but we do have short and concise accounts of individual cases. Thus, for instance, very soon after Jaffa was taken, a Red Cross official, de Meuron, reported how Jewish soldiers had raped a girl and killed her brother. He remarked in general that as Palestinian men were taken away as prisoners, their women were left at the mercy of the Israelis.

Yitzhak Chizik wrote to Kaplan in the letter mentioned above: ‘And about the rapes, Sir, you probably have already heard.’ In an earlier letter to Ben-Gurion, Chizik reported how ‘a group of soldiers [had] burst into a house, killed the father, injured the mother and raped the daughter.’

We know of course more about cases in places where outside observers were present, but this does not mean women were not raped elsewhere. Another Red Cross report tells of a horrific incident that began on 9 December 1948 when two Jewish soldiers burst into the house of al-Hajj Suleiman Daud, who had been expelled with his family to Shaqara. The soldiers hit his wife and kidnapped his eighteen-year-old daughter. Seventeen days later the father was able to get hold of an Israeli lieutenant, to whom he protested. The rapists appeared to belong to Brigade Seven. It is impossible to know what exactly happened in those seventeen days before the girl was set free; the worst may be presumed. (IDF Archives, 50/121, File 226, report by Menahem Ben-Yossef, Platoon commander, Battalion 102, 26 December 1948.)

The second source is the Israeli archives, which only cover cases in which the rapists were brought to trial. David Ben-Gurion seems to have been informed about each case and entered them into his diary. Every few days he has a sub-section: ‘Rape Cases’. One of these records the incident Chizik had reported to him: ‘a case in Acre where soldiers wanted to rape a girl. They killed the father and wounded the mother, and the officers covered for them. At least one soldier raped the girl.’ (Ben-Gurion’s Diary, 5 July 1948.)

Jaffa seems to have been a hothouse for the cruelty and war crimes of the Israeli troops. One particular battalion, Battalion 3 – commanded by the same person who had been in charge when its soldiers committed massacres in Khisas and Sa‘sa, and cleansed Safad and its environs – was so savage in its behaviour that its soldiers were suspected of being involved in most of the rape cases in the city, and the High Command decided it best to withdraw them from the town.  However, other units were no less guilty of molesting women in the first three to four months of the occupation.

The worst period was towards the end of the first truce (July  8) when even Ben-Gurion became so apprehensive about the pattern of  behaviour  that  emerged  among the soldiers in the occupied cities, especially the private looting and the rape cases, that he decided not to allow certain army units to enter Nazareth after his troops had taken the town during the ‘ten-day’ war. (Ben-Gurion’s Diary, 15 July 1948.)

Our third source is the oral history we have from both the victimisers and the victims. It is very difficult to get the facts in the former case and almost impossible, of course, in the latter. But their stories have already helped shed light on some of the most appalling and inhuman crimes in the war that Israel waged against the Palestinian people.

The perpetrators can only talk, it seems, shielded by the safe distance of years. This is how a particularly appalling case came to light just recently. On 12 August 1949, a platoon of soldiers in the Negev, based in Kibbutz Nirim not far from Beit Hanun, on the northern edge of today’s Gaza Strip, captured a twelve-year-old Palestinian girl and locked her up for the night in their military base near the kibbutz. For the next few days she became the platoon’s sex slave as the soldiers shaved her head, gang-raped her and in the end murdered her. Ben-Gurion lists this rape too in his diary but it was censored out by his editors. On 29 October 2003, the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz publicised the story based on the testimonies of the rapists: twenty-two soldiers had taken part in the barbaric torture and execution of the girl. When they were then brought to trial, the severest punishment the court handed down was a prison term of two years for the soldier who had done the actual killing.

Oral recollection also exposed cases of rape throughout the occupation of Palestine’s villages: from the village of Tantura in May, through the village of Qula in June, and ending with one story after another of abuse and rape in the villages seized during Operation Hiram. Many of the cases were corroborated by UN officials who interviewed a number of women from the villages who were willing to come forward and talk about their experiences.

When, many years later, some of these people were interviewed, it was obvious how difficult it still proved for the men and women from the village to talk about names and details in these cases, and the interviewers came away with the impression that they all knew more than they wished or were able to tell.

Eyewitnesses also reported the callous and humiliating way in which women were stripped of all their jewellery, to the very last item. The same women were then harassed physically by the soldiers, which in Tantura ended in rape. Here is how Najiah Ayyub described it: ‘I saw that the troops who encircled us tried to touch the women but were rejected by them. When they saw that the women would not surrender, they stopped. When we were on the beach, they took two women and tried to undress them, claiming they had to search the bodies.’ ("Tantura" Illan Pape)

Tradition, shame, and trauma are the cultural and psychological barriers that prevent us from gaining the fuller picture of the rape of Palestinian women within the general plunder Jewish troops wreaked with such ferocity in both rural and urban Palestine during 1948 and 1949. Perhaps in the fullness of time someone will be able to complete this chapter of the chronicle of Israel's Ethnic cleansing of Palestine."

http://www.pdfarchive.info/pdf/P/Pa/Pappe_Ilan_-_The_Ethnic_Cleansing_of_Palestine.pdf


----------



## Challenger (Apr 14, 2016)

fanger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > main source my ass.
> ...



Thanks for finding the article, it helps corroborate what professor Pappe asserted in my post #. 115


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 14, 2016)

fanger said:


> The *Kafr Qasim massacre* took place in the Israeli Arab village of Kafr Qasim situated on the Green Line, at that time, the de facto border between Israel and the Jordanian West Bank on October 29, 1956. It was carried out by the Israel Border Police (_Magav_), who murdered Arab civilians returning from work during a curfew, imposed earlier in the day, on the eve of the Sinai war, of which they were unaware.[1] In total 48 people died, of which 19 were men, 6 were women and 23 were children aged 8–17. Arab sources usually give the death toll as 49, as they include the unborn child of one of the women.[2]
> 
> The border policemen who were involved in the shooting were brought to trial and found guilty and sentenced to prison terms, but all received pardons and were released in a year.[3] The brigade commander was sentenced to pay the symbolic fine of 10 prutot (old Israeli cents).[4] The Israeli court found that the command to kill civilians was “blatantly illegal”.[5]
> 
> ...








 TRUE,   but that does not mean that Jewish individuals don't. And this is where you fall flat on your face every time. You produce individual reports of this happening and claim that this is how all Jews act.  Well after seeing Saddam raped and sodomised with a metal pole can I say that this is how all arab muslims act. Or after seeing Palestinians tenderising the bodies of two Jewish youths before eating them can I say this is how all Palestinians act.   

 Want some more examples of how ALL PALESTINIANS act based on the criteria you are using for ALL JEWS ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 14, 2016)

Challenger said:


> As for rape and the IDF, this is what Professor Pappe has to say on the subject:
> 
> "We have three kinds of sources that report on rape, and thus know that severe cases of rape did take place. It remains more difficult to form an idea of how many women and young girls were victimised by Jewish troops in this way. Our first source is the international organisations such as the UN and the Red Cross.
> 
> ...








 Hardly a valid source of evidence due to his political views is it. He would make a good commissar in the Ukraine


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 14, 2016)

Challenger said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








 It also shows that using your criteria all Palestinians are mass murdering rapists and psychopathic child killers because of the actions of a few ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 14, 2016)

fanger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> ...








 Does that make it ant worse than your islamonazi sourced wiki entries ?


----------



## Challenger (Apr 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> *BEST WE FORGET*



OK let's.

Wounded Knee Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trail of Tears - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

Well just look at all those off topic posts. 

*BEST WE FORGET *

Is remembering a lie even worth it. I say we forget all about the nonsense being spewed 65 years ago and move on.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 14, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Thus the peace pact.  Aren't such pacts themselves military tools to ensure such locations wont' be a problem? A pact of non-aggessin? It was no longer a military target because the pact took care of that, unless the pact was violated.



> And we know that enemy forces were attempting to do just that -- use it as a base to attack the highway to Jerusalem.  That is part of the reason the peace pact was made in January in the first place -- the agreement spelled out that those from Deir Yassin would not permit Arab forces to set up shop there.  There is a general agreement that no Arab forces were within the village at the time of the attack -- but there is no dispute that Arab forces had been in the village in the days prior to and had requested repeatedly to set up shop there.  There are police records of the villagers of Deir Yassin calling the police forces to rid themselves of the Arab forces.



So they quite clearly were honoring the pact then.



> Further to that, there are the winds of war.  The intent of the peace pact between the two neighboring villages was to avoid conflict.  Once they realized conflict was upon them and likely unavoidable the villagers of Deir Yassin made preparations for that -- including gathering weapons and training and digging ditches and creating a town watch.  They may have wanted to avoid the war (as the residents of Gival Shaul did), but that may not have been possible.
> 
> My point being that the peace pact alone does not unmake the value of military objective.  Your claim that the village held NO military objective is proven false.
> 
> Did you want to argue this specific point further, or shall we move on?



I don't agree.  The peace pact should have removed it from being a legitimate military objective.  I will agree that it would once have been a military objective but at the time of the massacre was no longer.  We shall have to agree to disagree on that one.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 14, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > The myth of the Dier Yassin massacre
> ...




Once you have Haganah and the Jewish Agency apologizing for it --- you really don't have excuses for such an event -- do you?   It happens when "no-state" or "new state" authority doesn't really have control over militias and insurgencies.. It happened in a period of chaos and change. And it IS just as ugly as some of the over-reaches that happened in America during the Indian wars. EXCEPT that --- the US didn't have the excuse of being "state-less" or "new-state" disorganized.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 14, 2016)

Why the emphasis that the Palestinians should "forget" this massacre, the insistence that it didn't happen?  It happened.  And there are no valid excuses for it.


----------



## fanger (Apr 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> We damn sure should forget
> 
> the whole story line is one huge pile of BS
> 
> ...


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

The only account of this event seems to have been written decades later. With reference to some secret papers recently made available. Except they aren't available and when challenged no one can find them. 

The whole thing looks like a scare tactic exactly as the Arab Muslims said it was. 

Its a story, nothing more, designed to incite, both sides played the PR game and its gone on long enough that now we have people who actually think it wasn't all just a lie. 

Sorry but I'm not buying it. 

Show me these recently released papers LOL and then maybe we can get to the bottom of it all.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 14, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> The only account of this event seems to have been written decades later. With reference to some secret papers recently made available. Except they aren't available and when challenged no one can find them.
> 
> The whole thing looks like a scare tactic exactly as the Arab Muslims said it was.
> 
> ...




There are many accounts, including books and pictures that include the bodies, statements by eye witness', and the Israeli's themselves and an apology for it.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 14, 2016)

Yes and many of those eye witnesses claim it never happened

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QoWmZ6cW13OqiZlMzOw2ow&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote 

In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said "_this was our biggest mistake_", because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.


Nusseibeh describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... _'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,_'. He said_, "We must make the most of this.So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities_" 


In the video clip Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, told the BBC that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "_There was no rape. But Khalidi said, We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews_."


This false press statement was released to New York Times correspondent, Dana Schmidt leading to an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1948, claiming that a massacre took place at Deir Yassin that was reprinted worldwide and cited even in Israel as proof of Israeli atrocities

End Quote


----------



## Challenger (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Yes and many of those eye witnesses claim it never happened



...and many more claim it did, including Haganah soldiers and intelligence officers


See around 28:15-29:23 for accounts that contradict you.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Best We Forget 

All the BS and political posturing that terrorist supporters love to sing. 

The simple fact is that the incident most likely never occurred. here it is 65 or so years later and the best our poor dear terrorist apologists can do is drum up a few self hating Jews to sing their songs. 

Sorry but no one is buying it other than the ignorant and weak minded. 

*BEST WE FORGET *

Next


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would."The ma ssacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre


Yeah, 68 years since the "massacre", that never was, of course. Tell the lies long enough, and folks may, actually, start believing them, indeed.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I think people tend to add mass "rape" claims...



I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere. Why would Ben-Gurion devote part of his dairy to rape cases reports if he wasn't concerned about the problem. Also it should be remembered that many Eastern European Jewish people in Palestine had served in the Red Army, which was notorious for the way it treated captive women.

The truth behind The Rape of Berlin


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 15, 2016)

docmauser1, Challenger, Boston1,  et al,

Our friend "Boston1" makes a good point.  At some point in time, both sides are going to have to lay these wars of the 20th Century to rest. 

All that the dredging of these past events will get us is the recurrence to the incitement of even more violence.  But I suspect that is too much to ask.  I know from personal experience that my mind will never suppress what I feel towards the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Afghans, or the Yemenese.  However, at least in my family, it is not generationally passed on.  

In my family, I am the warrior to engage.  With my death, the family will be cleansed of it misgivings.



Boston1 said:


> All the BS and political posturing that terrorist supporters love to sing.
> The simple fact is that the incident most likely never occurred. here it is 65 or so years later and the best our poor dear terrorist apologists can do is drum up a few self hating Jews to sing their songs.
> Sorry but no one is buying it other than the ignorant and weak minded.





docmauser1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would."The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

As I've said before, the Arabs of Palestine (especially HAMAS and the Islamic Jihad) do have an active infection program of their next generation.  It is so effective, that they think of themselves as "refugees" from the 1948 War.  It has been 68 years!  

The video opens with the idea that Gaza is the home of 1.4 million Palestinians, "most of whom are refugees from what became the land of Israel."  And this is how we pass hatred on generationally.  Of course we know intellectually that it is impossible to be true.  In 2015 the age structure only ≈ 2.67% of the Gazans _(male 20,667/female 29,155)_ could have been alive as a baby at the time of the 1948 War.  The rest have never been residents of Israel.  

Even as we talk today about the events in the last decade, after the withdrawal of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) from Gaza (2005), Israel uses air strike and ground incursions to counter Hostile Arab Palestinian rockets and mortars into Israel.  And that plays right into the hand of the provocateurs.  The one concept that has been passed-on from generation to generation is the pledge that the Jews would never be defenseless again. 

No matter what the ambitions were in 1948, today --- both sides must learn (first) how not to poke the bear on the other side.

The video pointed out that Israelis have demonstrated a remarkable achievement in the direction of Nation Building.  There is no nation in the entire Arab League that presents today a level of human development superior to that of Israel; no Arab Nation even close.  The Arabs of Palestine are actually trashing the greatest opportunity they have t move forward in the 21st Century since the time of the last Sultan.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Apr 15, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> EXCEPT that --- the US didn't have the excuse of being "state-less" or "new-state" disorganized.



Neither did Zionist Israel. By the time they declared statehood they had fully a functioning state infrastructure and military high command. The Haganah units themselves were well trained and in several cases composed of WW2 veterans from all the allied armies. All they lacked were heavy weapons and ammunition and aircraft, which arrived in the first weeks of the war. After the first truce, the Zionists were constantly on the offensive.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Best We Forget
> 
> All the BS and political posturing that terrorist supporters love to sing.
> 
> ...



Standard Hasbarist response when your argument falls apart, resort to insults. Next.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 15, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> The video pointed out that Israelis have demonstrated a remarkable achievement in the direction of Nation Building...



Well so has Germany since 1945, but does that mean we should forget the Holocaust? Turkey has also made remarkable progress, so hey, let's forget about the Armenians. Russia? lets forget the Holdomor, Britain? Don't mention Jillianwala Bagh. I can probably go on.

We memorialise these events for a reason, in part they help us come to terms with the fact that none of us is perfect and encourage us to try to ensure that these things don't happen again (they do, but that shouldn't stop us trying).

Sweeping them under the carpet, the "best we forget" approach only means that they will continue to be repeated, again and again.

Oh, forgot... MyLai, anyone?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I don't agree.  The peace pact should have removed it from being a legitimate military objective.



Well, no.  It remains a military objective.  The peace pact was simply a tool for managing a military objective.  And remember, the peace pact was between the two neighboring villages and not a pact between the general forces of either the Arabs or the Jews. Thus it had limited effectiveness.  (Which explains why it remained on the Jewish "military objectives" list and also why the villagers of Deir Yassin took additional steps to protect the village, including building of ditches, creating a watch and stockpiling weapons).  

The general military objectives at the time, and this is well-documented, was to ensure the supply route and access from Tel Aviv and the majority of Jewish-held land to Jerusalem.  The larger operation which took place was aimed at ensuring that convoys from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem were not attacked.  This was a concern because it had, in fact, been happening.  (Thus the continued "request" that the village of Deir Yassin be used as a base by Arab forces).

So, if you are attempting to contend that Irgun and Lehi picked a village at random because they were in the mood to massacre some Arab women and children, I'd suggest you have fallen prey to the same "Jews are evil" mythology which causes some of our members here to claim that Israel is committing genocide against the people of Gaza.  

Now, if you are suggesting that this particular village was not a military priority, I would agree.  As did Haganah, whose response to the suggestion of taking Deir Yassin was:  well, its not exactly necessary at the moment, but its on our list of things to do eventually, SO if you think you can hold it, go ahead".  

It also seems clear that at least one military commander had a personal investment in attacking Deir Yassin having to do with his own personal history and animosity due to conflict between his village and Deir Yassin in the mid 1930's.  

There are also several indications that a massacre was not the intent, though, yes, it was suggested.  The idea was vehemently rejected (by Begin, if memory serves).  Thus, the truck with the megaphone, while ineffective due to unforseen circumstances, was present and demonstrates intent to allow the villagers to flee.  There are other indications as well.  


The next question is whether or not the Jewish forces encountered resistance.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think people tend to add mass "rape" claims...
> ...



Very interesting 

lets review 

Quote 

I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations

End Quote 

So at last you agree with my original claims thats great, lets read on. 

Quote 

but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote 

So now that we can be reasonably assured no incidence of mass rape or even a single rape at all ever occurred at DY you are simply going to move your accusation on to some unknown conflict in some unknown land ? Brilliant argument, those debating skills failing you again. 

I'd move on but there's really nothing of substance to warrant further review. 

The simple reality obvious within your post is you base your claims off, nothing. Its pure conjecture meant only to incite further hatred among those ignorant enough to buy into it. 

*Best We Forget*


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > EXCEPT that --- the US didn't have the excuse of being "state-less" or "new-state" disorganized.
> ...



That's the way states evolve.. You think it happens like a Bernie Sanders TV commercial?? 




Challenger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > EXCEPT that --- the US didn't have the excuse of being "state-less" or "new-state" disorganized.
> ...



This is way states are born. You think it happens like a Bernie Sanders TV Commercial?  USUALLY requires have a military organization as a top priority. Don't you know this?? 

There was no organized Israel when this happened. It's the kind of "stateless" action that the world has to grapple with DAILY now because of 47 different stateless (or proxies to Iran/Saudi etc)  Muslim Militant groups. And they answer to HISTORY.. Not to any of their allies.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I don't agree.  The peace pact should have removed it from being a legitimate military objective.
> ...



Let's back up one step here and consider WHO Irgun and Lehi were at that time before assigning a "Jews are evil" motivation.

Here is a list of attacks attributed to Irgun: List of Irgun attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.  T*he list shows a good many attacks that were certainly not aimed at military targets but civilians (market places, etc). * Lehi (also known as the Stern Gang) was one of the more extreme Jewish paramilitary groups who followed a fascist ideology and sought alliance with fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in return for transfering European Jews to Palestine and widely diverged from mainstream Jewish groups.

In addition, according to this article, the reason's that Deir Yassin was chosen was not for it's value as a military target but to make a point:
_*But militants from both Irgun and the Stern Gang were uninterested in joining forces at al-Kastal. They wanted to make a statement of their own, for two reasons: by mounting an independent operation against a high-visibility target of their choosing, they’d be entering the war against Arabs in earnest*—grabbing a piece of the vistory pie they were betting on—and lifting their own profile in what was then seen as the Jews’ battle for independence. As such, Irgun and the Stern Gang’s agendas would get a lift, too—or so they hoped. (This would be Irgun’s and the Stern Gang’s first joint operation since 1942.)

*Their second aim was more sinister, but not a secret, as it fell in line with Irgun’s Revisionist beliefs, which opposed either the partition of Palestine or its sharing with Palestinians: killing residents of the village they’d choose for their target—those residents who did not flee—as a means of terrifying the country’s other Palestinian residents, and inducing them to take flight as well*. The Haganah approved—and agreed to provide covering fire during the operation._​
Given the above, *it's reasonable to assume that targets chosen by those groups were not necessarily legitimate military targets but targets chosen to send other messages* through the murdering of civilians and stating that has nothing to do with "Jews are evil" but with what was going on at the time with the different militias who each had a slightly different agenda and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause.



> Now, if you are suggesting that this particular village was not a military priority, I would agree.  As did Haganah, whose response to the suggestion of taking Deir Yassin was:  well, its not exactly necessary at the moment, but its on our list of things to do eventually, SO if you think you can hold it, go ahead".
> 
> *It also seems clear that at least one military commander had a personal investment in attacking Deir Yassin having to do with his own personal history and animosity due to conflict between his village and Deir Yassin in the mid 1930's.*



Agree with the latter.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> There are also several indications that a massacre was not the intent, though, yes, it was suggested.  The idea was vehemently rejected (by Begin, if memory serves).  Thus, the truck with the megaphone, while ineffective due to unforseen circumstances, was present and demonstrates intent to allow the villagers to flee.  There are other indications as well.
> 
> 
> The next question is whether or not the Jewish forces encountered resistance.



I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.  One is Irgun/Lehi's intent to terrify the Arabs and make a strong statement in the process.  A massacre is the most effective means of doing so and indeed, it was one of the biggest drivers in pushing the Palestinians to flee their homes elsewhere.

Begin may have rejected the idea, but Irgun, under Begin's leadership, conducted some of it's most viscious attacks against civilian targets where previously, attacks had been more against military and police targets.

From the same article I quoted from before:  

_*Were people warned to leave by loudspeaker?*


Much space has been wasted on a truck, covered pickup or armored car with a loudspeaker, that either did or did not warn villagers about the impending attack. For example, see ZOA study, 1998: The first of the Jewish fighting units to reach Deir Yassin was led by a truck armed with a loudspeaker. An Iraqi-born Jew, who spoke fluent Arabic, called out to the residents to leave via the western exit from Deir Yassin, which the attackers had left clear for that purpose. Soon after entering the town, however, the truck was hit by Arab gunfire and careened into a ditch. 51


*No reference is given in the ZOA study. All other references insist that this truck never got into the village.,51 According to Milstein, “The armored car with the loudspeaker left Givat Shaul a few minutes before 5:00 AM as planned, and by then the battle had already started.”* So it was not leading the first unit in this account. Moreover, according to Milstein, the truck never got into the village at all: Ezra Yachin related, “After we filled in the ditch we continued travelling. We passed two barricades and stopped in front of the third, 30 meters away from the village. One of us called out on the loudspeaker in Arabic, telling the inhabitants to put down their weapons and flee. I don’t know if they heard, and I know these appeals had no effect. We alighted from the armored car and joined the attack” 52


There is no mention of being fired upon as the reason for stopping, as in the ZOA report.


An Arab witness in the BBC/WGBH documentary film on the Israel-Palestinian struggle stated that he heard the loudspeaker. So we must assume that at least some people heard this truck. *However, the fact is that no Arabs were ever allowed to return to Deir Yassin. Warning people to evacuate there homes forever is not a humanitarian gestures, but a psychological warfare scare tactic.*


The whole question is beside the point. It was either a humanitarian gesture that failed, or a device to scare the defenders into leaving. *But if the village was peaceful, and had a pact like Abu Ghosh, it could have been taken peacefully like Abu Ghosh, as the Haganah apparently planned. *The importance of the truck is that Menachem Begin said, in a radio broadcast soon after the event, that the truck was a great humanitarian gesture, and he repeated that that villagers had been warned by the truck in his book “In the Underground,” 53 though *by that time he certainly knew it was not true.*_​
They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.  But given the lack of experience, poor equipment and organizational abilities of the attacking forces, it's amazing only 5 attackers were killed by the villagers.


*Deir Yassin: The Massacre*
_On April 9, 1948, one month before Israel declared itself a nation, a force of about 120 members of Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL) and the Lehi, or Stern Gang attacked Deir Yassin and massacred up to 130 Palestinians, most of them women, children and older people.

The village was not undefended. Villagers killed five attackers and wounded 30 others. As Israeli historian Benny Morris wrote, “Deir Yassin is not remembered as a military operation, but rather for the atrocities committed by the IZL and LHI troops during and immediately after the drawn-out battle: *Whole families were riddled with bullets and grenade fragments and buried when houses were blown up on top of them; men, women and children were mowed down as they emerged from houses; individuals were taken aside and shot. At the end of the battle, groups of old men, women and children were trucked through West Jerusalem’s streets in a kind of ‘victory parade’ and then dumped in (Arab) East Jerusalem*.”_​


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > EXCEPT that --- the US didn't have the excuse of being "state-less" or "new-state" disorganized.
> ...









 Not according to the history books I have read, the first heavy weapons arrived many months after the war started and had to be paid for up front. They came from Czechoslovakia, while the arab league used US weapons from the very beginning.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would."The ma ssacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre
> ...



You sound like a Holocaust Denier.  Same rationalizations.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Yeah, right. Uri Milshtein, quoting Shimon Moneta "Everyone exaggerated. Most of them had never seen so many dead before, and the high figure was convenient for all involved. The dissidents wanted to brag and scare the Arabs. The Hagana and Jewish Agency wanted to smear the dissidents and scare the Arabs. The Arabs wanted to smear the Jews. The British wanted to smear Jewish terrorists. They all latched on to a number invented by Ra’anan. We loaded 30 bodies onto the truck. That was the main group. There were about another 30; all told - about 60 bodies. I reported that to my SHAI operator, who reported to his chiefs.".
Docmauser, the Deir-Yassin denier. Funny.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > There are also several indications that a massacre was not the intent, though, yes, it was suggested.  The idea was vehemently rejected (by Begin, if memory serves).  Thus, the truck with the megaphone, while ineffective due to unforseen circumstances, was present and demonstrates intent to allow the villagers to flee.  There are other indications as well.
> ...



But your basing your opine ;--) that if there was an operation it was intended as a massacre on one single statement made in a questionable op ed piece about "secret documents recently released" that apparently no one can produce. 

Same flawed argument as all the rest. If we do believe in the op ed piece, then there are numerous accounts attesting to the event being nothing more than maybe a typical skirmish. If we do not believe in the op ed piece then the statement you base your argument on is no more believable than the rest of it. 

Either way its* Best we Forget *the propaganda of the past only intended to incite further violence.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Apr 15, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



Funny drivel?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Would you tell the Jews to forget the massacres of their people?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...




Consensus seems to agree that the 240 was inflated but around 130 or so minimum.  Most were women, children, elderly.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Again you are assuming. We know the Holocaust occurred, we don't know this particular event occurred. Actually we are seeing a lot of evidence to suggest it never occurred or was merely a propaganda ploy like much of the rest of the Arab Muslim narrative. 

We also see a lot of extraordinary claims being made on the part of Pallywood and others representing the Arab Muslim narrative which we know isn't just historically inaccurate, but wildly inaccurate.

On the other hand we see an effort on the part of the Israeli's to own up to any misdeeds and put them in the past. Oft times the Israeli's even issue apologies and begins trials before all the evidence is in. The beach bombing for instance. Turned out to be a terrorist land mine. Yet the Israeli's instantly stepped up and said oops.

Long story short the Arab Muslim narrative lost all credibility ages ago. So I find it extremely difficult to offer it the benefit of the doubt when even Arab witnesses are claiming its all one big fat lie.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Please provide corroborating evidence for these figures ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



"In the exchange that followed four [Irgun] men were killed and a dozen were wounded ... by noon time the battle was over and the shooting had ceased. Although there was calm, the village had not yet surrendered. The Irgun and LEHI men came out of hiding and began to `clean' the houses. They shot whoever they saw, women and children included, the commanders did not try to stop the massacre .... I pleaded with the commander to order his men to cease fire, but to no avail. In the meantime, 25 Arabs had been loaded on a truck and driven through Mahne Yehuda and Zichron Yousef (like prisoners in a Roman `March of Triumph'). At the end of the drive, they were taken to the quarry between Deir Yassin and Giv'at Shaul, and murdered in cold blood ... The commanders also declined when asked to take their men and bury the 254 Arab bodies. This unpleasant task was performed by two Gadna units brought to the village from Jerusalem."

Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account

_Copyright 1998 by Dr. Meir Pail and Dr. Ami Isseroff. All rights reserved. May not be reproduced in any form without the express permission of the authors._

Based on an interview conducted October 1, 1998 by Ami Isseroff at the Yad Tabenkin Institute of the United Kibbutz Movement Seminar in Ramat Efal Israel.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



We know this particular event occured.  There are corpses to prove it, and much more  - the statements and apologies of Jewish groups.  You can be doubtful - they were not.  It was an atrocity.  It was admitted as such.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



No.

It's provided in various links I've given throughout the thread.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Based on an interview ? 

What interview ? And why not just post the interview. How many op ed pieces into it is this rendition of the interview ? 

Looking pretty desperate there Monty ole bean.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



It was hyped on all sides for political reasons. If it occurred at all or even remotely of the proportions suggested there would be clear evidence instead of all this about how it never happened or only a few people were involved. 

PS 
What happened to your sources for those numbers you presented ?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Desperate. LOL Projecting again.

Want the whole interview?

"I was born in Jerusalem. My family moved to Holon in 1936 when I was ten years old. I joined the Palmach in 1943 after graduating from high school. In the Palmach, I participated in numerous operations including the bombing of the B’not Ya’akov Bridge (on the ‘night of the bridges’) and in illegal immigration. I was an instructor in various non-commissioned officer training courses of the Palmach. Then I was sent to be instructor in the Haganah officers’ course from December 1946 to April 1947. After that I was deputy commander of a course for reconnaissance officers of the Hagana. I was Haim Bar Lev’s deputy in the big course for _Mem-Kafim_ (squad leaders). In the summer of 1947 I was sent to Jerusalem in the capacity of company commander, to be head of the special operations unit in Jerusalem, consisting of about twenty first class fellows from the Haganah and Palmach and had a rank equivalent to captain. I was under the direct command of Joshua Globerman, representing the Haganah Supreme command. He ran several such units in different parts of the country. This unit was separate from the Jerusalem intelligence service of the Haganah (_Shai_) headed by Yitzhak Levi (“Levitza”) but we cooperated with them. I did not know any of the people in the Jerusalem _Shai_ and it was best that way. I was not under the command of the, Haganah district commanders in Jerusalem (Israel Amir and later David Shaltiel) either. We operated against the British, the Arabs and the dissidents. Our operations against the dissidents consisted of finding out about their planned operations and preventing them. We did not stop them by force, but rather by kidnapping and arresting the commanders designated to carry out the plan for a few days, and releasing them after the date of the planned operation. On November 29, 1947 Globerman called and said that in view of the changed situation, operations against the dissidents were to cease. From then on, we acted against the British and Arabs only. I performed only one minor operation against the dissidents after that. They wanted to take over the campus of the Palestine Works Department. It was just as the British were going to leave. David Shaltiel didn’t know what to do, so I said I would take care of it. We surrounded the place and called out to them with megaphones, and they left. There was no violence. After Globerman was killed, David Cohen was appointed as liaison officer to the Special Operations unit.

Some days before the attack on Deir Yassin it was decided to disband my unit and I was awaiting reassignment. In his book Milstein (Uri Milstein, The War of Independence, Vol. IV) wrote that I was supposed to be in charge of the military police, but that wasn’t true. However, I know that Shaltiel might have entertained the idea. He was a very strange sort of fellow; a German Jew of Sephardi origin, he had been in the French Foreign Legion and had been well educated. Few people in the Palmach got along with him, but I did. We had many chats. One time he said that we should have a state like Plato’s Republic, in which guardsmen played an important part. He said that a fellow like me, a good Palmachnik, would be suitable to be commander of the military police they were setting up in Jerusalem. I said, in Yiddish, “Go on, forget it.”

Deir Yassin was a quiet village, that had a pact with us that had been approved by Yitzhak Navon_, _then Head of the Arab section of the Haganah Jerusalem Intelligence Service and later President of Israel. The people of Deir Yassin had kept to the pact. The Mukhtar’s son had even been killed fighting off an attempt to bring in foreign Arab troops. The Haganah had planned, when the British left, to take over Deir Yassin peacefully as we did in Abu Ghosh, and to build an airstrip between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul. The place was of no strategic value. There was one field track that led into it from Givat Shaul and that was a dead end. I never heard about any shooting at our side coming from Deir Yassin or from foreign Arab soldiers in Deir Yassin in 1948, and there was none that I know of on the night before the attack. I know that Raanan, commander of the Irgun, later said it had strategic value and controlled roads and logistic axes and so on, but that is all nonsense. Deir Yassin did not maintain any observation or fire control over the main road to Jerusalem, or any other route to Motza or Qastel. They didn’t shoot at anything, certainly not at the road, because it was impossible to shoot at the road from Deir Yassin. Deir Yassin is high above sea level, but it, and Givat Shaul, are separated from the main road to Jerusalem by a big ridge where the Givat Shaul cemetery is located now, and you cannot see anything of strategic value from Deir Yassin. Everyone knows where the cemetery is, so it is ridiculous to claim they could fire on the road from Deir Yassin.

I learned about the planned attack on Deir Yassin about April 6, from Moshe Idelstein, an acquaintance who had formerly been in the Palmach and was now in the Lehi. He had been kicked out of the Palmach in disgrace, a very rare occurrence, but that is another story. Idelstein came bragging that they had been given the go-ahead to attack Deir Yassin. We sat down and had a cup of coffee. When he left, I went to Shaltiel’s office in the Jewish Agency building. I was much younger than he was, and I was just a company commander. I said “Is it true that you gave the dissidents permission to attack Deir Yassin?”

He said, “Yes.”

I said “How can you do this? We have a pact with this village, and they have kept it faithfully. No shooting, no foreign soldiers, no aggression of any kind.”

He said he had tried to talk the dissidents out of it. He had offered them  alternatives. He suggested that they raid Ein Kerem, but they refused, saying it was too difficult. He said he told them that if they want to help us, he would give them a base in Lower Motza, and they could attack Qolonia and kick out the inhabitants and even destroy the village, which had been shooting at Motza and the convoys, but they said it was too difficult.

“I will even give you more weapons if you want,” he said to the dissidents.

“No, it is too difficult. Only Deir Yassin.”

Shaltiel continued, “What am I to do? If they start out from Beit Hakerem and Givat Shaul without my permission, should I give an order to our guys to shoot them in the back? I have no choice. They are giving me a fait accompli. If I concentrate my men and try to detain them by force in the city, it will mean civil war, and I have no time for that. We are in the midst of a war against the Arab enemy. So I told them, “You know what, OK. But you aren’t just going to attack and leave. Since we are, with this attack of yours, violating a pact that we made with them, you must stay in the village and hold it. Because if you leave, the Arab gangs will enter, and then we will have trouble.”

Looking back, I think that he was right. I was young and zealous then and thought differently, but there really wasn’t anything the Haganah could do. I did not know that Levitza (Yitzhak Levi, head of the Jerusalem branch of Haganah intelligence) had gone to him also. Perhaps they could have been stopped, but nobody imagined that there would be a massacre there!

Shaltiel did not consult any superiors. He was commander in this sector and had supreme authority for matters such as this. For example, the pact with Deir Yassin was also concluded with local approval only. I had no doubt that he had the right to make this decision on his own. When he finished explaining all this to me, I asked him when they were doing the raid. He said “Friday morning, before dawn.”

I told Shaltiel I wanted to go in with the raid.

Shaaltiel said, in German, “What business is it of yours?”

I said, “Sooner or later the Hebrew state will come into being, and then the Hagana organization will become the Hebrew army, and these ‘dreckes’ (shits) from Etzel and Lehi, will have to decide what to do. Either they join the Hebrew army, or they continue in their secession. In either case, we have to know ‘what is their real military performance,’ do they know how to fight? etc. This is an excellent opportunity. All of Lehi and Etzel, 120 people they say, are going to attack one village. I will join them, I will find out what their plan is in the Shai (Hagana intelligence) and join accordingly, and we shall see how they fight. If they are good fighters, they can join the Hebrew army as a unit; if they prove to be mediocre fighters, they can join as individuals. If they will not join us, we will need to know if it will be easy to disband them or not. It is important to know.”

Sha’altiel said, “You know what, I’m not your commander. Go ahead. Just coordinate it with the Intelligence Service (Shai).”

I went to the Shai. They gave me the plan of attack. They knew, because there were Shai people planted in the Etzel and Lehi. They had a good plan. Nobody even dreamed there would be a massacre there. Only long after, it turned out that Lehi had initiated the idea of the raid. They wanted to do it on Sheikh Jerakh, but Etzel diverted them to Deir Yassin. In the course of the planning discussions, the Lehi people suggested a massacre, but the Etzel people objected.

I took one of my special operations unit people with me. First I sent him to bring a camera from the Shai, with the most sensitive film he could find. So he requisitioned a Leica camera from the Jerusalem Shai, and two rolls of high-speed film. Since they knew him, and knew he was in my group, they gave it to him. I wasn’t in the Shai, but I had good connections with them. We came to Kiriath Moshe by car; I remember it was a Skoda. We started out when it was still dark. The Lehi people went along the field path into Deir Yassin, following the tender _{covered pickup truck}_ with the loudspeaker, and we went along a bit behind them. We were all dressed in khaki civilian clothes. I think I was wearing a ‘_Kova Tembel’_ hat. When the truck got near the village it got stuck in a rut, and the loudspeaker was never used. Anyhow, when there is shooting all around, nobody is going to hear a loudspeaker. There were no vehicles other than that truck and no searchlights. I know that the Arab refugees insisted that there were tanks, but there were no tanks and no armored cars.

Dawn was breaking as we got to the village. I didn’t hear or see any signal given, and I didn’t know the password. It seemed to me that they just ran in and attacked. We hid in some houses. The Irgun and Lehi had some Lee Enfield British rifles, Bren guns, Tommy guns and Sten guns, though some of the Stens didn’t work. They may have had knives too, but I didn’t see any. The villagers had no automatic weapons. We found a hiding place in a small empty house. The Irgun and Lehi people fought in no sort of order. They didn’t know how to cover each other and so on. The fighting went pretty well on the Lehi side, but the Irgun got stuck. They came from the south. They were supposed to set up a Bren gun at a high position where there is now a swimming pool, but for some reason they didn’t.

{On the map, this is marked as blocking unit – A.I.} Anyhow they got stuck. The Arabs had no automatic weapons, just rifles, but for some reason the Irgun failed to advance, which shows what kind of soldiers they were. The western part of the village was not conquered, and we were stuck in the eastern part. It got later and later in the day. I remember it was a beautiful Spring day. I suppose it was around ten o’clock in the morning judging from the Sun, when I heard some light mortar shells fly across the village and hit the house of the Mukhtar in the western part of Deir Yassin. They seemed to be two inch mortar shells. Soon after that I saw Yaki Weg, a young Palmach company commander, driving up the steep northern slope to the western village with about 15-17 guys. He occupied that part of the village in about 15 minutes. After I joined him, he told me that he had been sent with some people from Camp Schneller to deploy his men on the main ridge, where the cemetery is today, commanding the main road to Jerusalem, because there was supposed to be a convoy that day. He said that Moshe Idelstein came to him and said they were attacking Deir Yassin two kilometers south of that ridge, and had run into trouble. He said he had to help Jews in trouble, so he had set up the mortar and assaulted the village with a group of his company.

Not one of Yaki’s men was even scratched. That shows how strong the resistance was in the village. I ran to him and, as I outranked him, I said “Yaki look here, you have your own mission to accomplish, I think you deserve a big thank you, as you helped conquer the village. Now get out of here.” He took the guys, they went to their truck. I asked one thing of him: “Report to Sha’altiel somehow by telephone about what you have done.” And I know that is what he did, though I don’t know where he found a telephone. I happened to know from somewhere that Shaltiel’s people knew he was going to go in to the village, and had told him to limit himself to evacuating wounded. So it could be that he had reported earlier and I didn’t know, but he didn’t evacuate any wounded. Yaki was killed later in his company’s assault on the Latrun police station. Moshe Wachmann was there too; he’s still alive.

Until then there had been just fighting as far as I know. I did not see any houses demolished with explosives. To this very day I am haunted by the mistake I made. I shouldn’t have let Yaki and his men leave, but I didn’t imagine there was going to be a massacre there. If those Palmach guys had stayed, the dissidents wouldn’t have dared to commit a massacre. If we saw that, we would have cocked our guns and told them to stop.

A few minutes after Yaki left, it must have been around 11:00 o’clock, I wasn’t paying attention to the time. Anyhow, after the Palmach guys left, I started hearing shooting in the village. The fighting was over, yet there was the sound of firing of all kinds from different houses. Sporadic firing, not like you would hear when they clear a house. I took my chap with me and went to see what was happening. We went into houses. They were typical Arab houses. Most of the houses there are one-story, though there are a few two story houses like the Mukhtar’s house and a few others. In the corners we saw dead bodies. Almost all the dead were old people, children or women, with a few men here and there. They stood them up in the corners and shot them. In another corner there were some more bodies, in the next house more bodies and so on. They also shot people running from houses, and prisoners. Mostly women and children. Most of the Arab males had run away. It is an odd thing, but when there is danger such as this, the agile ones run away first.

The looting started later. There weren’t any rapes, or any use of knives, daggers pitchforks or other such weapons, and I didn’t see any forcible looting of people or bodies. I did see people walking around with spoils, chickens and household goods and things like that, but that was later.

I couldn’t tell if it was Lehi people or Etzel people doing the killing. They went about with glazed eyes as though entranced with killing. We went from house to house, and took pictures. In all the confusion nobody noticed us or challenged us.

I saw this horror, and I was shocked and angry, because I had never seen such a thing, murdering people after a place had been conquered. Afterwards in the War of Independence it happened in a few other places, but it was the first time in my life I had ever seen such a thing. So I started going around investigating. I didn’t say anything. I did not know their commanders, and I didn’t want to expose myself, because people were going around there, as I wrote in my report, with their eyes rolled about in their sockets. Today I would write that their eyes were glazed over, full of lust for murder. It seemed to be going on everywhere. Eventually it turned out that in the Lehi sector there were more murders, but I didn’t know that then. I didn’t know what to do.

Around noon, I saw that they had gotten together around twenty or twenty five males near the entrance to the village on the field track. A truck came in, and they put them on a truck, and drove off to the city. Meanwhile the massacre continued About three quarters of an hour or an hour later the truck came back. The prisoners were led to a place in the quarries between Deir Yassin and Givat Shaul. We could see this from the village, and I suppose some survivors might have seen it too. We saw them going to the quarry, so my companion and I perched on a vantage point above the quarry and took some pictures down into it. There was a natural wall there, formed by digging out the quarry, along one side. There were a group of dissidents there, Irgun or Lehi, and they stood the prisoners against that wall and shot the lot of them. I didn’t recognize who did the shooting. All the while the massacres were going on in the houses in the village as well.

Meanwhile a crowd of people from Givat Shaul, with _peyot _{earlocks} , most of them religious, came into the village and started yelling ‘_gazlanim_’ ‘_rozchim_’ – (thieves, murderers) “we had an agreement with this village. It was quiet. Why are you murdering them?” They were _Chareidi _(ultra-orthodox)Jews. This is one of the nicest things I can say about _Hareidi_ Jews. These people from Givat Shaul gradually approached and entered the village, and the Lehi and Irgun people had no choice, they had to stop. It was about 2:00 or 3:00 PM. Then the Lehi and Irgun gathered about 250 people, most of them women, children and elderly people in a school house. Later the building became a “Beit Habad” – “Habad House.’ They were debating what to do with them. There was a great deal of yelling. The dissidents were yelling ‘Let’s blow up the schoolhouse with everyone in it’ and the Givat Shaul people were yelling “thieves and murderers – don’t do it” and so on. Finally they put the prisoners from the schoolhouse on four trucks and drove them to the Arab quarter of Jerusalem near the Damascus gate. I left after the fourth truck went out.

It was Friday afternoon. It must have been about 4:00 -5:00 P.M because the religious people had begun leaving to prepare for the Sabbath. It was still light. I didn’t see any other Haganah people. I knew Gihon. I know he was supposed to be there, but I didn’t see him. We walked back to Kiriat Moshe. When I got back to my Skoda, my men from the special operations unit were waiting for me. They were worried, even though both of us were armed with Tommy guns. They went to Kiryat Moshe, looked for my Skoda, which they recognized and waited for me.

We drove to the city. I told may companion, “I am going to write up the report tonight, you go to the Shai and develop negatives only, don’t make any prints, and bring them to me tomorrow because I don’t want the pictures being shown around Jerusalem.”

He said “I finished one roll, and am in the middle of the second one.” So we made up to meet near Shaltiel’s office in the Jewish agency around 8:00 A.M. on _Shabath_, April 10, 1948.

I went home and spent the night writing up the report. At that time I was rooming with a family in Meonot Ovdim Bet in Rehavia. I wrote all night, in one copy. I began the report with a passage from Bialik’s _‘Beir Hahareiga’_ – ‘In the City of Carnage.’ I didn’t remember it word by word, but the family I was staying with had the works of Bialik in four volumes, so I took the volume with the poetry, and I copied ten or twelve lines about what one sees in the City of Carnage, and then I wrote the report. I wrote about the massacre, and described their poor military performance. I wrote that it was not murder in cold blood, but murder in ‘hot blood.’ It was not preplanned according to my knowledge. They didn’t go into the village to commit the massacre, as the Nazis did in Lidice.

There was just the one copy of the report. In the morning I got the films from the fellow who had accompanied me, and I went to Shaltiel and asked him to send the report and films to Yisrael Galilee, who was chief of the Supreme Haganah Headquarters in Tel-Aviv.

I was in Jerusalem until April 13. By Saturday it was all quiet. There was no fighting on Saturday. On Saturday afternoon I found out from the Shai that the dissidents had told David Shaltiel that they were leaving Deir Yassin on Sunday.

I went to David Shaltiel’s office protesting, “Are you going to let them leave? Let me go in with my guys and some troops of yours. I will deploy in the area of Givat Shaul. Nobody of the Etzel and Lehi people will leave alive, unless they decide to remain.”

So he said “Meirkeh, don’t get excited,” and he was right, not I. He got together groups of Gadna youth troops, they were issued Czech rifles, and they went into the village replacing the dissidents. Prof. Yehoshuah Arieli was their commander, and I know two people who were among the Gadna there, Yair Tzaban, later a member of the Knesset and Minister of Absorption, and Eliezer Shmueli, later General Manager of the Education Ministry. Both can testify to what happened. Levitza {Yitzhak Levi, head of the Shai} and I found a rock overlooking the village and watched from a ridge as the dissidents came out of the village. They looked very unimpressive. They were wearing those odd tin helmets that they had gotten from somewhere, though I don’t remember them wearing them going in.

It is hard to estimate how many Arabs were killed. I don’t think I gave a number in my report. Yehoshuah Arieli’s report runs like this: “We saw three groups of bodies, in one there were 70, the second had 20, the third had 20. But when we entered the village the whole village smelled of burned bodies, many bodies were thrown into cisterns.” Not wells, there were no wells I know of in Deir Yassin. I know that the Bir Zeit study estimated about 120 dead by interviewing refugee survivors, and Aref El-Aref wrote that there were 116 I think, but I think there may have been many more. Etzel and Lehi had a press conference on Saturday evening and claimed that there were 254 dead. Now they say that they exaggerated on purpose, but I don’t know when they started prevaricating, in April 1948, or later, when they realized the damage done by their deed.

I know that the next day, or the day after, on Sunday the Red Cross sent De Reynier and the Histadrut doctors came, but I never met those people and I wasn’t there. De Reynier reported about 200 dead. I assume that the true count is in between 200 and 250. Most of the bodies were women and children. There were no Palestinian irregular ‘gangs’ there or people of the ‘Tsva Hatzala’ (Salvation Army of the Arab League). The inhabitants of Deir Yassin had kept their word up to the last minute.

Two weeks later, on my way from Jerusalem to the Negev, I was requested to report verbally to Galili in Tel-Aviv and I gave him a report of the events in Deir Yassin in person. I was transferred to the Negev and sent down there by plane. I was appointed deputy battalion commander of the Palmach 7th battalion and later the operations officer of the Negev brigade. I kept quiet about the Deir-Yassin incident until about 1970. Of the people who knew I was there, Weg had been killed in the attack on Latrun, and David Shaltiel had passed away.

After the war I stayed in the army, mostly in command, combat, training and education duties. I was commander of the central officer’s training school. I was commander of the 51st Golani battalion in the Sinai Campaign and in the 1967 war I was deputy commander of General Tal’s armored group. I was head of the Battle and Strategy department of the IDF and wrote the IDF combat handbook. I finished my army service as a full Colonel in 1971. In the army, and the Palmach too, everyone knew my political opinions; I was known as “The Red Zionist.” I never let my opinions influence my duty, but I was always a leftist. But my opinions were not popular and maybe that is why I was not promoted beyond Colonel. That was why Moshe Dayan and Shimon Peres considered _me persona non grata. _I decided on a political career because it seemed to me that we had to declare openly that the territories conquered in 1967 should be kept as a ‘dowry’ for peace. We must keep them even for a thousand years if necessary, by army occupation only, until our neighbors would make peace, but we mustn’t settle them. Anyone wanting to sign a peace treaty with us would know that they were getting the territories conquered in 1967 in return, so that the Palestinians could establish a state in the West Bank and Gaza strip. This was not a popular view. Yigal Alon, Galili, Peres and others didn’t agree. In 1974 I became a member of the Knesset.

Sometime about 1970, before I was an MK. Begin was a Minister Without Portfolio in Golda’s government. One day there was an article in Ma’ariv. It reported that Begin had returned from abroad, and a reporter had asked him at Lod Airport, how he had dealt with the problem of Deir Yassin while abroad.

Begin said, “What? There is no problem. Why are you raising this question? The Foreign Office has issued a nice pamphlet. It explains it in English and in Hebrew. It was a hard fight from house to house.”

It was all “blah-blah.” I got sore, but I still held my peace. A day or two later, I got a telephone from Shaul Avigur, who had been one of the highest authorities in the Haganah. He told me that he had read what Begin said, and called Prime Minister Golda Meir immediately and asked if they had published a pamphlet on Deir Yassin. She said she didn’t know anything about it. Avigur investigated. It turned out that Begin, as a minister, had gone to the Foreign Office and said they had to write a pamphlet about Deir Yassin. The person he talked to was some minor official, who said, “I don’t know anything about Deir Yassin, you write it.” So Begin wrote it, based on the Etzel archives, and they had it printed up in the name of the Foreign Office. Abba Eban had it stopped, but Herut printed up their own copies. On the outside they had printed “Order of Jabotinsky ” (_“Misdar Jabotinsky”_ in Hebrew), but inside, when you opened it up, it read “State of Israel, Foreign Office.” Shaul sent me a copy of the pamphlet, it was terrible. These guys know how to produce propaganda, it is the only thing they know how to do well.

Later, I got a telephone from the Foreign Office. Collins and Lapierre had written a book called ‘Oh Jerusalem.’ It was pro-Israel, but the chapter on Deir Yassin was very critical. They wanted me to write a rebuttal. They sent me the chapter I had someone translate it for me from the French. I called them and said, “I am sorry to say that most of it is correct, except for two items. It is not true that David Shaltiel gave them arms. Secondly, there were no rapes, or cold-blooded murders with knives or scythes or pitchforks. It was a massacre in ‘warm blood.’”

In 1972, while teaching in Tel-Aviv University, I was giving a course in military history and I related what happened in Deir Yassin as part of it. One of my students who worked as a reporter for Yedioth Achronoth decided that this story should be published, and he went ahead and did it. I told him he should also get testimony from Lehi Commander Yehoshua Zettler and from Irgun Commander Raanan_._He did not dare write everything I said, so I wrote another article for _Yedioth _two weeks later to complete the picture.This provoked several more articles. One of them was by a fellow we called ‘Eliahu the Czech,’ who was operations officer of the Etzioni brigade, who wrote that he got to Deir Yassin on April 10, and filed a report. He wrote an article saying everything I said was correct, and he added details.

During the election campaign for the ninth Knesset, I came to kibbutz Hulda to give a political talk. When I finished, the head of the culture committee of Hulda said they had invited Raanan, ex-commander of the Irgun in Jerusalem, to give a talk on Deir Yassin in a few weeks, and was asked if I would give my evidence in advance. So we got a blackboard, and sketched it out, and I told them what happened. A couple of months later I got a call from Yisrael Galili in Kibbutz Na’an. He said that the person who organized the talks in Hulda had written and said, “We had Meir Pail here, and we had Raanan, and they gave two completely different versions. Raanan said Pail was never there and it was all a lie. Who is right?” I was very embarrassed, because Galili was a very important personality in April 1948. He was the most important figure in the Israeli military hierarchy except Ben-Gurion and had a million things on his mind. How could he remember the report of some semi-junior officer named Meir Pail (in those days Pilevsky)? But Galili said he was answering them, and that he wanted to read me the letter before sending it. He wrote that everything I said was true. That he had gotten the report and the pictures, and that all other sources had verified and supported the report. Moreover, he said that I had been in his office and told the whole story again. I have a copy of this letter from Hulda. They didn’t send it to me, but I asked them about it, and they said they had gotten the letter and put it on the bulletin board, so I asked for a copy and they sent it.

Deir Yassin was an immoral example of a massacre that we must admit to ourselves and atone for and not cover up. The massacre has done, and is still doing, tremendous damage to the Israeli and Zionist cause. Even to this day there are memorial ceremonies for Deir Yassin each year in the Arab world. I was invited once to England, but I never went. I want the whole thing to be forgotten, though the lessons should be learned.

Militarily it was worthless. The Irgun claimed falsely that after Deir Yassin it became easier to conquer villages because the Arabs left out of fear rather than fighting. Begin said that the “turning point of the War of Independence came at Deir Yassin.” I took a ruler and counted all the Arab villages and neighborhoods in a 10 km radius around Deir Yassin. I wanted to determine how those that we had attacked after Deir Yassin had reacted. Some were conquered fairly easily in battle, but none ran away. These were Beit Ixsa, Colonia, and Ein Kerem for example. In other places, such as Beit Mazmil, which is now Kiryath Yovel, Malcha, Zuva and Katamon there was very tenacious fighting. In Nebi Samuel and Beit Tzurik we failed completely. What it means, is that Deir Yassin did not make a big impression, as the Revisionists would have us believe. Begin made this claim because he wanted to show that the Etzel and Lehi had some strategic value in the War of Independence, whereas in fact they had no positive military or political value at all. The only effect of Deir Yassin was negative, because it helped attach a stigma to Jewish behavior. The only way to clear ourselves of this stigma is by permanently pointing the finger of blame at the Deir Yassin massacre."


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...




It's in good form to supply a link to pages of cutting and pasting rather than cutting and pasting pages without a link.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

Oh, but you and your friend Bison never provide links.  Why should I?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> In addition, according to this article, the reason's that Deir Yassin was chosen was not for it's value as a military target but to make a point:



Yes, there are many, many articles which add a narrative to the story.  That was my point, remember?  

So, let's assume they are ALL true.

A particular military commander had a personal grudge against Deir Yassin.  AND

It was a military target.  AND

It was approved by Haganah.  AND

It was an opportunity to showcase Irgun and Lehi with a high visibility target.  AND

It was intended to frighten the Arab populace.  

Do you disagree with any of that?  




> ...stating that has nothing to do with "Jews are evil" but with what was going on at the time with the different militias who each had a slightly different agenda and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause.



Yes.  But see how far you've come down from the original post and the idea of mythologizing the event?  I have absolutely NO problem with people saying that different people, and different groups of people, at various times had different agendas and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause (including, of course, targeting military objectives). That is a balanced viewpoint.  That is just acknowledging the complexity of the situation. 

The issue I have is with the modern day mythologizing of the event which appears, to me, to attach meaning to the event which was not inherent in the actual event, but only in the mythologizing of it.  Such as labeling the event as a "massacre".  The term has a specific meaning, which I do not feel was inherent in the actual events.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


This long cut and paste appears to have come from someone's personal blog. 

When I see these long cut and paste articles with content removed (per the various ellipses), I'm suspicious of fraud on the part of the cut and paster. 

Is that why you did not provide a link?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



What wasn't hyped was the fact that women and children were shot in cold blood.  Remember when I asked Odium if he could look a child in the eye and shoot him?  He said yes.  Odium is no different than these so-called soldiers (paramilitary militias) who did EXACTLY that.  Whether it's 240 or 130 - it's too many and it's inexcusable.

Deir Yassin massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The fighting was over by about 11:00 am. Jacques de Reynier, head of the International Committee of the Red Cross delegation in Palestine, visited Deir Yassin on April 11, 1948, and observed "a total of more than 200 dead, men, women, and children".[39] Mordechai Ranaan, Irgun's district commander in Jerusalem, gave a news conference at Givat Shaul at which he claimed 240 were killed. This story was repeated by the BBC and the Hebrew news services. _The New York Times_, April 13, 1948, reported that 254 Arabs were killed at Deir Yassin.[40] Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University interviewed survivors and published figures in 1988: 107 villagers had died, 11 of them armed, with 12 wounded.[41] An Irgun fighter testified years later that Irgun and Lehi men had killed 80 prisoners after the fighting was over. Gelber writes that the figure is inflated and has not been corroborated. Kan'ana writes that 25 villagers were executed and thrown into the quarry after the battle, which Gelber regards as accurate.[42

Also,  here: Lest we forget...


I think you're yanking my chain...if you are or not - my opinion has seen no evidence to change it.  A massacre occured, such things do in war.  The dominant Jewish groups decried it and apologized for it.  Should the Palestinians forget it?  An event marked by 1) a non-aggression pact that they had held to, according to evidence and 2) the horrible slaughter of the elderly, women and CHILDREN killed in cold blood.  Should it really be brushed under the rug, turned into a non-entity?  Really?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Oh, but you and your friend Bison never provide links.  Why should I?


I think you're angry at being exposed as a fraud. 

Why no link?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.

Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.
> 
> Deir Yassin: Meir Pail’s Eyewitness Account « Israel-Palestina Informatie


And as you know, it does not include the section you previously cut and pasted. 

Fraud! But you know that.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > In addition, according to this article, the reason's that Deir Yassin was chosen was not for it's value as a military target but to make a point:
> ...



OK, I can agree with that bit.



> > ...stating that has nothing to do with "Jews are evil" but with what was going on at the time with the different militias who each had a slightly different agenda and differing degrees of willingness to kill people for their cause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


[/QUOTE]

Shusha, now I am confused.  What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?

Do you dispute that:  
a massacre occurred
elderly people, women and children were killed in cold blood and their corpses stuffed down wells and dumped in quarries and victims were paraded.

That seems pretty well supported by evidence.  

What is not supported by evidence is the modern claims that it is all myth.

IT WAS a massacre - what else could you call it and what evidence do you have to indicate it was anything else?  What rationale is there shooting unarmed civilians - especially children in their homes?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.



Please.  They sent a warning.  They allowed people to flee both before and during the combat.  85% of the populace survived the attack. The evidence against a "massacre" is strong.  

I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks.  They clearly did.  Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause.  But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event.  (Thus, a "massacre").  

And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.  




> They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.



This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre.  Why does it not suggest so to you?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > But you know what. Here is the link to a Dutch peace site, one of the many that have this interview on line.
> ...



It includes all of it.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)




----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.
> ...



Please.

HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.

When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre?  Add to that the fact that Irgun/Lehi wanted to make a statement that frightened the arabs.



> I'm not questioning that Irgun and Lehi didn't commit terrorist attacks.  They clearly did.  Nor do I reject the idea that they were quite willing to kill people in order to further their cause.  But I reject the idea that they intended, generally, to kill the populace of the village of Deir Yassin in this particular event.  (Thus, a "massacre").



Shusha - you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.

I do not reject the idea they intended to kill.  They killed.  THEY KILLED CHILDREN IN COLD BLOOD.  They looked them in the eye and shot them.

I'm sorry but I can't see it any other way and I can't understand the excusing of it.



> And I reject the idea that commemorating the event does anything other than to bury the nuances of the event and the times during which the event occurred and mythologize the event in order to sell a narrative which serves a current purpose -- to infect (as Rocco so articulately put it) the next generations with the idea that Israel (the Jewish people) have no respect for Arab lives. Rather than framing it as one of many battles during the war, in which people, including innocents, tragically, lost their lives.



IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".



> They would have encountered some resistance - after all, the village was being attacked despite a pact of non-aggression.





> This, to me, indicates that it was a combat rather than a massacre.  Why does it not suggest so to you?



Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.
> ...



There were only 400 inhabitants and over 200 were killed by the European Jews.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha, now I am confused.  What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?
> 
> Do you dispute that:
> a massacre occurred



Yes, I DO dispute that a massacre occurred.  A combat occurred that had a heavy loss of life, including innocent civilians. Some of whom were likely killed outside combat and legally and morally wrongly.   

But I reject the idea that is was a "massacre" as that has connotations which are not inherent in the actual events.  Just as I reject labeling the Protective Edge as a "genocide" against the "open air prison".  The narrative MATTERS.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > montelatici said:
> ...


Fraud. 

You know it does not which is why you put on your islamo-dancing shoes and are trying to slither away.

Fraud.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha, now I am confused.  What modern day "mythologizing" is occuring?
> ...



I understand the idea of "collateral damage" - ie the unintended killling of civilians in combat.

Please explain how the deliberate entering of houses and gunning down of unarmed women and children counts as "combat".


----------



## Hollie (Apr 15, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


There are varying reports of the number killed. 

You just make up that nonsense as you go along.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.



The attack was triggered early.  And therefore not according to plan.  The plan was to warn and then attack.  What, are you saying that they set up the whole warning system, knowing that they wouldn't actually be using it?  Please.  



> When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre?



Really?  You expect combat in civilian areas to be clean and neat and tidy?  "Hey, before you go shooting me, could you please remove your women and children?  Could we just do a quick sweep of the house to ensure all the women and children have been removed?"  War is not like that.  Modern warfare in urban areas is especially not like that.  What do you expect to happen in combat?  Really, genuine question.  



> ...you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.



Um.  No.  There is no context when just giving the numbers.  The numbers alone do not measure a "massacre".   First the accepted numbers -- TOTAL -- are 100ish.  Heavy on the "ish".  Clearly, not all of them were civilians as there was some significant resistance to the attack.  At least some of these were combatants.  (I'm not sure anyone has the numbers on how many were combatants.  But if you have them -- show me.)




> IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".



Well, actually those words have been said on this very board.  Since I've been a member.  

But "stuff it and get over it" is NOT what I said.  There is a difference between pogroms/persecution and conflict.  




> Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.



I would agree with you if they just "walked" into houses and shot people.  But they were being shot at as well.  Hence, the "conflict" part.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > HIGHLY debatable - the warning was sent AFTER the attack commenced.
> ...



It was triggered early.  Why?  That certainly rendered any warning system null...

why>



> > When you slaughter women and children IN their homes how is that not a massacre?
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You expect combat in civilian areas to be clean and neat and tidy?  "Hey, before you go shooting me, could you please remove your women and children?  Could we just do a quick sweep of the house to ensure all the women and children have been removed?"  War is not like that.  Modern warfare in urban areas is especially not like that.  What do you expect to happen in combat?  Really, genuine question.



Talk about DEFLECTION.

Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"?  Really now?  Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would.   According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses.  *Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.*

So you just excuse this as ...well...combat?

Come on Shusha - this is stretching.



> > ...you can not say it was not a massacre - a whole sale killing of between 130 - 240 civilians is a massacre.
> 
> 
> 
> Um.  No.  There is no context when just giving the numbers.  The numbers alone do not measure a "massacre".   First the accepted numbers -- TOTAL -- are 100ish.  Heavy on the "ish".  Clearly, not all of them were civilians as there was some significant resistance to the attack.  At least some of these were combatants.  (I'm not sure anyone has the numbers on how many were combatants.  But if you have them -- show me.)



Significant?  No.  Not significant.

According to the sources I have quoted most of the bodies were women, children and elderly.  I can't believe you are excusing this as nothing more than warfare.  Perhaps we should rethink the Palestinian attacks on civilians then.




> > IMO, remembering this is no different than the Jews remembering the massacres their people have suffered over the years but nobody tells them to "stuff it and get over it".
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well then - do you agree with those sentiments?
Sometimes - conflict is pogroms/persecution disguised.




> > Walking into houses and gunning down women and children doesn't qualify as combat in my book.
> 
> 
> 
> I would agree with you if they just "walked" into houses and shot people.  But they were being shot at as well.  Hence, the "conflict" part.


[/QUOTE]

What evidence do you have that those women and children were shooting at them?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

There does not appear to have been a massacre. 

There appears to have been a propaganda campaign on both sides. 

Its an effort to incite 

as such I suggest we *Best Forget*


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Ya.  Their only Palestinians.  Who the hell cares?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"?  Really now?  Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would.   According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses.  *Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.*
> 
> So you just excuse this as ...well...combat?



Really?  The picture you are dealing out is that the Irgun and Lehi were just going from house to house shooting poor innocent children and women hovering in the corners with NO RESISTANCE.  Give me a break.  That's the NARRATIVE intending to portray the events as being something outside the winds of war/combat.  Its an intentional portrayal of the events as the murder of innocents offering no resistance.  

There was resistance.  What the hell do you think that means?!  They were being shot at.  From within the houses.  The response was mostly throwing grenades into the houses as they tried to clear them.  Does it suck?  Yeah.  Big time.  Is it equivalent to Odium's shooting children because they are Jews?!  Not in the slightest.  And its offensive in the extreme that you would equate the two.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Going house to house and shooting women and children inside - in cold blood - is "just war"?  Really now?  Shooting CHILDREN? Looking them in the eye and murdering them - like Odium said he would.   According to account - there were no fighting men in those houses.  *Those children were shot in cold blood and their bodies dumped.*
> ...



I'm wondering what narrative you are trying to portray here.  Are yo usaying there is no possibility they might have just intended a massacre?  Really? How were these children resisting?  Do you suppose the Fogels were resisting when the Palestinians slit their children's throats?



> There was resistance.  What the hell do you think that means?!  They were being shot at.  From within the houses.  The response was mostly throwing grenades into the houses as they tried to clear them.  Does it suck?  Yeah.  Big time.*  Is it equivalent to Odium's shooting children because they are Jews?!  Not in the slightest.  And its offensive in the extreme that you would equate the two*.



These people were not killed by grenades.  They were shot and killed in cold blood.  Someone went into the house and chose to kill them.  The majority of the dead were women, children and elderly.

It's offensive that I would equate it?  What I find offensive in the exteme is that you would justify the killing of children in cold blood simply because they were Palestinians.

What kind of person can point a gun at a child and kill it?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

I call bull shit on the whole herr yassin or whatever its called thing

How about if we remember the Munich massacre 

Not much controversy there. 

Israeli olympic team slaughtered by the animals that are Arab muslims in Israel.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I call bull shit on the whole herr yassin or whatever its called thing
> 
> How about if we remember the Munich massacre
> 
> ...



Right.

So, let's deflect from one massacre to the other in order to marginalize the more unpalatable one.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> It's offensive that I would equate it?  What I find offensive in the exteme is that you would justify the killing of children in cold blood simply because they were Palestinians.



In what way am I justifying the killing of children, let alone simply because they are Palestinian?  Where or when have I EVER said such a thing?!  Or anything close to such a thing?!  

I am the one who is trying to inject some nuance and context into this whole conversation while you, and others, are claiming that some Jewish folk decided it would be cool to murder some innocent Palestinian women and children without cause.  

You are equating ME and my comments with Odious as though they are equivalent.  They are most certainly not.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > I call bull shit on the whole herr yassin or whatever its called thing
> ...



;---)

Wrong

Lets face the reality of Munich and accept that the false Arab Muslim narrative is so easily exposed.

Within your own sources are multiple examples of eye witness accounts that directly refute this nonsense of a massacre ever occurring at herr youdreamitup


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

A massacre of arabs masked by a state of national amnesia

_"They went into the houses and they shot the people inside. They killed everybody they saw, women and children," said Mr Zidain, who lost four of his immediate family, including his father and two brothers, in the attack. Now a frail 84-year-old living in a West Bank village, he says he remembers everything as if it were yesterday. Survivor testimonies are supported by Mr Pa'il, whose detailed eyewitness account was published in 1998. Awaiting reassignment, he went to observe the attack as part of his remit to keep the Irgun and the Stern Gang in check.


After the fighting had wound down, Mr Pa'il described how he heard sporadic firing from the houses, and went to investigate. There he saw that the soldiers had stood the villagers in the corners of their homes and shot them dead. A short while later, he saw a group of around 25 prisoners being led to a quarry between Deir Yassin and neighbouring Givat Shaul. From a higher vantage point, he and a companion were able to see everything and take photographs. "There was a natural wall there, formed by diggingy. They stood the prisoners against that wall and shot the lot of them," he said. Mr Pa'il described how Jews from neighbouring Givat Shaul finally stepped in to stop the slaughter._​


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > It's offensive that I would equate it?  What I find offensive in the exteme is that you would justify the killing of children in cold blood simply because they were Palestinians.
> ...



To me, it seems as if you are justifying it as part of a pitched battle, and by denying it was a massacre. You are denying the Palestinians their history by marginalizing it.  By denying that they intended to kill those women and children or that is was some sort of self defense.  They were beasts!  They were no different than the killers of the Fogels and a thousand other atrocities.  There is no cause for killing children!


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



No false narrative has been exposed.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Really? How were these children resisting?  Do you suppose the Fogels were resisting when the Palestinians slit their children's throats?



How many people in the Fogel house were shooting at the attackers during the time of the assault?  How many?  Oh, wait, none.  How many of the neighbors were shooting at the attackers during the time of the assault.  Oh, wait, none.  There is absolutely NO equivalence here.  And its shocking that you would equate a combat in a war with the massacre (yes, really, a massacre) of a family in their sleep. Its appalling that you would try to draw that equivalence.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Who went into houses ? 

Who reported them as going into houses ? 

Who documented the death toll ? 

Where is this documentation ? 

Why is this documentation so hard to find ?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Really? How were these children resisting?  Do you suppose the Fogels were resisting when the Palestinians slit their children's throats?
> ...



How many people were shooting in the houses where women and children were gunned down?

Yes.  Gunned down.

Children.

Eyewitness accounts stated they went from house to house.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Who went into houses ?
> 
> Who reported them as going into houses ?
> 
> ...



Some of it is sourced in this thread.

There are also papers still classified by the Israeli government, 70 years later...why is this?


----------



## Shusha (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> To me, it seems as if you are justifying it as part of a pitched battle, and by denying it was a massacre. You are denying the Palestinians their history by marginalizing it.  By denying that they intended to kill those women and children or that is was some sort of self defense.  They were beasts!  They were no different than the killers of the Fogels and a thousand other atrocities.  There is no cause for killing children!



I am NOT denying Palestinians their history. They are most welcome to their history.  

What I deny is THEIR narrative about OUR intent and OUR character (beasts, apparently!).  I absolutely deny that WE are no different than the killers of the Fogels.  

And indeed, it is this sort of false equivalency that I most vehemently stand against.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 15, 2016)

The point is, if Jews are killed non-Jews it is a fact.  If non-Jews are killed by Jews it is either justified or a fantasy.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > To me, it seems as if you are justifying it as part of a pitched battle, and by denying it was a massacre. You are denying the Palestinians their history by marginalizing it.  By denying that they intended to kill those women and children or that is was some sort of self defense.  They were beasts!  They were no different than the killers of the Fogels and a thousand other atrocities.  There is no cause for killing children!
> ...



You talk about "we".  The thing is - the "we" - people - vary.  The Jews have their monsters too  - you have your beasts.* You are just as capable of atrocities as I (my people) are, as the Palestinians are - as any human being is.*   Irgun and Lehi were well on the perimeter of what was acceptable. Their behavior at Deir Yassin was so extreme, that hagana issued an apology.* Irgun under Begin was known for an upswing in violence directed at civilian targets*, and was known for this.  When they were known for extremist positions that would tolerate *NO partition or sharing of Palestine*...and you still seem to say there is no possible way their character was less than impeccable.



> And indeed, it is this sort of false equivalency that I most vehemently stand against.



When it comes to gunning down children - looking them in the eye and *shooting them because they are Arabs* and serve as an example to frighten Palestinians into fleeing - there is NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY and that term becomes meaningless when you insist on it.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Actually we have both refuted there being any such thing as an Arab Muslim palestinian or even any palestinians today. Historically all palestinians were Jewish persons. Assofat attempted to retask the term palestinian into meaning Arab Muslims in the late 1960 and only the weak minded and ignorant bought into it. 

I'm feeling pretty safe in saying we also would both refute there being any sufficient evidence to suggest there was a massacre at herr youdreamitup at all. 

The facts would indicate that the entire story was a PR effort for political gain


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Deflection and red herring.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Who went into houses ?
> ...



I call BS 

Secret papers ? 

Really ? 

Recently released ? 

Really ? 

Where ? 

Why are they impossible to find ? 

Whats up with all this evidence that apparently doesn't exist ?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Horse pucky


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



What's up with keeping it classified after 68 years?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 15, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Sheep nuggets.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Classified my ass ;--) 

It doesn't appear to even exist 

where are these alleged papers ? 

where are these secret recently released reports 

I call BS on the whole thing


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 15, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Arab Muslim road apples ;--)

The simple fact of the matter is that one can never trust the Arab Muslim narrative. Its pure fantasy.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 16, 2016)

The "massacre", that never was.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

there was no massacre 

what there was, was a diatribe designed to incite violence 

With no corroborating evidence to support the Arab Muslim narrative. 

Why am I not surprised


----------



## Shusha (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> * You are just as capable of atrocities as I (my people) are, as the Palestinians are - as any human being is.*



I disagree.  The capability for committing atrocities is sourced, not in just being human, but in the ideology of one's culture and what one believes and then the willingness to ACT upon those beliefs. 




> When it comes to gunning down children - looking them in the eye and *shooting them because they are Arabs* and serve as an example to frighten Palestinians into fleeing - there is NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY and that term becomes meaningless when you insist on it.



But AGAIN, in your bold section, you are ascribing intent here to actors of these specific events, and by extension to the Jewish people, that is not actually SOURCED in either the actors nor the Jewish people as a whole.  It is EXACTLY what I accused you of pages ago -- the mythologizing of the event to suit a narrative:   "Jews shoot innocent women and children *because they are Arabs*".  This is EXACTLY why the myth is perpetualized -- to infect the next generation with that thought -- that Jews shoot innocent women and children -- not because the Jews and the Arabs were (are) embroiled in a nasty and sometimes immoral and often complicated war over mutual rights to self-determination and territory -- but that Jews shoot innocent women and children because *they are Arabs*. 

You illustrate it better than I could have ever hoped.  Its not a complicated and nuanced conflict -- Jews just gun down children *because they are Arabs*. 

This is WHY you, and others, see a (false) equivalence between acts of conflict and acts of egregious violence against innocents such as the Fogel family.  Because you project the intent.  You project the idea that conflict and combat is the same thing as killing innocents *because they are Arabs (or Jews).* 

THIS is the myth that needs to be unmade and re-framed.  Warfare, with all its tragedies and entirely unfair collateral damage, is NOT morally equivalent to murdering innocents in the streets or in their own homes. 

There is absolutely a difference between mutual combat and the collateral damage which occurs during (as you already admitted) and walking into someone's house and slicing the throat of a three-month-old baby.  If you can't see that, I honestly don't know what to say to you. 

You seem to have, quite deliberately, passed over the entire context of the resistance, and combat and military action as though it is immaterial to the morality of this or that specific event.  Its not.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Never having seen a Bernie Sanders TV commercial, I can't comment, I'm well aware of how and when Zionist Israel was "formed" from 1919 the Zionists began to organise the infrastructure of a functioning future state; RoccoR is fond of expounding how they had made all the "steps preparatory to independance" by 1948. Zionist Israel was an organised state in waiting for decades. There was little chaos and confusion in 1948, the Hagana was well briefed and the long prepared war plan put into action the moment the state was declared. This was not a "stateless action" as you put it but part of the overall strategy to remove the Muslim Palestinian population so the Zionists could create their demographic majority.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Still got nothing then? No surprise there, just more moves from the Hasbara playbook.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Already been there in post #112. He's just doing his usual soft-shoe-shuffle, duck and dive, routine that he does when he's lost the argument and is clutching at straws.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> ....looking pretty desperate there Monty ole bean.



Nowhere near as desperate as you.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> there was no massacre
> 
> what there was, was a diatribe designed to incite violence
> 
> ...


----------



## Challenger (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> We know the Holocaust occurred,



Did it? these people clearly would disagree with you:

Arthur Butz's Personal Web site
Author: Arthur Butz
http://pubweb.acns.nwu.edu/~abutz/
Web page of Arthur R. Butz. Associate Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Northwestern University, in Evanston, Illinois, USA. This web site includes essays and articles questioning the existence of the Holocaust.

The Zundelsite
Authors: Ernst Zundel and Ingrid Rimland
Home
Ingrid Rimland's The Zundelsite is dedicated to the life and work of famous Canadian Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. Rimland is his wife and webmaster and she promotes her books and his Holocaust denial discourse, which is disguised as a political platform.

IHR (Institute for Historical Review)
Authors: Mark Weber and Greg Raven
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW --
This web site claims to offer scholarly information and thoughtful commentary on a wide range of historical issues, including the "Holocaust," Auschwitz, World War II, Stalin, Hitler. It is known to be the largest anti-Semitic publisher in the world. They also publish a periodical called the Journal of Historical Review which can be accessed from most Academic Libraries.

The Barnes Review
Author: Willis Carto
(no title)
The Barnes Review, a bi-monthly newsletter published by one of the world's biggest anti-Semites attempts to tell the truth from a racist point of view. Carto claims that most of the media is published from a Jewish perspective that is twisted and inaccurate. His journal attempts to bring the whole truth to the public.

CODOH (Committee for the Open Debate on the Holocaust)
Author: Bradley Smith
Codoh.com |                           Welcome
This site claims to promote intellectual freedom with regard to this one historical event, which in turn will promote intellectual freedom toward all historical events (thus all other issues). We have chosen to concentrate on the gas chamber stories and war crimes trials because they are emblematic of the allegedly unique monstrosity of the Germans before and during World War II.

CODOH Newsletter
codoh.org
Author: Bradley Smith
This web site is the newsletter of CODOH

David Irving / Focal Point Publications
Real History!Welcome to David Irving's Website
Focal Point Publications, David Irving's publishing company, strives to campaign for Real History. He publishes a newsletter called the "Action Report" as well as indexes his site into various categories: online eBooks for free download, archived Action Report newsletters, links to Traditional Enemies of Free Speech, The Deborah Lipstadt trial index, and an alphabetical index to all of his web files.

Air Photo Evidence
Author: John C. Ball
http://www.air-photo.com
John Ball's Website claims to illustrate with air photo evidence, that there were no holes in the alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz - Birkenau. He claims that the eye-witnesses have all lied.

VHO
Historical Revisionism by Vrij Historisch Onderzoek
Author: Germane Rudolf/Castle Hill Publishers
This web site's goal is to scientifically investigate historical events, particularly those of the 20th century, without limitations imposed by dogmas or axioms. Its goal is to correct unjust reporting or accounts of events of the 20th century. This web site's goal, like all other Holocaust denial web sites is to further public debate about the subject generally described as the 'Holocaust'

Campaign for Radical Truth in History
Mr. Hoffman's Blog
Author: Michael Hoffmann II
This web site claims to be the preeminent source for truly independent research. This site claims to have "investigative reporting that peers into topics you simply cannot find discussed in today's controlled media." Hoffman's site delves into the mysteries of history and he claims that his organization is at the cutting edge of legitimate, studious conspiracy research.

Adelaide Institute
Australia's Democracy put to the test
Author: Fredrick Toben
This web site is the organization run by Dr. Fredrick Toben. He publishes a newsletter, and various web documents about Holocaust denial. A very small and simple web site with his main arguments on the front page: that the gas chambers did not exist during World War II

Carlos Whitlock Porter
The website of Carlos Whitlock Porter
Author: Carlos Whitlock Porter's personal web site, where he promotes his book "Made in Russia: The Holocaust" and he rants on and on how he hates the world's Jews and he strongly believes in a world Jewish conspiracy theory. He is both humourous and sarcastic and bitter in his site. He coins the term Holoco$t and Holohoax.

Pathfinder Repository


...and if you bother to read through their articles, you will find the same arguments you have posted about the Deir Yassin massacre.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 That is a proven massacre beyond all doubt. This one is unproven and extremely mixed up in its testimony. How can you believe one person account , yet in the same post deny their next comments as lies.  The first supports your POV the second goes against your POV


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...










 And the mass murder of Palestinians in the 1970's by other Palestinians goes unreported by everyone. I wonder why.


 That one was reported to be between 5,000 and 50,000 men, women and children who were caged at the time of their deaths


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > We know the Holocaust occurred,
> ...











 And all you have is holocaust deniers that have been proven wrong time after time. The only people who can have all these at their fingertips are other holocaust deniers and Nazi's and they lose all their credibility as soon as they start linking to the holocaust denial web sites.

 A pity we don't have the same laws as mainland Europe were holocaust denial is a criminal offence, and you cant get a lawyer to defend you in court. If we did your identity would be spread all over the front pages.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 The Jews always apoligise for any event they are accused of, then when the investigation is finished rescind the apology and lay the blame were it is due. This is just what is happening here, they apologise first and then after further investigation they produce the truth.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Hollie said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...








 It is from an islamonazi propaganda source .................. _*Presented by the PEACE Middle East Dialog Group*


* That is why he did not post a link*_


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 A massacre occurred in Hebron in 1929 when more Jews were killed than this one, why is that swept under the carpet ?


 Why is it that atrocities against the Jews are denied, ignored and swept away, but unsubstantiated attacks by the Jews draw much attention and personal attacks ?


The jury is still out on Deir Yasin so until the verdict is in we should not be trying to change history on here.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> When it comes to gunning down children - *looking them in the eye* and *shooting them because they are Arabs* and serve as an example to frighten Palestinians into fleeing - there is NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY and that term becomes meaningless when you insist on it.


Our honorable coyote seems to be an eyewitness to anything anywhere, anytime. A wildly creative imagination, hiding the reality on the ground. Palistanians want, desperately, to get "massacred", or something, to prove they're "massacred", of course.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...




 Yet, you defend Palestinians whose only wish is to murder Jews, acknowledge that if they had their way, Jews would be exterminated, and consider mass murder of Jews to be a heroic action.

  You top that off by stalking those who do not share your ethnic hatred.

 if you are looking for monsters, I hear that Bed Bath and Beyond is having a sale on mirrors.


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Apr 16, 2016)

Pogo said:


> Thanks for this.  Historical context is always appreciated.  You can't study history without a context.  It was only fairly recently I learned of the King David Hotel bombing, which will be 70 years this summer.  History books seem to have a knack for finding something crucial to ignore.




 How cute.  You just learned of the King David Hotel bombing and suddenly you are an expert prattling on about context.

 I learned about the King David Hotel bombing in the 1960s, and the difference between the two of us, besides the enormous difference in the length of time we have been aware of events, is that I learned about history while actually studying history. You learned about it by exposing yourself to internet sites with a vested interest.  That ain't "context", kid, it is the very lack thereof.

 Arabs have spent an absolutely enormous effort in propaganda.  Heck, they were even able to invent a completely new people called "Palestinians" out of whole cloth in order to appeal to the sensibilities of low functioning leftists who react in Pavlovian fashion any time a group is presented to them as a victim class. They have mastered this art so thoroughly that people now take it for granted that Arabs ARE the victims, and this despite the fact that Arabs outnumber Jews by such a considerable margin in population, territory controlled, influence on the world stage and any other conceivable barometer that only an utter idiot would fail to notice.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Challenger said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



Odd, you admitted earlier that the event likely never happened ;--)


----------



## jillian (Apr 16, 2016)

theliq said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



okie dokie. Let me know when Hamas stops killing its *own* people by using them as human shields.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



I defend Palestinians because* they are individuals, like Jews are,* and don't deserve to be lumped into an all encompassing hatred such as yours that takes no prisoners when it comes to Muslims.  Too many people can't see beyond the labels. There are Palestinian peace groups, Palestinians and Jews working together to promote reconciliation, etc.  Not that you would recognize that.

Anyone who could look at an unarmed child and shoot them down like vermin, is not deserving of a free pass or excuse - whether they are Jewish, Palestinian, or anyone else.

Stalking?  You are too funny.  I was, and am, fine with ignoring you until you started following me around and crapping in thread after thread with your off topic personal attacks.  If you can't take it, then don't dish it out.  No one likes a pathetic whiner.  I think your post rates a "funny"


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Which one?



> This one is unproven and extremely mixed up in its testimony. How can you believe one person account , yet in the same post deny their next comments as lies.  The first supports your POV the second goes against your POV



It is most certainly proven.  They would not have issued a formal apology otherwise.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > When it comes to gunning down children - *looking them in the eye* and *shooting them because they are Arabs* and serve as an example to frighten Palestinians into fleeing - there is NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY and that term becomes meaningless when you insist on it.
> ...



There appear to be a lot of "eye witness" here.  I prefer to back up my statements with sources.  Refute them, or move on.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Who swept it under the carpet?

Who is denying it was a massacre?

Who is claiming the jury is still out on Hebron?

Who is trying to revise history?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



That's complete bull.

It is only been recently that revisionist "historians" (basically, one person) has attempted to claim it never happened.  It's right in line with the holocaust deniers.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

....


Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > We know the Holocaust occurred,
> ...



It's the same strategy - delegitimize a well documented event however large or small, add some revisionist history and it can then be used as a means of demonizing a people.  It's even better if you can find a way to blame the victim.

Deir Yassin is certainly no Holocaust, but it was a massacre and it was a pretty horrific massacre that set the stage for modern Israel.  Deir Yassin was the bogeyman that frightened many villagers into fleeing rather than fighting and of course we all know they weren't allowed back.  In that sense, the massacre of Deir Yassin accomplished what Irgun and Lehi wanted - the Palestinians to flee for their lives.

Women and children were shot in cold blood, stuffed down wells, bodies dumped in quarries.  Soldiers went house to house shooting inhabitants.  Villagers were taken prisoner and paraded in the streets of West Jerusalum before being killed.  This was a village that had a peace pact and, according to sources, had not violated it.  The people who did this are animals.  But hey - some animals get a free pass don't they?  Some of these paramilitary groups were considered too extreme by the main Jewish nationalist groups who distanced themselves from them.  One of the issues was over attacking civilians vs sticking to military targets.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



Start a thread on it why don't you?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Why is material related to Deir Yassin STILL classified after 68 years?  Makes one wonder.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...









Wondering is fine but jumping to conclusions or making wild assumptions isn't.

Given the exemplary conduct of the Israeli military and the blatant lies so typical of the Arab Muslim narrative I can't see not giving the benefit of the doubt to the Israeli's until more information is available


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > * You are just as capable of atrocities as I (my people) are, as the Palestinians are - as any human being is.*
> ...



This almost deserves it's own thread - I profoundly disagree.  The fighting that led to the founding of Israel was as much a clash of ideologies as it was of nationalist inspirations.  The Jewish nationalists were comprised of ideological groups that ranged from relatively benign to extreme.  They were also comprised of a number of semi-autonomous para-militaries - in fact, I think there are a lot of parallels to the situation in the Mid East in general where you have failed states and independent militias that represent a spectrum of ideological extremes.

When it comes to ideologies - those at the extremes of that ideology have more in common with the extremes of other ideologies than they do with their more moderate counterpart, and that is independent of culture.  I can think of a lot of examples.  When you are looking at extremes you are looking at people who's cause is so important that they are willing to kill innocent people for it - the ends justifies the means.  Bombs are set in civilian centers - they don't know who they are killing, and they don't care because the cause matters over lives.  In general, Christian culture is - should be - pretty pacifist based on it's religious tenants - but in reality?  Not always.   Lehi and Irgun both held to an ideology that was against any sharing or partition of Palestine.  They were considered pretty extreme by their peers.





> > When it comes to gunning down children - looking them in the eye and *shooting them because they are Arabs* and serve as an example to frighten Palestinians into fleeing - there is NO FALSE EQUIVALENCY and that term becomes meaningless when you insist on it.
> 
> 
> 
> But AGAIN, in your bold section, you are ascribing intent here to actors of these specific events, and by extension to the Jewish people, that is not actually SOURCED in either the actors nor the Jewish people as a whole.  It is EXACTLY what I accused you of pages ago -- the mythologizing of the event to suit a narrative:   "Jews shoot innocent women and children *because they are Arabs*".  This is EXACTLY why the myth is perpetualized -- to infect the next generation with that thought -- that Jews shoot innocent women and children -- not because the Jews and the Arabs were (are) embroiled in a nasty and sometimes immoral and often complicated war over mutual rights to self-determination and territory -- but that Jews shoot innocent women and children because *they are Arabs*.



Isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say *Palestinians kill Jews because they are Jews?*  (in otherwords not because they see Israeli's as their enemy or an occupying force)?  Is that a myth then that is being perpetrated and leading young people to hate the Palestinians - and yes, that is a problem that even some of Israel's politicians have acknowledged after violent incidents)?

In the case of Deir Yassin - why else would they kill children?



> You illustrate it better than I could have ever hoped.  Its not a complicated and nuanced conflict -- Jews just gun down children *because they are Arabs*.



Here is what I don't understand Shusha - it seems, when I read your replies, you call it a "complicated nuanced conflict" when it comes to the actions of the Israeli's - but that seems to disappear when it comes to the actions of the Palestinians.

I agree, it is often complicated and nuanced - but not every individual situation is.  When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, set's off a bomb in a civilian market place....what is it?  When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, goes house to house killing inhabitants, including children...what is it?  What do you call it when they parade captured women and children in West Jeruselum before killing them and dumping their bodies in a quarry?  Why did they kill defenseless children?  *Because they are Arabs and they wanted to send a message to other Arabs that the same thing could happen to them?  *



> This is WHY you, and others, see a (false) equivalence between acts of conflict and acts of egregious violence against innocents such as the Fogel family.  Because you project the intent.  You project the idea that conflict and combat is the same thing as killing innocents *because they are Arabs (or Jews).*



How is the deliberate killing of innocents such as the Fogel family different than the deliberate killing of innocents such as the children in that village?  Killing those children went beyond an "act of conflict" and became an act of "egregious violence" against innocents - *it crossed an important line*.



> THIS is the myth that needs to be unmade and re-framed.  Warfare, with all its tragedies and entirely unfair collateral damage, is NOT morally equivalent to murdering innocents in the streets or in their own homes.



The problem with framing it that way is that for many Palestinians - that conflict has not ended, it is still warfare.  You are effectively legitimizing their actions by saying that in war, there are no lines that can not be crossed - that nothing goes "too far".  I don't agree with that.  There is a reason some actions are considered war crimes.



> There is absolutely a difference between mutual combat and the collateral damage which occurs during (as you already admitted) and walking into someone's house and slicing the throat of a three-month-old baby.  If you can't see that, I honestly don't know what to say to you.



Collateral damage - Israel bombs Gaza, does it's best to prevent civilian casualties in a densely populated area where fighters are mixed with civilians - civilians will end up killed no matter how careful one is.  THAT is collateral damage.

Not  collateral damage - soldiers take a village, despite the fact that that village had a non-aggression pact, and  walk through house by house killing civlians inside - the elderly, women and children.  Taking 25 as prisoners, they paraded them through West Jeruslelum before being taken back, shot and their bodies dumped in a quarry.  THAT is NOT collateral damage.



> You seem to have, quite deliberately, passed over the entire context of the resistance, and combat and military action as though it is immaterial to the morality of this or that specific event.  Its not.



I think that, in this particular event, it is being used to excuse something that is inexcusable.  You can try to understand them, in the context of the times and the conflict that was going on - but once you start excusing them, then where does that road end?

Something similar happened with our soldiers in Iraq - I would have to dig to find it - but the person in charge, ordered his men to shoot down civilians in a village - there was no military need to do so.  He was courtmartialed, tried and found guilty.  Even in war, there are some lines that should not be crossed.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...







 He contradicts himself all the time as he stated that the Zionists were formed in 1875 and had it as their canard to colonise Palestine and ethnically cleanse it of arab muslims. Now he is saying they did this in 1919 a full 2 years after the British gave the undertaking to return the Jews to their homelands.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



We are not talking about the modern Israeli army.  We are talking about the various paramilitaries that made up the Jewish resistance.  Do some research on Lehi and Irgun, look up the list of attacks Irgun made.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Again your making an assumption 

Quote 

Why else would they kill children

End Quote

We don't know that any children were killed.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



I think its fair to say there were extremists on all sides. There always are. 

The difference is that for one group its the norm and for another it represents growing pains. Assuming any of the atrocity stories can be believed. Which I don't put a lot o stock into. Probably just stories. 

Its an interesting situation however as the middle east very well defines how one group progresses through the stages of social development and becomes a very successful bunch while the other appears stagnant in its cultural development. 

One thing you have to give the Israeli's credit for is being about the most adaptable native peoples anywhere. Oh they cling to their tradition but they have developed as a nation spectacularly. 

Meanwhile the colonist Arab nations are falling apart.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



Yes, we do - their bodies were found.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



They did, thats fascinating, where ? by who'm ? when ? in what verifiable document is it reported ? how many ? manor of death ? where are they buried ?


----------



## Pogo (Apr 16, 2016)

Dogmaphobe said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for this.  Historical context is always appreciated.  You can't study history without a context.  It was only fairly recently I learned of the King David Hotel bombing, which will be 70 years this summer.  History books seem to have a knack for finding something crucial to ignore.
> ...



Are you an illiterate?  Number one I said "fairly recently" which could be fifteen minutes ago or fifteen years.  Number two, I also said I'm not qualified to make judgments on it for lack of what I feel is sufficient context.  That's because I need to know it all before I wade in.

And yes I believe in having context before doing that.  If you don't, well go fuck yourself, Dipshit.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> The problem with framing it that way is that for many Palestinians - that conflict has not ended, it is still warfare.  You are effectively legitimizing their actions by saying that in war, there are no lines that can not be crossed - that nothing goes "too far".  I don't agree with that.  There is a reason some actions are considered war crimes.



You misunderstand my meaning.  I am not in any way saying that there is no such thing as a war crime or that in war "anything goes".  Not at all.

I am saying there is a difference between a battle between two groups where each group is firing upon the other and sneaking into someone's house to slit their throats.  

Again, you are ignoring the context of the villager's resistance.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

You see

It looks like we've already forgotten.

It was a right nasty topic anyway ( Harry Potter in case anyone prefers to think I'm English )


----------



## fanger (Apr 16, 2016)

A *holocaust* is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives from the Ancient Greek_holocaustos_ (ὁλόκαυστος from ὅλος "whole" and καυστός "burnt"), which is used solely for one of the major forms of sacrifice.
Holocaust (sacrifice) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Shusha (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Here is what I don't understand Shusha - it seems, when I read your replies, you call it a "complicated nuanced conflict" when it comes to the actions of the Israeli's - but that seems to disappear when it comes to the actions of the Palestinians.
> 
> I agree, it is often complicated and nuanced - but not every individual situation is.



But you are the one reducing this particular combat down to "terrorists went house to house killing old men, women and children" and removing all of the nuances and complications.  That is a false narrative -- a narrative leaving out important facets of the engagement as though they did not exist or are not relevant.

On the other hand, slitting the throats of the Fogel family has no context of battle.  Its pure and simple murder.



> When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, set's off a bomb in a civilian market place....what is it?



Terrorism.  Pure and simple.  A crime to be condemned by anyone with any sense or morality.  I condemn it loudly and clearly, no matter who commits it.



> When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, goes house to house killing inhabitants, including children...what is it?



A false narrative.  Let's reframe it accurately.  When a para-military group, known for its extremism, joins the regular forces in a military operation, with permission and instruction, to attack a valid military objective, gives up the element of surprise by warning the villagers to flee and instructing them as to where to flee to and which road is open and safe, leaves a corridor open to allow that escape, encounters fierce resistance from well-armed and prepared fighters, evacuates civilians from the center of the action hours after the fighting has begun and leads them to safety, then clears the houses of remaining resistance, including women and children who did not flee, then encounters armed fighters dressed as women who attack while being evacuated to safety ... what is it?

At WORST its a military operation which got out of hand and included some violations of humanitarian warfare. Which I condemn. It was not a massacre, in the meaning of a deliberate, intentional, pre-planned murder of innocents.  It was not equivalent to the Fogel family murders.




> What do you call it when they parade captured women and children in West Jeruselum before killing them and dumping their bodies in a quarry?


A lie.  All the women and children evacuated were released to safety.  There were 25 male prisoners shot though.  Which I would condemn.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> ... I defend Palestinians because* they are individuals, ... *


HEBRON, WEST BANK—In an emotionally charged press conference Monday, crazed Palestinian gunman Faisal al Hamad expressed frustration over the stereotyping of his people.
"As a crazed Palestinian gunman, I feel hurt by the negative portrayal of my people in the media," said al Hamad, 31, a Hebron-area terrorist maniac. "None of us should have to live with stereotyping and ignorance." 
He then began screaming and firing into a busload of Israeli schoolchildren.
"It hurts that in this supposedly enlightened day and age, people still make assumptions about other people," al Hamad said. "We should not rely on simple generalizations. Each crazed Palestinian gunman is an individual."


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 16, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

I think we are forced by the arms of law to consider each Arab Muslim on an individual basis. 

My take on the application of the Geneva Conventions would have them each vetted and categorized as a combatant ( legal or not ) POW or noncombatant ( civilian or refugee ) 

POWs can legally be expelled from the entire area of Israel. I believe someone called it Eretz Israel 

IMHO the remainder of the Arab Muslims should be given every opportunity to prove their peaceful intentions by allowing them to stay and begin the normalization process. 

The problem is incitement like what we are discussing here. Blatant lies told and retold as holiday stories 

Its quite truly something we'd best forget. 

If we ever want to move forward and end this ridiculous fight


----------



## montelatici (Apr 16, 2016)

And then these horrid clowns complain about the equally horrid Holocaust deniers.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 16, 2016)

montelatici said:


> And then these horrid clowns complain about the equally horrid Holocaust deniers.



Well you are the most horrid clown of all in that clown car you hang out in. 

The jokes on you. 

When all evidences are considered we have overwhelming PROOF that the holocaust occurred. 

On the other hand this particular false accusation ( some nonsense about a massacre ) is just a string in a long list of false accusations from the Arab Muslim camp. 

But do go on ;--)


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...





Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > The problem with framing it that way is that for many Palestinians - that conflict has not ended, it is still warfare.  You are effectively legitimizing their actions by saying that in war, there are no lines that can not be crossed - that nothing goes "too far".  I don't agree with that.  There is a reason some actions are considered war crimes.
> ...



I'm not seeing much of a *moral *difference - it seems to me that the cold blooded killing of children is inexusable regardless of the context in which it occurs.  It takes a special kind of person to look at a cowering child and shoot it or to smash open the belly of a pregnant woman (as was reported).  The context may differ - but that willful act - does not.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Here is what I don't understand Shusha - it seems, when I read your replies, you call it a "complicated nuanced conflict" when it comes to the actions of the Israeli's - but that seems to disappear when it comes to the actions of the Palestinians.
> ...



Once it came down to making the decision to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants, including children - then the context changes.  It changes from being a battle to being a slaughter of non-combatants.  A massacre.  That is not a false narrative.  The false narrative I'm seeing is the one denying this took place.



> On the other hand, slitting the throats of the Fogel family has no context of battle.  Its pure and simple murder.



Agree - that is not a good comparison.  Maybe a better comparison would be in the Serbian-Bosnian conflict and the attack on Srebrenica and subsequent massacres.



> > When a para-military group, known for it's extremism, set's off a bomb in a civilian market place....what is it?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*A false narrative.* 

Permission and instruction?  Permission was eventually given, with reluctance.

_The commanders of the underground groups came to Shaltiel and asked his approval for the operation. Shaltiel was surprised at their choice and asked, “Why go to Deir Yassin? It is a quiet village. *There is a non-aggression pact between Givat Shaul and the Mukhtar of Deir Yassin. The village is not a security problem in any way. Our problem is in the battle for the Qastel. I suggest you participate in the operations in that area.* I will give you a base in Bayit Vagan, and from there you will take over Ein Kerem, which is providing Arab reinforcements to the Qastel.” The commanders of the underground groups rejected this suggestion as too complicated. Shaltiel said, “I will give you an easier mission. Take Motza as a base and attack Qolonia, where the gangs attacking Motza have their base. You can do whatever you please there.” 34


Eliahu Arbel (‘Nimrod’), who was for a time one of the liaisons between the Haganah and the dissidents, *said that he had met with dissident officers and worked out a plan to attack Malchah with Haganah support. *The plan fell through because the dissidents insisted that the Haganah give them a machine gun and crew to be placed wherever the Irgun wanted and under their command. Arbel also noted that they asked him what he thought about Deir Yassin, and he replied that it was a quiet village, though not from love of the Jews, but rather because of its poor topographic position, and that attacking it was a waste of resources. 35_​The author concludes:
_Clearly, Deir Yassin *was to be taken and held, according to the Hagannah in the same way as the friendly village of Abu Ghosh was made part of Israel, without expelling anyone and without hurting civilians*. In the light of the above warning against demolishing the village with explosives, it is also difficult to understand how Irgun apologists can contend at one and the same time that the action was part of the Haganah plan and sanctioned by Shaltiel, and also that the numerous dead were due to demolition of houses, which was forbidden by Shaltiel._​
Were they warned?  *The truck never reached the village.*  Even if it had reached the village at it's designated time of 5am - the battle *had already started*.

And does it matter?
_
The whole question is beside the point.* It was either a humanitarian gesture that failed, or a device to scare the defenders into leaving. But if the village was peaceful, and had a pact like Abu Ghosh, it could have been taken peacefully like Abu Ghosh, as the Haganah apparently planned.* The importance of the truck is that Menachem Begin said, in a radio broadcast soon after the event, that the truck was a great humanitarian gesture, and he repeated that that villagers had been warned by the truck in his book “In the Underground,” 53 though by that time he certainly knew it was not true._​
Your narrative leaves out important facts - that village could have been taken peacefully, per Haganah, that they represented no thread at the time, that they had signed and not violated a peace pact, and that non-resisting civilians were systematically killed.  It was an utterly unnecessary massacre from start to finish.

Some prisoners were led through Jerusalum and released in the Arab quarter.  A large group of them *were taken back and shot.*  You could make the argument that a man dressed as a woman could lead to the fighters shooting women but that doesn't account for the large number women brutally shot and it certainly can't account for the shooting of children. 

Most of all - that narrative seems to deny that there was a massacre, or at best it marginalizes it.

_There can be no doubt at all that large numbers of civilians were killed unjustifiably at Deir Yassin. Mordehai Gihon, intelligence officer of the Haganah Etzioni Brigade, wrote in his report, submitted April 10 1948:*The murder of falachim and innocent citizens, faithful allies of the western sector, who kept faith despite pressure from the gangs, even during the conquest of Sharfa, {Mt Herzl} may lose us the trust of all those Arabs who hoped to be saved from destruction by agreements with us. 16*_​



> At WORST its a military operation which got out of hand and included some violations of humanitarian warfare. Which I condemn. It was not a massacre, in the meaning of a deliberate, intentional, pre-planned murder of innocents.  It was not equivalent to the Fogel family murders.



"Some" violatoins of humanitarian warfare?  Seriously?  It was a military operation that need not have happened - it was unnecessary and targeted a peaceful village.  During discussions, the killing of civilians was repeatedly brought up and rejected (presumably by Haganah) - however, clearly it was on the minds of some of those forces and they also clearly wanted to make an example for Arabs.  



> > What do you call it when they parade captured women and children in West Jeruselum before killing them and dumping their bodies in a quarry?
> 
> 
> A lie.  *All the women and children evacuated were released to safety.*  There were 25 male prisoners shot though.  Which I would condemn.


[/QUOTE]

Point taken, it was the male prisoners who were taken back and shot. 

Your narrative also ignore's the cold bloodedness of the carnage that was reported afterwards and the fact that information on it is still classified.  It is only recently that there is an attempt to insert a new narrative denying that there was a massacre while what is probably the most important information remains under lock and key.

Meir Pail submitted an independent report, along with his films to David Shaltiel on the morning of April 10, 1948. The report was transmitted to Yisrael Galili, head of the Haganah in Tel-Aviv. It began with a passage from Haim Nahman Bialik’s Poem “In the City of Carnage.” Pail related *that people were stood in the corners of houses and shot. Afterwards he and the photographer entered the house and took pictures.* He related, as noted that about 15-25 men were taken to the quarry, stood up against a natural wall in the quarry and shot, also recorded on film at the IDF archive. 17 *The report and the film are still classified*. Even Yisrael Galili could not get to them in 1978. 18 Yitzhak Levi apparently had a copy in his own file, however.


Uri Milstein, who has tried to minimize the massacre and involve the Haganah, wrote _“*nobody denies: most of the dead in Deir Yassin were old men, women and children, and only a few of them were young men who could be classified as warriors,* even though in the Etzel-Lehi meeting before the battle the suggestion (which was raised) of killing civilians had not been accepted, and even though the attackers called upon the villagers to leave the village at the beginning of the attack.”_ 20
​


----------



## Coyote (Apr 16, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ... I defend Palestinians because* they are individuals, ... *
> ...




I have to admit, that's funny - The Onion is a good satire site.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


This is way states are born. You think it happens like a Bernie Sanders TV Commercial? USUALLY requires have a military organization as a top priority. Don't you know this??​
Indeed, if you are going to ethnically cleanse the local population and steal their land, you are going to need guns.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


There are still questions as to how many Jews died in the holocaust but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > I think the evidence that a massacre was not the intent is weak, for several reasons.
> ...


Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









Problem with your warped thinking is that from 635 C.E. the muslims have been commanded to "KILL THE UNBELIEVERS" so that the word of their god could be made true. And that is that the muslims rule the world and have to take it by force of arms. Don't forget that koran is not written in chronological order, and what is in chapter 1 is not the beginning of the story. If you read the koran you will find that mo'mad was very into the Jews in the beginning but placed the accounts late in the koran. The commands to kill them are placed early in the koran so it confuses the western mind set that expects the beginning to be at the start and not in the middle.


All muslims that follow islam and the koran are by nature extremists that see no wrong is mass murder of innocents if it furthers the spread of islam. The results of polls have been produced on this board and they bear this out.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...










 Have you, and if you have why were they originally formed back in the early 1920's ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 So who killed them is the next question, and it is not past the arab muslims to plant bodies from elsewhere as a means of propaganda. Finding bodies does not prove that the Jews killed them does it ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...









 Correct, and at the same time it is asked how many Jews died in their homeland between 635 C.E. and today at the hands of islamonazi terrorists ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...










 Typical islamonazi propaganda ignoring the truth so you can demonise the Jews. Prove they were civilians and not militia, terrorists, extremists and soldiers ?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


Indeed, if you review muhammedan history, you will find that is true.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 But you have not proven beyond any doubt that the Jews killed children have you. All you have is unsubstantiated individual reports of maybe's and might have dones


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...










 So who stole what land in the context of this thread. Who issued the grant of the land ?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

Oh let me guess, Tinman is blithering on miles off topic again. 

*Best we forget that too *

The simple reality is that this particular non event the Arab Muslims are hyping as some kind of rallying point is just more Arab Muslim hasbara. ;--)


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


For the hundreds of years before the Zionist colonial project nobody contested land ownership.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 SAYS WHO  as the muslims say that they own the land your property is built on because allah told them. Never mind about hundres of years ago we are talking here and now, and the international laws in place dictate that the arab muslims never owned the land for around 1,000 years.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

We have other threads for that nonsense 

This nonsense has something to do with forgetting phony atrocities dreamed up incite violence or fear


----------



## Shusha (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.



When they pick up guns and start shooting at you they are no longer civilians -- they are combatants.  

But this is exactly why I'm arguing about the context of the battles for independence -- it infects generations with narratives like this one.  And pushes peace farther away.


----------



## fanger (Apr 17, 2016)

*Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism*

*The Israeli, and pro-Israeli, media have made a great deal of noise about the recent Palestinian operations in the occupied Gaza Strip whereby eleven Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on armored personnel carriers. With very few exceptions in the Israeli and pro-Israeli media these operations have been deliberately misrepresented as some sort of “terrorist” attacks, a cynical propaganda ploy designed to discredit the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)
These two points — that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors and that this specifically applies to the Palestinian people — has been repeatedly reaffirmed in a myriad of United Nations resolutions. These include UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981), and many others. While these resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law per se, they do reflect the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states, which is the basis of customary international law. So although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in of themselves, when they address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states.

Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism*


----------



## Shusha (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Once it came down to making the decision to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants, including children - then the context changes.  It changes from being a battle to being a slaughter of non-combatants.  A massacre.  That is not a false narrative.  The false narrative I'm seeing is the one denying this took place.



Well, in fact there are no reliable numbers about how many died, let alone how many were women or children and even less the cause of death for each.  Thus, your narrative that "a decision was made to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants in cold blood" is false.  Its a narrative intended to sell and exaggerate the story as an atrocity, rather than to present what we actually know about the event.  

Your narrative paints a picture of women and children and elderly men cowering frightened in their homes while terrorists went from house to house and calmly shot them all.  But that was not the case -- it was an active battle with active shooters that went on for more than six hours.  You don't walk into a house in the middle of an active battle and ask nicely if there are any men with guns there.  That would get you killed.  War just doesn't work that way.  

Now, does this mean I don't believe any atrocities happened?  Of course not.  I think there is evidence of at least some women and children being needlessly killed and even, in some cases, deliberately killed.  I agree with you that, while the operation as a whole was demonstrably not intended as a massacre, indeed had been forbidden to be so, at least some of the attackers did outright murder at least some of those killed.  Which, of course, I condemn.  
​


> Were they warned?  The truck never reached the village.  Even if it had reached the village at it's designated time of 5am - the battle had already started.



But again, context.  The truck was there.  The truck was on the road.  The loudspeaker and the fluent Arabic speaker were on the truck.  The intent was clearly to warn.  (Thus no intent to massacre).  The truck fell into a ditch which had been built by the villagers as fortification against attack.  (Ironic, no?).  

And the battle began before the anticipated time due to accidental discovery by one of the men who guarded the village at night.  Again, the intent was for the loudspeaker to announce the attack and allow the villagers to flee.  (Thus, again, no massacre).  Actually, the intent, at least according to some, was to have the loudspeaker announce that the village was surrounded and that everyone would leave and the village would be taken peacefully.  




> Your narrative leaves out important facts - that village could have been taken peacefully, per Haganah, that they represented no thread at the time, that they had signed and not violated a peace pact, and that non-resisting civilians were systematically killed.  It was an utterly unnecessary massacre from start to finish.



Interesting that you qualified your statement with "non-resisting" and "systematically".  Neither of these things are true. There's the narrative again.

I might agree that the village could have been taken peacefully.  Why wasn't it?  Might it have been because the villagers stockpiled weapons, built fortifications and trained men to shoot?  Again, you leave out important facts in order to sell your "massacre" story.  When, in point of fact, the village was not taken peacefully because *the villagers chose to fight. *

And what makes you think the peace pact between the Arab and Jewish villages would permit EITHER group to use the village as a base?  If the villagers fought off the Arab forces who wanted to use the village in that way, what makes you think they wouldn't have tried to fight of the Jewish forces.  (Which they did).  


And to keep focused on what my point is -- it is not that atrocities did not happen.  They clearly did.  On both sides.  (Like the Hadassah medical convoy attack (also called a massacre) a few days later.)  And they should, of course, be condemned.  But both sides also used this particular event as propaganda and it is difficult to sort out which is which.  

Upselling and memorializing one particular battle in a long (very long) conflict between two peoples as a massacre only serves to entrench (infect) the mentality that the Arabs bear no responsibility toward events and that they are merely victims of oppressors.  That the Arabs are being acted upon instead of being a partner in the conflict.


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...




Guns or "suicide belts" or little missiles or bombs are SECONDARY to Organization and Representation.  What I SEE is a lot responsible (and some not so responsible) Jewish Zionist organizations apologizing or denouncing the action.. Pretty quickly after it happened. 

Whatever the "stateless" or unorganized intend to DO with those armaments and terrorist tools cannot MAR or stain the bigger goal.. And having folks make responsible efforts to DENOUNCE those actions --- is more important than unleashing the militants to just kill and murder. 

Nice to have a GPS coordinate for any leadership that APPROVES of this "stateless" violence. Makes it's easy to fix with a cruise missile or a directed strike...


----------



## fanger (Apr 17, 2016)

31°46'21.59" N 35°12'11.40" E


----------



## Shusha (Apr 17, 2016)

There is a narrative today that the Jewish people/Israel/Zionists are intentionally, deliberately, systematically committing genocide/ethnic cleansing/deliberate murder on the innocent, non-resisting Arab Muslim Palestinians.  Its a lie.  Its a LIBEL. (Personally I also think its a projection).  

Upselling events such as the Deir Yassin "Massacre" corroborates and supports the LIBEL.  It offers "proof" of the LIBEL.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...



This blather has nothing to do with the IP conflict, or what happened in 1948.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> There is a narrative today that the Jewish people/Israel/Zionists are intentionally, deliberately, systematically committing genocide/ethnic cleansing/deliberate murder on the innocent, non-resisting Arab Muslim Palestinians.  Its a lie.  Its a LIBEL. (Personally I also think its a projection).
> 
> Upselling events such as the Deir Yassin "Massacre" corroborates and supports the LIBEL.  It offers "proof" of the LIBEL.



It isn't right to deny or falsify the massacre Deir Yassin in order to put the lid on false narratives.  It did happen.  And the Palestinians have a legitimate right to remember it because it represented a pivotal for both sides in the war.

Deir Yassin is not a lie or a libel.

IMO, from what I read - this would be the narrative.

It occurred during war involving various paramilitaries that were semi-autonomous. 
Deir Yassin was considered a peaceful village and not a threat (per Haganah).
The pressure to attack it came from two of the more extreme paramilitaries - Irgun and Lehi who had a vested interest in making an example of an arab village to terrify the Palestinians into fleeing and possibly economic reasons.
Killing civilians was brought up in discussions several times but voted down.
They encountered resistance when they attacked the village.
 After the resistance ended, they went house to house and killed those hiding within.
The majority of those killed were elderly, women and children.
Of those taken prisoner, some were paraded through Jerusalem and released in the Arab Quarter, others were taken back to the village and shot.
Information pertaining to this event is incomplete because material is still classified.

Is any part of the above a libel or a lie?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

fanger said:


> *Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism*
> 
> *The Israeli, and pro-Israeli, media have made a great deal of noise about the recent Palestinian operations in the occupied Gaza Strip whereby eleven Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on armored personnel carriers. With very few exceptions in the Israeli and pro-Israeli media these operations have been deliberately misrepresented as some sort of “terrorist” attacks, a cynical propaganda ploy designed to discredit the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.
> 
> ...



Finger is just too funny. 

Is the entire Arab Muslim narrative really based of nothing but lies and half truths ? 

Third sentence in and we've already got false claims of Gaza being occupied. 

Quote 

*operations in the occupied Gaza Strip
*
End Quote 

Then we get to this little jewel 

Quote 

*Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.*

End Quote 

A there is no such thing as palestine ergo there are no palestinians B there is no occupation. Gaza in a completely autonomous area fully able to declare statehood anytime it wants to, they're just to busy firing rockets into Israel. 

The travesty of inaccuracies goes on with 

Quote

*legitimate armed resistance
*
End Quote 

Stabbing pregnant woman and firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas are not legitimate resistance under the Geneva Conventions 

And one last example. 

Quote 

*legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;
*
End Quote 

There is no colonial power and there is no foreign subjugation ergo there can be no legitimate armed struggle. The Judaic people are native to the area, the area was divided into Arab and Jewish states and attacking civilians is hardly a legitimate struggle. 

Anyway this is getting boring so yeah. Fingers entire diatribe is based off a lie


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...




It's substantiated.  You have plenty of first person reports (much like some of what substantiated the Holocaust). Those reports came from Jewish sources as well as Palestinian.  What exactly do you expect?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Your reply doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



There's plenty of evidence that they were killed by Irgun and Lehi, not the least of which they did not deny it, but indeed bragged about it.  Are you suggesting that they would have issued an apology if they had not done it?  You're grasping at straws.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.
> ...



IMO, it's events like these that require an honest "truth and reconciliation" effort on both sides to get past. It wasn't just a massacre - it was The Massacre that pushed thousands of Palestinians to flee their homes, and most were not allowed to return.  It's a part of their history.   

What it sounds like you are saying that the Pali's "just need to get over it" and perhaps, eventually they do for the sake of obtaining peace - but denying them their history is not the way to do it.  Should the Jews forget theirs?


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote,  et al,

Yes, this is very true.  And in addressing the issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it serves no useful purpose to attempt to rewrite history.

Both sides have committed atrocities.  The "Deir Yassin event was one of many; just as Kfar Etzion and Haifa Oil Refinery massacre were at the time.

I'm sure that if you read one or two of Benny Morris's books, you can make a quite impressive lists of very bad decisions the Jewish/Israelis made across the decades that paint them as the black horse.  _(I can hardly open a page that I don't read some revelation of a Israeli wrongdoing.)_  Just as you can get a very similar impressive list of Arab Palestinian activities.  My favorite is the Captured Jewish Holy Sites Desecrated in Jerusalem.



Coyote said:


> It isn't right to deny or falsify the massacre Deir Yassin in order to put the lid on false narratives.  It did happen.  And the Palestinians have a legitimate right to remember it because it represented a pivotal for both sides in the war.
> 
> Deir Yassin is not a lie or a libel.


*(COMMENT)*

A positive outcome is only achieved if powered by bold ideas and profound goals and objectives.  Only then can the any of us hope a solution will be found.  If the Palestine Territory wanted to emulate the* post-war development miracle* set by Japan's economic growth, the huge effort in Germany, the Arab Palestinians went about it the wrong way.

They need to try something different.  Like the Germans and Japanese of today have worked past the conflict of seven decades ago, so it is that the Arab Palestinian must break away from the failed patterns of the Arab League and adopt new ideas that would bring them in competition with Israel; NOT conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Oh common now. All of these so called first person reports appear to be from these so called "secret" documents that no one can seem to find. 

So whats next, aliens said it, so its gotta be true


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Once it came down to making the decision to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants, including children - then the context changes.  It changes from being a battle to being a slaughter of non-combatants.  A massacre.  That is not a false narrative.  The false narrative I'm seeing is the one denying this took place.
> ...



There are plenty of witness accounts from both participants, observers and survivors to put together a pretty good guess, generally given at around 130-140.  Included among them are people who took photographs that have not been released publically by the Israeli government.

A decision was made to go house to house.  That is not false - it happened.
People were killed in cold blood - they were unarmed and they included children.  How is that false?
Somewhere, along the line - someone decided to do that. 
When you add in the fact that there were factions among them that brought up killing civilians (but were voted down) - it becomes more compelling that some made that choice.

The story IS an atrocity - how can it be anything but?  Was Hebron an atrocity?  Yes!  Was Safed an atrocity? Yes!  Acknowledging it would be the first step in moving on past it.



> Your narrative paints a picture of women and children and elderly men cowering frightened in their homes while terrorists went from house to house and calmly shot them all.  But that was not the case -- it was an active battle with active shooters that went on for more than six hours.  You don't walk into a house in the middle of an active battle and ask nicely if there are any men with guns there.  That would get you killed.  War just doesn't work that way.



At that point - the resistance was over most of the men had fled.  Why would you go in, pull people out (women, children, elderly) and shoot them?  (as was described).  Why would you ever shoot children? 



> Now, does this mean I don't believe any atrocities happened?  Of course not.  I think there is evidence of at least some women and children being needlessly killed and even, in some cases, deliberately killed.  I agree with you that, while the operation as a whole was demonstrably not intended as a massacre, indeed had been forbidden to be so, at least some of the attackers did outright murder at least some of those killed.  Which, of course, I condemn.



In my opinion, that makes it a massacre - there were those who wanted a massacre, and they got it, did they not?  This was NOT a well trained or well disciplined or even particularly well armed paramilitary - they were inexperienced and unprofessional and referred to as "dissadents".  According to witness' - in many cases, people hiding in the houses were deliberately killed, even pulled out, lined up and shot - not just a few.  And then you have those who were shot after being taken prisoner.  In my opinion - you can't simply bypass slaughtering children, making that choice, once you do...it is a massacre.  I can understand children getting shot accidently in war zones, that's a context I can understand - but I can not find any context that ever makes the deliberate killing of children acceptable.
​


> > Were they warned?  The truck never reached the village.  Even if it had reached the village at it's designated time of 5am - the battle had already started.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ok, I'll grant that the original INTENT wasn't a massacre, but a massacre still occurred.



> > Your narrative leaves out important facts - that village could have been taken peacefully, per Haganah, that they represented no thread at the time, that they had signed and not violated a peace pact, and that non-resisting civilians were systematically killed.  It was an utterly unnecessary massacre from start to finish.
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting that you qualified your statement with "non-resisting" and "systematically".  Neither of these things are true. There's the narrative again.



Are you telling me children were resisting?  How about the people hiding in the houses?  How were they resisting?



> I might agree that the village could have been taken peacefully.  Why wasn't it?  Might it have been because the villagers stockpiled weapons, built fortifications and trained men to shoot?  Again, you leave out important facts in order to sell your "massacre" story.  When, in point of fact, the village was not taken peacefully because *the villagers chose to fight. *



What important facts are you leaving out of your non-massacre story?

According to Wiki:  Irgun and Lehi commanders had believed the residents would flee, but the fighters encountered resistance. *The residents did not realize that the point of the attack was conquest*, thinking it just a raid, and failed to run while they had the chance.

That does not negate the fact it could have been taken peacefully like Abu Ghosh, *without a military attack* -  Abu Ghosh, like Deir Yassim, had remained neutral.  Haganah repeatedly stated that it was unnecessary to attack it, and Deir Yassim HAD a peace pact, it had adhered to and it had turned away or notified Haganah of the presence of foreign fighters. 

Most of the villages Jewish and Arab were at risk of attack from both Arab militias or Jewish militias and had some degree of fortification.   



> And what makes you think the peace pact between the Arab and Jewish villages would permit EITHER group to use the village as a base?  If the villagers fought off the Arab forces who wanted to use the village in that way, what makes you think they wouldn't have tried to fight of the Jewish forces.  (Which they did).



Which is in line with their being neutral - and again, Haganah did not seem to have a problem with that.




> *And to keep focused on what my point is -- it is not that atrocities did not happen.  They clearly did.  On both sides. * (Like the Hadassah medical convoy attack (also called a massacre) a few days later.)  And they should, of course, be condemned.  *But both sides also used this particular event as propaganda and it is difficult to sort out which is which*.



Agree, and when discussing something extremely emotional, which these things are - it's good to remember what the actual points are.



> Upselling and memorializing one particular battle in a long (very long) conflict between two peoples as a massacre only serves to entrench (infect) the mentality that the Arabs bear no responsibility toward events and that they are merely victims of oppressors.  That the Arabs are being acted upon instead of being a partner in the conflict.



This part, I don't agree with.  I think this particular event is a poor example to use to make that particular point.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Coyote,  et al,
> 
> Yes, this is very true.  And in addressing the issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it serves no useful purpose to attempt to rewrite history.
> 
> ...



Totally agree....best post in this thread 

Truth and reconciliation is what is needed, to begin with - and then move on.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died. 

Why only focus on the sensationalistic side ? The worst of the propaganda and incitement ? 

It sounds like its all just propaganda. Where are the graves ?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


The Palestinian civilians were under attack by the Zionist military. If any of them put up a defense it is their right to do so.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Sounds more like the Zionist military was under attack by the Arab Muslim Pallywood writers and producers. One false narrative after another and maybe Pallywood can slander their way out of this.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 17, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died.
> 
> Why only focus on the sensationalistic side ? The worst of the propaganda and incitement ?
> 
> It sounds like its all just propaganda. Where are the graves ?



The sensationalist side call for "240" deaths, most sources seem to say around 130-140.  Multiple witness' cite children killed.

If there had not been a massacre - why would they bother to apologize for it?


----------



## flacaltenn (Apr 17, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



Defense against stateless terrorism IS justified. Stateless terrorists having bombs/weapons and a agenda to pick civilian targets is ALWAYS a problem.. You seemed to be getting a little carried away with the concept that the WEAPONS create new states. The weapons are secondary to establishing a responsible organization(s) and representation that is AVAILABLE to answer for any unjustified violence..

In this case, the attack was condemned and apologized for by a bunch of responsible parties. We shouldn't be here denying it happened. But we also shouldn't be blaming the Israeli Govt for this tragedy..


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 17, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died.
> ...



Why did the Israeli's apologize for the beach bombing when after an investigation it also turned out to be a fraud 

Eye witnesses who refused to go along with the propaganda said that both sides played up the incident as a propaganda tool.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 17, 2016)

flacaltenn said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...


It was part of the Zionist's ethnic cleansing operation. The Palestinians had to leave or be killed.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > flacaltenn said:
> ...



Making things up again, I see. Still got nothing then.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...



Still has nothing.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Boston1 said:
> ...



Frantic attempts to deflect, still got nothing.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> montelatici said:
> 
> 
> > And then these horrid clowns complain about the equally horrid Holocaust deniers.
> ...


Still got nothing.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> fanger said:
> 
> 
> > *Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism*
> ...



Now trying to take the thread off topic, Still got nothing.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

Looks like my little challenged friend is having memory lapses again

Post #131 From Challenged

Quote

I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote

So you admit the claims of mass rape were exaggerations and that they likely didn't happen at Deir Yassin. Exactly as I'd stated earlier.

You then make a baseless claim that mass rape occurred elsewhere.

Sad really when your entire diatribe is based off admitted fantasies and empty accusations ;--)

Oh and if you want eye witnesses, fine, lets check the stories of a couple eye witnesses ;--)

Maybe you missed post #127

Quote
Yes and many of those eye witnesses claim it never happened

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QoWmZ6cW13OqiZlMzOw2ow&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said "_this was our biggest mistake_", because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.


Nusseibeh describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... _'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,_'. He said_, "We must make the most of this.So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities_"


In the video clip Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, told the BBC that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "_There was no rape. But Khalidi said, We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews_."


This false press statement was released to New York Times correspondent, Dana Schmidt leading to an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1948, claiming that a massacre took place at Deir Yassin that was reprinted worldwide and cited even in Israel as proof of Israeli atrocities

End Quote

So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.

PS
Pardon my tardy response. I didn't realize you'd get your panties all in a twist. ;--)


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

fanger said:


> *Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism*
> 
> *The Israeli, and pro-Israeli, media have made a great deal of noise about the recent Palestinian operations in the occupied Gaza Strip whereby eleven Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on armored personnel carriers. With very few exceptions in the Israeli and pro-Israeli media these operations have been deliberately misrepresented as some sort of “terrorist” attacks, a cynical propaganda ploy designed to discredit the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.
> 
> ...








 Just more deflection using islamonazi lying propaganda sources.


 Now again who is stopping the Palestinians from exercising free determination and how are they doing this ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...









 It has everything to do with it as it shows the start of the attacks on the Jews. Many islamic leaders have spelt it out for the infidel to see, and many go around with their fingers in their ears. The Palestinians are no better or worse than the members of daesh, A.Q., hamas, fatah, et al, they are by nature just muslims and all that this entails. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim, they are just muslims as stated by Erdogan.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...










 When one person alone makes a statement that is not substantiated by eyewitness accounts then it is not evidence. With the holocaust 20 people will have said I saw the butcher shoot Eli in the head, that is corroborated testimony. But I forget that you follow the Islamic rule of law that says a muslims word is worth that or a million infidels


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







 It does if you are a native English speaker. Your answer shows that you don't know what the IDF was originally created for, and what they did.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 And the testimony was withdrawn at a later date with the admittance that it was propaganda to have the arab muslims running away. So which statement is the true one by the Jews

that they massacred thousands of arab muslims

that they made up the story

Both told by the same person


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.



That would be you as you seem to be following a different conversation from the rest of us. So from this you concede that the massacre occured, you are just disputing the "mass rape" element?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.
> ...








So are you simply lying again or can point out in my last or for that matter in any of my posts where I "admitted" any massacre occurred ?  ;--) 

Or are you simply off in your own world again. It is you who admitted that no rape occurred when you said 

Quote 

Post #131 From Challenged

I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that *the mass rape claims were exaggerations *in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote 

and my last in case your having any trouble following along ;--) 

Quote 

Looks like my little challenged friend is having memory lapses again

Post #131 From Challenged

Quote

I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote

So you admit the claims of mass rape were exaggerations and that they likely didn't happen at Deir Yassin. Exactly as I'd stated earlier.

You then make a baseless claim that mass rape occurred elsewhere.

Sad really when your entire diatribe is based off admitted fantasies and empty accusations ;--)

Oh and if you want eye witnesses, fine, lets check the stories of a couple eye witnesses ;--)

Maybe you missed post #127

Quote
Yes and many of those eye witnesses claim it never happened

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...QoWmZ6cW13OqiZlMzOw2ow&bvm=bv.119028448,d.amc

Quote

In this interview with the BBC he admits that in 1948 he was instructed by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Deir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state. He made this damming admission in explaining why the Arabs failed in the 1948 war. He said "_this was our biggest mistake_", because Palestinians fled in terror and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.


Nusseibeh describes an encounter at the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem's Old City with Deir Yassin survivors and Palestinian leaders, including Hussein Khalidi... _'I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story,_'. He said_, "We must make the most of this.So we wrote a press release stating that at Deir Yassin children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities_"


In the video clip Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, told the BBC that the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "_There was no rape. But Khalidi said, We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews_."


This false press statement was released to New York Times correspondent, Dana Schmidt leading to an article in the New York Times on April 12, 1948, claiming that a massacre took place at Deir Yassin that was reprinted worldwide and cited even in Israel as proof of Israeli atrocities

End Quote

So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.

PS
Pardon my tardy response. I didn't realize you'd get your panties all in a twist. ;--)

End Quote 

Take your time, your going to need it if you think I've ever bought into the Arab Muslim hasbara ;--)


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2016)

There is only one Hasbara, the Jew one. You should know, having won a fellowship.






Hasbara Fellowships - Homepage


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

What about your hasbara 

You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ? 

You did claim that the Bedouin were native to Israel LOL ? 

You did claim that all Israeli's are from Europe ? 

The list your hasbara is endless. ;--) 

Or is that something else we should forget 

Best forget the hasbara designed to incite by virtue of the Arab Muslim false narrative ole Bean.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So are you simply lying again or can point out in my last or for that matter in any of my posts where I "admitted" any massacre occurred ?...



Oh good grief. Do us both a favour and read my posts carefully, then ask a native english speaker to explain them to you before you come out with this rubbish. I have neither the time nor the inclination to teach you basic English comprehension.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> What about your hasbara
> 
> You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ?
> 
> ...



Standard tactic from the Hasbara playbook, focus on a minutia then try to drive the thread off topic whilst constantly repeating a slogan or sound bite.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > So are you simply lying again or can point out in my last or for that matter in any of my posts where I "admitted" any massacre occurred ?...
> ...








So you are unable to refute the fact you admitted no rapes occurred, yourself claiming it was an exaggeration, exactly as I've claimed all along. And you are incapable of refuting the eye witness accounts which attest to the incident being just another Arab Muslim hasbara propaganda ploy.

So you descend into some rant about my English. Why am I not surprised.

Oh and if you don't like having your hasbara exposed ( and so easily I might add ) maybe you shouldn't be miming the Arab Muslim hasbara in the first place.

The simple fact is that many eye witnesses claim the entire story is a fabrication, just more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) just as you admitted earlier.

Or has your memory slipped so far you need to have that pointed out again as well ?

Post #131 From Challenged

Quote

*I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations* in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote

Although I did get a bang out of that completely unsubstantiated claim that even though stories of mass rape were exaggerations at Dier Yassim or whatever the place was called that you then go on to presume mass rape did occur elsewhere. Maybe you'd care to substantiate that claim there Spiffy. Because so far it just looks like another "exaggeration", something the Arab Muslim hasbara depends heavily on.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> So you are unable to refute the fact you admitted no rapes occurred, yourself claiming it was an exaggeration, exactly as I've claimed all along....



This is called a strawman fallacy. This is proof BoSton1 created strawmen fallacies just so he can knock them down.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

LOL 

OK so you can't lie your way out and can't admit when your wrong so you post a few GIFs and run . Thats perfect. 

Best we Forget this nonsense about phony Arab Muslim hasbara 

Apparently its only defense is a few silly GIFs


----------



## Coyote (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...




It wasn't one person alone.  Each person's word carries equal weight until it's proven false, silly little man.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> What about your hasbara
> 
> You did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ?
> 
> ...


----------



## Coyote (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



My statement:  We are not talking about the modern Israeli army. We are talking about the various paramilitaries that made up the Jewish resistance. Do some research on Lehi and Irgun, look up the list of attacks Irgun made.

Your response: Have you, and if you have why were they originally formed back in the early 1920's ?

What does that have to do with anything - oh wait, I think this is where you chime in with "two wrongs equal a right" or something justifying terrorism on innocent civlians.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



The only testimony withdrawn was inflated numbers used as propoganda.  The other inaccuracies were that one man reported that there was no evidence of mutilations (as some reported) on the bodies (yes there were bodies).  I already posted plenty of links on the massacre, including a very good website from a Jewish source that examined all of the available evidence, compared it for contradictory claims, and analyzed the result - it's the only place where I've seen all the evidence available on one site.

It's also interesting that evidence, including the photos that were taken, remains classified.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 18, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > So you are unable to refute the fact you admitted no rapes occurred, yourself claiming it was an exaggeration, exactly as I've claimed all along....
> ...



Gotta admit - that is an hysterically funny image!


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > What about your hasbara
> ...








 And once again rat boy tries to deflect away from his trouncing by resorting to claims of hasbara, which has been shown to be nothing than a campus group that spreads the truth about Israel and the Jews


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2016)

Y_ou did claim that the Bedouin weren't from Arabia ? _

No, I stated that the Bedouins were indeed from Arabia. 

_You did claim that the Bedouin were native to Israel LOL ? 
_
No, I did not state that the Bedouin were native to Palestine.  The ancestors of the Christian and Muslim Palestinians are native to Palestine.

_You did claim that all Israeli's are from Europe ? _

No, I stated that the more than 90% of the Zionist invaders who established the settler state of Israel in 1948 were from Europe, as proven in all the available documentation.

So, the Hasbara technique, the old lie about the opposition trick, they taught you isn't working.  We have access to the Hasbara manual, and know all of the techniques you are taught.  They are a huge fail by the way.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







Not in law it doesn't, without testimony to back it up the law applies equal to both sides of the argument, meaning that single reports are nullified. When two or more people report on the same matter then it carries twice the weight


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 18, 2016)

Coyote said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








 Did you miss the withdrawal of reports regarding rapes, mutilated children etc as a propaganda tool.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Did you MISS what I wrote?  

_The only testimony withdrawn was inflated numbers used as propoganda. The other inaccuracies were that one man reported that there was* no evidence of mutilations (as some reported) on the bodies (yes there were bodies).* I already posted plenty of links on the massacre, including a very good website from a Jewish source that examined all of the available evidence, compared it for contradictory claims, and analyzed the result - it's the only place where I've seen all the evidence available on one site._​_
Earlier, in the thread, *I already addressed the issue of the rapes* - there were likely some rapes, but not in the number claimed._

Notice, however, that nowhere was there a retraction of children KILLED.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


I am a citizen and a civilian I reject the idea that if I protect home and family I would be classified as a militant who could be killed without consequence.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Oh cheer up. One or another of the various Islamic terrorist franchises can decide to make you a Martyr to suit their agenda, whether you agree or not. 

Man-up and take one for the cause.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 18, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


The IDF was created to defend Israel's colonial project.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


It was primarily the Ottoman invaders / colonists who were nice enough to step aside and allow the legal process for the Jews to establish their homeland. 

It was the Arab-Moslem fascist land grabbers / squatters who created the need for a strong IDF.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2016)

The only land grabbers and squatters are the Jews. But you know that.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 18, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The only land grabbers and squatters are the Jews. But you know that.



In spite of the education you have been given regarding the Ottoman invaders / colonists and later the Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese squatters / land grabbers, you still insist on proclaiming your profound ignorance.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 18, 2016)

You have no education.  You just spout Hasbara propaganda.


----------



## Shusha (Apr 18, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> I am a citizen and a civilian I reject the idea that if I protect home and family I would be classified as a militant who could be killed without consequence.



Wait. Wait.  Does that mean you expect to be able to fight and not have any consequences for fighting -- including be shot back at?

Does that mean you expect to be immune from warfare even if you are a combatant?


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 18, 2016)

I see Monty ole Bean can't seen to muster the respect to stay on subject. 

*Best we forget anyway* ;--) 

It was all just more Arab Muslim hasbara ;--) anyway, no proof at all, just a lot of hearsay and, what was that word Monty invented again ? Oh yeah, hasbara


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I am a citizen and a civilian I reject the idea that if I protect home and family I would be classified as a militant who could be killed without consequence.
> ...


If I shoot at a burglar, how should that change my status as a civilian?


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Standard tactic from the Hasbara playbook, focus on a minutia then try to drive the thread off topic whilst constantly repeating a slogan or sound bite.


The devil's always in the details, that our beloved peddlers of the palistanian shahada, agitprop and other assorted drivel, try to sneak in, of course. Bth., slogans and sounbites are a palistanian occupation, - "massacred", "gassed", "raped", "murdered", etc., the usual palistanian shtick, of course.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> If I shoot at a burglar, how should that change my status as a civilian?


Depends on the jurisdiction, of course. And, with modern activist judges, one may never know fer sur. Bth., palistanians still have no land and no borders.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Here in Colorado, we have this awesome make my day law. 

If that Israeli soldier who shot the terrorist reaching for a bomb did that in his own home here in Colorado. Cop wouldn't even have arrested him, its a one page form and your free to go.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> ... It wasn't one person alone.  Each person's word carries equal weight until it's proven false, silly little man.


Yeah, so, how much weight do palistanians, lying like porn stars, carry?


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The IDF was created to defend Israel's colonial project.


Palistanains were created on the Soviet Union dime, at the SU citizens' expence, to pester "the west", of course. That's why the former have no land and no borders. )


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> LOL
> 
> OK so you can't lie your way out and can't admit when your wrong so you post a few GIFs and run . Thats perfect.
> 
> ...



Still making things up I see, only to be expected from a Zionist Hasbarist when they have nothing to back up their propaganda fantasies.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> I see Monty ole Bean can't seen to muster the respect to stay on subject.
> 
> *Best we forget anyway* ;--)
> 
> It was all just more Arab Muslim hasbara ;--) anyway, no proof at all, just a lot of hearsay and, what was that word Monty invented again ? Oh yeah, hasbara


Still has nothing.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

Boston1 said:


> Here in Colorado, we have this awesome make my day law.
> 
> If that Israeli soldier who shot the terrorist reaching for a bomb did that in his own home here in Colorado. Cop wouldn't even have arrested him, its a one page form and your free to go.



Would also mean that a Palestinian could open fire on any IDF trying to enter his home, with impunity. I like it.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








Firing illegal weapons at your enemies children is not defence, it is a war crime that will result in you being targeted by your enemy under current IHL and the rules of war. Once you overstep the fine line between defence and aggression you become a combatant. That is made very clear by the UN, ICRC, ICC, ICJ and Geneva conventions. If you have a problem take it up with these bodies and tell them you don't want to abide by their rules anymore.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > Here in Colorado, we have this awesome make my day law.
> ...







 Only if they had no reason to do so, just as you would if the police tried to enter your property without the relevant documentation. At the same time you can now open fire on any intruder in your home if your believe your life or the lives of your family are in danger.  But make sure the weapon is legal and that you are licensed to have it in your property


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...







DO explain as Israel was not in existence when the IDF was formed ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> The only land grabbers and squatters are the Jews. But you know that.







 Do explain as the legal sovereign owners of the land invited the Jews to migrate and colonise the land. Not once but twice, two separate legal sovereign land owners invited the Jews to migrate. The second enacted an international law that gave the land to the Jews, so how are they squatters on land that is legally theirs ?


 But you don't want to know that as it destroys your POV


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> You have no education.  You just spout Hasbara propaganda.








 And once again freddy is losing the argument and hence uses hasbara as a get out of jail card. This shows he has no intelligent replies


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > I am a citizen and a civilian I reject the idea that if I protect home and family I would be classified as a militant who could be killed without consequence.
> ...








 NO he wants it wer the rules don't apply to the Jews and they can be shot at by him or anyone else just for being Jews.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 It doesn't, unless you are military, then different rules apply. But firing at the military or police in a war zone of your creation makes you a combatant. ( the Palestinians declared war on Israel remember )


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Boston1 said:
> 
> 
> > LOL
> ...


Yeah, right.


----------



## RoccoR (Apr 19, 2016)

montelatici, et al,

Oh WOW!  You're such a *philistine.*



montelatici said:


> You have no education.  You just spout Hasbara propaganda.


*(COMMENT)*

My advise is that you directed commentary more towards the content and position being presented rather than
directed against toward a person making the presentation.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

Phoenall said:
			
		

> DO explain as Israel was not in existence when the IDF was formed ?



*sigh* Proof, if any more were needed that Phoney’s just here to make noise and run interference. 

Phoney knows nothing about this topic; just rehashes what others have written. Hey Phoney, the Zionist paradise was declared 14th May 1948 and the IDF was created 26th May 1948.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Oh WOW!  You're such a *philistine.*
> 
> ...



PUI?

"My advice is that you direct commentary more towards the content and position being presented rather than toward a person making the presentation." There, fixed it for you. 

Thanks for the definition of "Ad hominem", we get so much of that from the Zionut crowd, though I think we know what it means.


----------



## Coyote (Apr 19, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > ... It wasn't one person alone.  Each person's word carries equal weight until it's proven false, silly little man.
> ...



The same weight as an Israeli's word.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


Firing illegal weapons at your enemies children is not defence, it is a war crime...​
I agree.

Children killed since 2000
Israeli 131
Palestinian 1656

Remember These Children 2000 Memorial


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


It is Israel that puts its war zones in Palestinian neighborhoods.

So you have foreign troops attacking civilians.

How can you call that a war?


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> montelatici, et al,
> 
> Oh WOW!  You're such a *philistine.*
> 
> ...



The word is "advice" not "advise.  

I suggest you offer your advice to your friend Hollie who initiated the personal attacks and was responded to in kind.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



I'm afraid the above speaks to the heart of the conflict. 

Arab-Moslem terrorists and their enablers and supporters presume an entitlement to wage acts of war against a sovereign state without consequences. 

What a shame that Arab-Moslem terrorists use their dead children as islamo-trophies.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Sorry, but israeli doesn't put or establish war zones anywhere. Israeli strikes are directed at threats such as islamic terrorists firing rockets. It's your islamic terrorist heroes who establishment the "war zones". As we know, your Islamic terrorist heroes use civilian areas as places to wage acts of war. How lucky for you that women and children are in the war zones your islamic terrorist heroes create. It provides you the opportunity to use those civilians caught in the crossfire as cheap propaganda.


----------



## montelatici (Apr 19, 2016)

Jew terrorists their enablers and supporters presume that  waging war and oppressing Muslims and Christians through blockades and occupation will not result in a defensive response.

What a shame the Jew terrorists target non-Jewish children in an attempt to quell a people's resistance to Jew aggression.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Jew terrorists their enablers and supporters presume that  waging war and oppressing Muslims and Christians through blockades and occupation will not result in a defensive response.
> 
> What a shame the Jew terrorists target non-Jewish children in an attempt to quell a people's resistance to Jew aggression.


How lucky for you that you have the opportunity to plagiarize my comments. I understand you have difficulty stringing words together to form coherent sentences.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


You are a hoot.

You have Israel's bullshit talking points down pat.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


I had no doubt that you would retreat from any attempt to address my comments.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Coyote said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


How so? As Benni Morris, for instance,  notes "The Palestinian Authority (PA) has emerged as a virtual kingdom of mendacity, where every official, from President Arafat down, spends his days lying to a succession of western journalists. The reporters routinely give the lies credence equal to or greater than what they hear from straight, or far less mendacious, Israeli officials. One day Arafat charges that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) uses uranium-tipped shells against Palestinian civilians. The next day it’s poison gas. Then, for lack of independent corroboration, the charges simply vanish – and the Palestinians go on to the next lie, again garnering headlines in western and Arab newspapers."


----------



## Coyote (Apr 19, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...



Each individual's word is worth the same weight until proven false - then they lose all credibility.  It's not rocket science.

As I recall...Israel flat out lied about using White Phospherous....until finally the evidence forced them to admit it.  Lies...lies...lies...


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


OK, I will respond to your comments.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

docmauser1 said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> > docmauser1 said:
> ...


What can you expect from the Palestinian's foreign appointed leaders?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



It's a simple concept. Why would you expect acts of war waged by Islamic terrorists not to be met with a response?

Why do you presume an entitlement to acts of Islamic terrorism without consequences?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


The Hamas terrorists are not foreign appointed. 

Why would you not expect that islamic terrorists with access to a UN funded welfare program would do anything but behave the way Islamic terrorists behave?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


I don't buy into Israel's terrorist propaganda bullshit.

Next?


----------



## Hollie (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


What bullshit? The Hamas terrorists are not foreign appointed. 

This is a bit of the alternate reality where you spend most of your time.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> It is Israel that puts its war zones in Palestinian neighborhoods.


So, palistanians should stop putting their war zones in their palistanian hoods then, of course.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 19, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Can you post something without the third grade name calling?


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

montelatici said:


> I suggest you offer your advice to your friend Hollie who initiated the personal attacks and was responded to in kind.


So offendable, aren't we?


----------



## Coyote (Apr 19, 2016)

*Take it to the FZ and get back on topic please.*


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...


Oh, that means palistanians are so effin corrupt! Who could've thought?


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Indeed, our honorable P F Tinmore produces its own, of course.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 19, 2016)

Shame about Benny Morris, sold his integrity for tenure.


----------



## docmauser1 (Apr 19, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shame about Benny Morris, sold his integrity for tenure.


It's called "growing up". That's what distinguishes a man from leftist metrosexual males and muslagitpropsters, of course.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...








 Showing that you know absolutely nothing  at all as the IDF like Haganah were created in the 1920's to protect Jews from attack by arab muslims. Try looking it up again rat boy if you don't believe me.




Haganah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



*Haganah* (Hebrew: הַהֲגָנָה, lit. _The Defence_) was a Jewish paramilitary organization in the British Mandate of Palestine (1921–48), *which became the core of the **Israel Defense Forces** (IDF).*


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 And the Palestinian children were killed as a result of illegal weapons being fired at Israel. Then hamas placing them on the front line as human shields and in some cases shooting them themselves.

 Big difference between internationally proscribed illegal weapons and what you view as illegal weapons. Must be your islamonazi dogma taking over again


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 It was the Palestinians that declared war, so they are Palestinian war zones Israel just responds to Palestinian illegal weapons and war crimes.

Prove they are civilians first, as many are militia


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

montelatici said:


> Jew terrorists their enablers and supporters presume that  waging war and oppressing Muslims and Christians through blockades and occupation will not result in a defensive response.
> 
> What a shame the Jew terrorists target non-Jewish children in an attempt to quell a people's resistance to Jew aggression.







 LINK ?


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 No content again because you have noting to add to the mix.

Now about the women and children acting as human shields on the front line again, this makes them combatants under the terms of the Geneva conventions and IHL


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> docmauser1 said:
> 
> 
> > Coyote said:
> ...








And they were appointed by arab muslims who followed them to Palestine


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Then that is your problem isn't it, as it is the same view as most of the civilised world that see your hero's as terrorist scum


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Can you ?


----------



## Mindful (Apr 20, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shame about Benny Morris, sold his integrity for tenure.



Useless comment.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Apr 20, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Correction:

They are called terrorists by the worthless Israeli lackeys in our governments.


----------



## Hollie (Apr 20, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


Actually, no. You obviously missed it but with a little research, you can identify how many Islamic terrorist franchises include "Islam" in the surname for their murderous boys clubs. They actually announce that muhammedan ideology is at the core of their barbarism.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







WRONG AGAIN and stop trying to defend Palestinian islamonazi terrorism.

 THE WORLD SEES THEM AS TERRORISTS BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO ENFORCE THEIR IDEOLOGY, RELIGION AND CULTURE ON EVERYONE ELSE. THEY HAVE WON IN YOUR CASE AND YOU SHOULD BE LOCKED AWAY FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY.


----------



## Boston1 (Apr 21, 2016)

I'm really starting to like Rocco's idea about taking one Arab Muslim town and making it a paradise of cooperation with the Israeli people. 

The caveats are that it be the town with the least terrorist activity, and IMHO it should be cleared of all combatants prior to the cooperation process. 

They get say three strikes and then the Israeli's wall it off and forget it.


----------



## Challenger (Apr 21, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



See what I mean, first he says the IDF was created before the State of Israel was declared, then he changes his stance to "IDF-like Hagana" when I point out his error.  I rest my case, he's just here to make noise and run interference.


----------



## ForeverYoung436 (Apr 21, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



You're talking (or really typing) to a brick wall.  Tinmore is their useful tool.


----------



## Phoenall (Apr 21, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...









 Twisting my words again rat boy, and failing to prove anything You do know that the groups formed in the 1920's were called Israeli defence forces, and were created to protect the Jews from attack by muslim murderers.   I see English is not your strong suit, and you missed the context. My fault I should have punctuated the post better seeing as semi literates would be reading it should have read * as the IDF, like Haganah,*


----------



## Challenger (May 5, 2016)

Only a few days late but May brings us the anniversary of yet another Zionist massacre, this time in the village of Ein al-Zeitun; not as well publicised as Deir Yassin, but another Zionist atrocity worthy of being remembered.

"The attack on Ein al Zeitun was conducted by the 3rd Battalion of the Palmach* under the command of Moshe Kelman, as a preliminary operation to relieve the Arab siege of the Jewish quarter of Safed. Davidka mortar bombs were used for the first time. The village was taken without much difficulty. Most of the villagers fled during the battle, and the remainder, apart from 30-100 men aged 20-40 were forcibly expelled afterwards.

The Palmach soldiers then began to destroy the village. Palmach officer Elad Peled recalled that:

"...at noon, our men began blowing up the village. The intoxication of victory blinded them and they went berserk, breaking and destroying property. The Jews of Safad saw Ein Zeitun blown up and crushed, and were overjoyed." (Morris p. 233, Abbasi p. 14)

According to Palmach soldier Nativa Ben-Yehuda, *the captive men were tied up and thrown into the deep gully between Ein al Zeitun and left for two days. Kelman then decided to "get rid of this problem altogether" but most of his men refused. Finally he found two willing to do it and the prisoners were killed. Two days later, word of the massacre leaked out and it was feared that British or UN investigators would arrive, so some soldiers including Ben-Yehuda were detailed to untie the corpses and bury them."* ‘May Day’ is a ‘Mourn Day’ for Ein al Zeitun Massacre


----------



## RoccoR (May 5, 2016)

Challenge, et al,

Don't forget that in the conflict between the Jewish People and the Arabs of Palestine, neither is lily white, or has clean hands.



Challenger said:


> Only a few days late but May brings us the anniversary of yet another Zionist massacre, this time in the village of Ein al-Zeitun; not as well publicised as Deir Yassin, but another Zionist atrocity worthy of being remembered.
> 
> "The attack on Ein al Zeitun was conducted by the 3rd Battalion of the Palmach* under the command of Moshe Kelman, as a preliminary operation to relieve the Arab siege of the Jewish quarter of Safed. Davidka mortar bombs were used for the first time. The village was taken without much difficulty. Most of the villagers fled during the battle, and the remainder, apart from 30-100 men aged 20-40 were forcibly expelled afterwards.
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

This fascination you have with the past, and the events of almost seven decades ago, merely to incite anger  ----   create an atmosphere that is either designed or likely to provoke violence and encourage a threat to the peace;

Ein al Zeitun massacre May 3, 1948 Instigated by Jewish militants (Palmach) 55 Casualties 37–70 Arab prisoners
--- Versus ---
Jaffa riots May 1–7, 1921 Instigated by Arabs 48 Arabs, 47 Jews killed; 140 Jews.
Kfar Etzion massacre May 13, 1948 Instigated by Arab militants and Arab Legion 127–157 Jews killed​
Dwelling on the acts of anger and violence dredged-up from annals of history for the sole purpose of painting an ugly picture of the Jewish People willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish National Home on the territory which the Ottoman/Turks renounced all rights and title, is unproductive.   But then it typifies the Palestinian in their ability to look backwards for reason to continue the conflict --- and not viewing forward to create an era of peace.

PRINCIPLE VIEW of the PALESTINIAN:


The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations,
before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to
Palestine to enforce partition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.​Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful (May 5, 2016)

Jihad, yes.


----------



## Coyote (May 6, 2016)

*Thread has been cleaned of a massive derailment and is now reopened.  Please discuss the topic - any further derailments will be dealt with on a case by case basis.*


----------



## Challenger (May 12, 2016)

Tomorrow is the anniversary of yet another Zionist atrocity, the village of Abu Shusha, near Ramle. On 13th May

"The village was attacked by the Givati Brigade on May 13–14, 1948 during Operation Barak. A few inhabitants fled but most remained. The Givati troops were immediately replaced by militia men from kibbutz Gezer, who were later replaced by troops from Kiryati Brigade.[16] On May 19, Arab Legion sources claimed that villagers were being killed. On May 21, Arab authorities appealed to the Red Cross to stop "barbaric acts" they said were being committed in Abu Shusha.[17] A Haganah soldier was reported to have twice attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman prisoner.[18] The residents that had remained in the village were expelled, apparently on 21 May.[17]

More recently, research conducted by Birzeit University, mostly on the basis of interviews with former residents, suggests that between 60-70 residents were killed or massacred during the attack.[19] In 1995 a mass grave with 52 skeletons was discovered, but their cause of death is undetermined.[20]

Israeli historian, Aryeh Yitzhaki, explains the events of Abu Shusha as a massacre citing a testimony from the Kheil Mishmar (Guard Units):

"A soldier of Kiryati Brigade captured 10 men and 2 women. All were killed except a young woman who was raped and disposed of. At the dawn of 14 May, units of Giv'ati brigade assaulted Abu Shusha village. Fleeing villagers were shot on sight. Others were killed in the streets or axed to death. Some were lined up against a wall and executed. No men were left; women had to bury the dead."[21]

The Israeli settlement of Ameilim was founded nearby later in 1948, while Pedaya was established in 1951; both on village land.[7] The remains of the village were destroyed in 1965 as part of a government operation to clear the country of abandoned villages, which were regarded by the Israel Land Administration as "a blot on the landscape".[22] 

Abu Shusha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On the same day the previous month there was another such massacre at Nasser Al-Din. A contingent of Lehi and Irgun (perpetrators of Dier Yassin) entered this village dressed as Arab fighters. When the people came out to greet them, the Zionists opened fire, killing 50-60 men women and children. There were 40 survivors who managed to hide or flee the massacre. The Zionists then destroyed all the houses.


----------



## docmauser1 (May 12, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Tomorrow is the anniversary of yet another Zionist atrocity, the village of Abu Shusha, near Ramle. On 13th May "The village was attacked by the Givati Brigade on May 13–14, 1948 during Operation Barak. A few inhabitants fled but most remained. The Givati troops were immediately replaced by militia men from kibbutz Gezer, who were later replaced by troops from Kiryati Brigade.[16] On May 19, Arab Legion sources claimed that villagers were being killed. On May 21, Arab authorities appealed to the Red Cross to stop "barbaric acts" they said were being committed in Abu Shusha.[17] A Haganah soldier was reported to have twice attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman prisoner.[18] The residents that had remained in the village were expelled, apparently on 21 May.[17]
> More recently, research conducted by Birzeit University, mostly on the basis of interviews with former residents, suggests that between 60-70 residents were killed or massacred during the attack.[19] In 1995 a mass grave with 52 skeletons was discovered, but their cause of death is undetermined.[20]
> Israeli historian, Aryeh Yitzhaki, explains the events of Abu Shusha as a massacre citing a testimony from the Kheil Mishmar (Guard Units):
> "A soldier of Kiryati Brigade captured 10 men and 2 women. All were killed except a young woman who was raped and disposed of. At the dawn of 14 May, units of Giv'ati brigade assaulted Abu Shusha village. Fleeing villagers were shot on sight. Others were killed in the streets or axed to death. Some were lined up against a wall and executed. No men were left; women had to bury the dead."[21]
> ...


Reads like the dear yasser "massacre", indeed.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 12, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Challenge, et al,
> 
> Don't forget that in the conflict between the Jewish People and the Arabs of Palestine, neither is lily white, or has clean hands.
> 
> ...


The Arabs of Palestine made a solemn declaration before the United Nations, before God and history, that they will never submit or yield to any power going to Palestine to enforce partition.​
Indeed, they were asserting their rights.


----------



## Phoenall (May 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Tomorrow is the anniversary of yet another Zionist atrocity, the village of Abu Shusha, near Ramle. On 13th May
> 
> "The village was attacked by the Givati Brigade on May 13–14, 1948 during Operation Barak. A few inhabitants fled but most remained. The Givati troops were immediately replaced by militia men from kibbutz Gezer, who were later replaced by troops from Kiryati Brigade.[16] On May 19, Arab Legion sources claimed that villagers were being killed. On May 21, Arab authorities appealed to the Red Cross to stop "barbaric acts" they said were being committed in Abu Shusha.[17] A Haganah soldier was reported to have twice attempted to rape a 20-year-old woman prisoner.[18] The residents that had remained in the village were expelled, apparently on 21 May.[17]
> 
> ...










 OLD NEWS   How about more up to date massacres like the ethnic cleansing of Christians by Palestinians over the last 7 years ?


----------



## Phoenall (May 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Challenge, et al,
> ...







 What rights are those then ?


----------



## Challenger (May 13, 2016)

In the interests of fairness and as RoccoR mentioned it today is the anniversary of Zionist Israel's "Alamo"

"The *Kfar Etzion massacre* refers to a massacre of Jews that took place after a two-day battle in which Jewish Kibbutz residents and Haganah militia defended Kfar Etzion from a combined force of the Arab Legion and local Arab men on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Of the 129 Haganah fighters and Jewish kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were murdered on surrendering.[1] Controversy surrounds the responsibility and role of the Arab Legion in the killing of those who surrendered. The official Israeli version maintains that the kibbutz residents and Haganah soldiers were massacred by local Arabs and the Arab Legion of the Jordanian Army as they were surrendering."  Kfar Etzion massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## RoccoR (May 13, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here.  OR!  Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.

Let's consider:
*International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights*

Adopted and opened for signature, ratification and accession by General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI) of 16 December 1966
entry into force 23 March 1976, in accordance with Article 49​
_*Article 3*_

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.

_*Article 4*_

1 . In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed, the States Parties to the present Covenant may take measures derogating from their obligations under the present Covenant to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with their other obligations under international law and do not involve discrimination solely on the ground of race, colour, sex, language, religion or social origin.

2. No derogation from articles 6, 7, 8 (paragraphs I and 2), 11, 15, 16 and 18 may be made under this provision.

3. Any State Party to the present Covenant availing itself of the right of derogation shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the present Covenant, through the intermediary of the Secretary-General of the United Nations, of the provisions from which it has derogated and of the reasons by which it was actuated. A further communication shall be made, through the same intermediary, on the date on which it terminates such derogation.

_*Article 5*_

1. Nothing in the present Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the present Covenant.

2. There shall be no restriction upon or derogation from any of the fundamental human rights recognized or existing in any State Party to the present Covenant pursuant to law, conventions, regulations or custom on the pretext that the present Covenant does not recognize such rights or that it recognizes them to a lesser extent.​
CHAPTER I
*Charter of the United Nations*
PURPOSES AND PRINCIPLES
_*Article 2*_​
4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.​


P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

OK, you will have to be a bit more specific here...

•  What is the specific "right" that you claim is being asserted?  The right to do what (Exactly)?​Is it your position that the Arab Palestinian has the "right" to threaten and use force?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## docmauser1 (May 13, 2016)

Challenger said:


> In the interests of fairness and as RoccoR mentioned it today is the anniversary of Zionist Israel's "Alamo"


Alligator tears much?


Challenger said:


> "The *Kfar Etzion massacre* refers to a massacre of Jews that took place after a two-day battle in which Jewish Kibbutz residents and Haganah militia defended Kfar Etzion from a combined force of the Arab Legion and local Arab men on May 13, 1948, the day before the Israeli Declaration of Independence. Of the 129 Haganah fighters and Jewish kibbutzniks who died during the defence of the settlement, Martin Gilbert states that fifteen were murdered on surrendering.[1] Controversy surrounds the responsibility and role of the Arab Legion in the killing of those who surrendered. The official Israeli version maintains that the kibbutz residents and Haganah soldiers were massacred by local Arabs and the Arab Legion of the Jordanian Army as they were surrendering."  Kfar Etzion massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Well, I'm not sure that you have the correct interpretation here.  OR!  Was it an unsuccessful attempt to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms recognized.
> 
> ...


They were asserting their right to territorial integrity.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 When did that become a right then, and when did it mean they could steal another nations lands because their God told them to


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 14, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...






 So no actual right outside of it being a recommendation, and you cant find when it was granted as a recommended right. Isn't this the story of your every post. You base your belief of recommendations, might be's, could haves and false premise.


By the way there is no right to steal another nations territory because you believe that it is yours under some obscure verse in the koran and hadiths. The first thing the Palestinians need to do is keep their promise to the world and negotiate peace and mutual borders, and for idiots to keep saying they have borders because the LoN mandate says that the mandate of Palestine has borders.


----------



## Phoenall (May 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 And the actual meaning of territorial integrity is


*Territorial integrity* is the principle under international law that nation-states should not attempt to promote secessionist movements or to promote border changes in other nation-states. Conversely it states that imposition by force of a border change is an act of aggression.


So the Palestinians have lost before they start as they will be in breach of international law if they try to take and of Israel's land.   Remember the laws work for both parties and not just for the arab muslims


----------



## RoccoR (May 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

In Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished the title and rights to the Allied Powers; including those rights necessary to set the conditions for the future within the Region.
*ARTICLE 16 •* *SECTION I -- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • **Part I -- Treaty of Lausanne*​
Turkey hereby renounces all rights and title whatsoever over or respecting the territories situated outside the frontiers laid down in the present Treaty and the islands other than those over which her sovereignty is recognised by the said Treaty, the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned.​


P F Tinmore said:


> UN resolutions affirm the Palestinians right to territorial integrity and it is always presented as an already existing right. They never specified when that right was acquired so I believe that it came with the territory.


*(QUESTION)*

The Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic hereby renounced all rights and title whatsoever over the territories to the Allied Powers.  How did the Arab Palestinian acquire territorial integrity over the territory from the Mediterranean to the frontier of Persia, _(Article 3 Territory: AKA Syria)_?  

*Territorial Integrity*
The _Encyclopedia Princetoniensis • _The Princeton Encyclopedia of Self-Determination
*Introduction / Definition: *
“The principle of territorial integrity is an important part of the international legal order and is enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, in particular in Article 2, paragraph 4” _(the prohibition of the use of force)_, as well as in other important texts, including those on self-determination. The concept includes the inviolability of the territory of the State, including territory under the effective control and possession of a State. The International Court has held that “the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between States.”

*(COMMENT)*

It has only been in, in the last century or so, that the principle has been given structure.  In order to practically apply the "Right of Territorial Integrity," there must be territory under the independence and sovereignty of the claimant (the Arab Palestinian).  Your assumption that it "came with the territory" is not necessarily true.  The exercise of territorial integrity pre-supposes that there is an "Act of Aggression" *(UN A/RES/3314 - Definition of Aggression 1974)* (non-binding) that threatens the territory.  Having said that, the consideration of a "crime" is really only a late 20th Century/early 21st Century concept.  It has only been six years, since the *International Criminal Court and the Rome Statute: 2010 Review Conference*,  that the topic of the Article 8 bis 3 Crime of aggression was seriously dealt with; and included:

• an overview of different states’ and other stakeholders’ positions on the Court’s aggression jurisdiction;

• a discussion of the proposed and adopted definition of the crime of aggression and the issues surrounding such definition; and

• a discussion of the provisions that set out the Court’s jurisdiction over aggression, including the provisions as proposed, the main issues of contention for the Review Conference, and the jurisdictional provisions as they were ultimately adopted by the Conference.​
BUT, there has not been an impact realistic adverse consequence on the application in the "use of force" or the "criminal remedies" in the case of harm.  Again, as stated before the Russian takeover of the Crimea --- and the annexation of the occupied territory away from the Ukraine.   

There was absolutely no carve-out in the Treaty for any independence and sovereignty to the Arab constituency within the Region; nor any boundary outlining a specific territory for the Arabs, on which to base the claim for territorial integrity of a independent sovereignty.  Not once is the territory of "Palestine" even mentioned in the Treaty.

Remember, the issue of "territorial integrity" is not simply a matter of the claimant making the claim that it was their territory before, and the Jews came in and took it away.  It is several questions which when asked, establish the validity of the claim.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Mindful (May 14, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> In Article 16 of the Treaty of Lausanne, the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic, relinquished the title and rights to the Allied Powers; including those rights necessary to set the conditions for the future within the Region.
> *ARTICLE 16 •* *SECTION I -- TERRITORIAL CLAUSES • **Part I -- Treaty of Lausanne*​
> ...



*PLO leader: There is no Palestinian nation; it is an invention to destroy Israel!*

*PLO leader: There is no Palestinian nation; it is an invention to destroy Israel! :: Reader comments at Daniel Pipes*


----------



## Mindful (May 14, 2016)

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a
Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle
against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality
today there is no difference between Jordanians,
Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and
tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of
a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand
that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian
people' to oppose Zionism.

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state
with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa.
While as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa,
Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we
reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even
a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

(PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein, in a 1977 Interview with the Dutch newspaper, Le Trouw.)


----------



## docmauser1 (May 14, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


What "territorial integrity" stateless arabs have been babbling about?


----------



## Coyote (May 14, 2016)

*Folks - we are once again in danger of drifting away from the OP - how does territorial integrity, there is no Palestine, etc relate to the massacre or, other massacres that have occurred on either side in conjunction with this never-ending conflict?*


----------



## Challenger (May 15, 2016)

Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.


----------



## Phoenall (May 15, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.








 What about the massacre of the Jews in Hebron then, or are all those atrocities acceptable in your eyes?


----------



## Challenger (May 23, 2016)

On the night of 22-23 May 1948, a week after the declaration of the State of Israel, the Palestinian coastal village of Tantura (population 1,500) was attacked and occupied by units of the Israeli army's Alexandroni Brigade. The village, south of Haifa, lay within the area assigned to the Jewish state by the UN General Assembly's partition resolution. In its occupation, depopulation, subsequent destruction, and seizure of all its lands by Israel, the fate of Tantura was similar to that of more than 400 other Palestinian villages during the 1948 war. But it also shared with some two score of these villages the additional agony of a large-scale massacre of its inhabitants. 

Word of the Tantura massacre was completely overshadowed at the time by the fighting between Israel and the regular armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, which had entered the country after the state had been proclaimed. 

Allegedly, between 20-30 fighters were killed during the attack, a further 100 killed after the surrender, and the following day a further 100 people were murdered in cold blood by Zionist intelligence operatives supported by locals from the nearby Zionist settlements of Atlit, Binyamina, and Maayan Zvi.

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository...1/15238/Tantura Case in Israel.pdf?sequence=2


----------



## Hollie (May 23, 2016)

In the last week, my country, Israel, including our capital, the Holy City of Jerusalem, have come under an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terror. 

A week ago, Eitam and Na’ama Henkin were brutally executed by Palestinian terrorists point-blank in their car. Their four children, Matan, 9, Nitzan, 7, Neta, 4, and Itamar, 9 months old, who are now orphaned, were still in the back seat and miraculously unharmed. Their lives are now irreparably altered. 

Days later, two more Israelis were stabbed to death in Jerusalem. One of the men killed was holding his two year old child at the time. More lives and families torn apart. 

Two weeks ago, Alexander Levlovitz, who was on his way home after Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year) dinner, was murdered when Palestinian youths threw rocks at his car and he lost control. 

Over the past 48 hours in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and virtually all parts of Israel, we have had over 150 terror attacks, including stabbings, shootings, stones thrown and vehicular rammings.


Why is the world ignoring a wave of terror in Israel?


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 23, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > Kfar Etzion is as controversial as Deir Yassin in some ways as there are differing narratives involved. The Zionist one of prisoners deliberately slaughtered after surrendering contrasts with the Arab Legion and eye witness accounts that basically state the prisoners were shot while trying to escape when fighting re-erupted after Etzion was taken.
> ...


That was a response to the Zionist invasion.


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 23, 2016)

Hollie said:


> In the last week, my country, Israel, including our capital, the Holy City of Jerusalem, have come under an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terror.
> 
> A week ago, Eitam and Na’ama Henkin were brutally executed by Palestinian terrorists point-blank in their car. Their four children, Matan, 9, Nitzan, 7, Neta, 4, and Itamar, 9 months old, who are now orphaned, were still in the back seat and miraculously unharmed. Their lives are now irreparably altered.
> 
> ...


Chickenfeed compare to what Israel does to the Palestinians.


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2016)

Challenger said:


> On the night of 22-23 May 1948, a week after the declaration of the State of Israel, the Palestinian coastal village of Tantura (population 1,500) was attacked and occupied by units of the Israeli army's Alexandroni Brigade. The village, south of Haifa, lay within the area assigned to the Jewish state by the UN General Assembly's partition resolution. In its occupation, depopulation, subsequent destruction, and seizure of all its lands by Israel, the fate of Tantura was similar to that of more than 400 other Palestinian villages during the 1948 war. But it also shared with some two score of these villages the additional agony of a large-scale massacre of its inhabitants.
> 
> Word of the Tantura massacre was completely overshadowed at the time by the fighting between Israel and the regular armies of Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, and Syria, which had entered the country after the state had been proclaimed.
> 
> ...








 No mention of them being Palestinian irregulars in your report by any chance. As that is the plight of such people when they start a war they have no chance of winning.


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 Which country sent them on this invasion then, maybe you can tell me as none of the other team palestine members seem to know.   From what I can gather the Ottomans invited the Jews to migrate in 1850, then the LoN did the same thing is 1923 so no invasion but an invited people by the lands owners. ( the palestinian arab muslims having lost the war in 1917 lost their land when the Ottomans/Turks signed the surrender treaties all a matter of historical accuracy )


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > In the last week, my country, Israel, including our capital, the Holy City of Jerusalem, have come under an unprecedented wave of Palestinian terror.
> ...







 What have they done then, compared to the 10 million plus Jews massacred by the arab muslims since mo'ma made it a holy law to " KILL THE JEWS "

It is only since the occupation and separation barrier that the palestinians have been unable to mass murder Jewish children


----------



## P F Tinmore (May 23, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


What they invited isn't what they got.


----------



## Phoenall (May 23, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Yes it was, they invited the Jews who faced mass murder and abuse to come and live in Palestine. That is what they got.  The arab muslims bit of more than they could chew and ended up losing every war they started.


----------



## Challenger (May 27, 2016)

Another anniversary missed; On 21st May 1948 after a number of failed attempts to occupy the village of Beit Daras, the Zionists mobilized a large force to surround the village. The inhabitants decided that women and children should leave the danger zone but as they left, the women and children were met with mortar and machine gun fire despite the fact that the Zionists could see they were women and children fleeing the fighting.

"Although Beit Daras was located at the north eastern part of the Gaza District in southern Palestine, it was high on the Zionist leadership agenda as early as the first months of conquest. The small village was one of a few villages and towns marked for destruction in Operation Nachshon and Harel aimed to completely cut off the Jaffa-Jerusalem landmass. The war for Beit Daras began early, as heavy shelling began between March 27-28, 1948, killing 9 villagers and destroying large areas of the village’s crops.

Several attempts had failed to drive the resilient villagers out. What turned out to be the last battle took place in mid-May. Um ‘Adel and Um Mohammed were two young girls in Beit Daras at the time. Now old women in Khan Younis refugee camp in Gaza, they helped me connect some of the pieces regarding what happened on that day. I provided their historically consistent accounts in my book on Gaza. Here are few excerpts:

Um ‘Adel recalls: “The women and children were told to leave because the news of the Deir Yassin massacre was spreading and with it lots of fear. We were told that the Jews not only massacre people, but rape women. The women had to be sent away, but the men wouldn’t leave. But so many of them were killed. The men fought like lions, and many were killed as well, including Abu Mansi Nassar and his two brothers, Ali Mohammed Hussain al-Osaji, and four youth from al-Maqadima.”

Um Mohammed elaborated: “The town was under bombardment, and it was surrounded from all directions. There was no way out. They surrounded it all, from the direction of Isdud, al-Sawafir and everywhere. We wanted to pursue a way out. The armed men (the Beit Daras fighters) said they were going to check on the road to Isdud, to see if it was open. They moved forward and shot few shots to see if someone would return fire. No one did. But they (the Zionist forces) were hiding and waiting to ambush the people. The armed men returned and told the people to evacuate the women and children. The people went out (including) those who were gathered at my huge house, the family house. There were mostly children and kids in the house.

“The armed men came and said, ‘the road to Isdud is open, evacuate the people.’ The Jews let the people get out, and then they whipped them with bombs and machine guns. More people fell than those who were able to run. My sister and I…started running through the fields; we’d fall and get up. My sister and I escaped together holding each other’s hand. The people who took the main road were either killed or injured, and those who went through the fields. The firing was falling on the people like sand. The bombs from one side and the machine guns from the other. The Jews were on the hill; there was a school and a water reservoir for people and the vegetables. They showered the people with machine guns. A lot of the people died and got injured."

A Hundred Deir Yassin and Counting: Beit Daras and the Buried History of Massacres - Palestine Chronicle


----------



## Challenger (Jul 28, 2016)

And they keep on coming; July 1948 brings yet another IDF atrocity, the at the Dahmash Mosque in Lydda perperated by troops led by no less a personage than the great Zionist "hero" Moishe Dyan.

On 11 July 1948, the Israeli 89th Commando Battalion lead by Moshe Dayan occupied Lydda. Shortly afterwards, several hundred civilians were killed by Israeli troops, including 80 machine-gunned inside the Dahmash Mosque. Some eye winess statements:

"Civilians ran for cover as an armoured unit of the Israeli 89th Commando Battalion fired its way into Lydda, an Arab town not far from Tel Aviv. At the head of the column in an armoured car he called 'The Terrible Tiger' rode Major Moshe Dayan, a relatively obscure professional soldier who had personally recruited the men of his battalion including a contingent of Stern Gang terrorists. Dayan was eager to prove that his method of lightening warfare would win quick results against the Arabs. For fourth-seven minutes on the evening of 11 July 1948, Dayan and his armoured forces terrorized both the defenders of Lydda and the neighbouring town Ramle, as well as their Arab civilian population.£

Keith Wheller, a reporter for the Chicago Sun Times, witnessed the attack. In an article titled 'Blitz Tactics Won Lydda,' he wrote that as the Israeli vehicles surged through the town, 'practically everything in their way died.'  Not all the casualties were members of the Arab Legion that was defending the town.

Kenneth Bilby of the New York Herald Tribune who entered Lydda in the company of an Israeli intelligence officer noticed 'the corpses of Arab men, women and even children strewn about in the wake of the ruthlessly brilliant charge.'

The Israelis were not keen to take prisoners.

"Netiva Ben Yehuda, a young female member of the Palmach, recalled that a soldier 'went through the streets of Lydda with loudspeakers and promised everybody who would go inside a certain mosque that they would be safe.' Hundreds of Arabs entered the Dahmash Mosque believing that nothing would happen to them if they sat quietly with their hands on their head. But according to Ben Yehuda 'something did happen.'[3] In retaliation for a grenade attack after the surrender which killed several Israeli soldiers, over eighty Arab prisoners were machine-gunned to death. The bodies lay decomposing for ten days in the July heat. The Dahmash Mosque massacre terrorized the people of Lydda."

This led to the largest single crime against humanity perpetrated by the Zionists; the ethnic cleansing of Lydda and Ramle also known as the Lydda Death March

1948 Palestinian exodus from Lydda and Ramle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Roudy (Jul 28, 2016)

^^^^^^^
Hooray for Pallywood!


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 28, 2016)

Challenger said:


> And they keep on coming; July 1948 brings yet another IDF atrocity, the at the Dahmash Mosque in Lydda perperated by troops led by no less a personage than the great Zionist "hero" Moishe Dyan.
> 
> On 11 July 1948, the Israeli 89th Commando Battalion lead by Moshe Dayan occupied Lydda. Shortly afterwards, several hundred civilians were killed by Israeli troops, including 80 machine-gunned inside the Dahmash Mosque. Some eye winess statements:
> 
> ...









 So according to your cut and paste the "atrocity" was return fire to a grenade attack from the mosque. 

 Once again you twist the truth so you can demonise the Jews.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 28, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > And they keep on coming; July 1948 brings yet another IDF atrocity, the at the Dahmash Mosque in Lydda perperated by troops led by no less a personage than the great Zionist "hero" Moishe Dyan.
> ...


Pfffft!

You are skipping over what was happening at the time.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...








Nope I dont do what you and the other islamonazi propagandists do when you try and deny the Jews their human, religious and legal rights to self determination, a home land and the right to defend againt attack. 

 WHY DO YOU CONSTANTLY DENY THE JEWS THE SAME RIGHTS THAT YOU DEMAND BE HANDED TO THE ARAB MUSLIM INVADERS OF ISRAEL


----------



## Shusha (Jul 28, 2016)

What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.  

No different than today.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 28, 2016)

Shusha said:


> What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> 
> No different than today.


Israel always has to "defend itself" from the people it is attacking.


----------



## Hossfly (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> ...


Why not? The honeys with human shields are shooting at them, Clyde.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 28, 2016)

Hossfly said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Except it was Israel that was attacking Palestinians in Palestinian villages. It was Israel that was on the offensive.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

This is so childlike, that the level of understanding is beyond repair.



P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

But a simplified response on the kindergarten level is still possible.

Between the opening of the 1948-49 War of Independence, initiated by an attack by the Arab League, and 1988 when the PLO Declared Independence, the State of Israel never engaged any entity called the Palestinians.   Hence, no Armistice was ever made between Israel and any nation called the Palestinians.​When you make these broad and sweeping statements, you have to give it some specificity.

•  WHEN did Israel attack Palestinians?
•  WHERE did this allegedly attack happen?
•  WHO was acting as the Government of Palestine?  WHO initiated (aggressor) contact?  
•  WHAT forces were involved?
•  WHY did the outbreak of hostilities occur?​
Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Except it was Israel that was attacking Palestinians in Palestinian villages. It was Israel that was on the offensive.



The Palestinians formed a militia who engaged in a conflict over territory and fought on the side of the Arab forces against Israel.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 28, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> This is so childlike, that the level of understanding is beyond repair.
> 
> ...


• WHEN did Israel attack Palestinians?
Israeli/Zionist proxy army, Britain, around 1917.
• WHERE did this allegedly attack happen?
In the territory that became Palestine in 1924.
• WHO was acting as the Government of Palestine? WHO initiated (aggressor) contact?
Britain, Britain, on behalf of Israel/Zionists.
• WHAT forces were involved?
British military, and Zionist terrorist gangs.
• WHY did the outbreak of hostilities occur?
British/Zionist colonization of Palestine.


----------



## Shusha (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> • WHY did the outbreak of hostilities occur?
> British/Zionist colonization of Palestine.



The mere presence of Jews is "hostility"?

Why wouldn't the colonization of Israel by Arabs be the outbreak of "hostilities", then?


----------



## Shusha (Jul 28, 2016)

Come on, P F Tinmore.  You say that colonization of territory is "hostility".  So why wouldn't Arab colonization of territory be considered the origin of the hostility since it happened first?  Why is Jewish re-colonization a problem and Arab colonization not a problem?


----------



## Hollie (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


Well, you started off with a false, nonsensical assertion and your rambling deteriorated from there. 

How did an "Israeli/Zionist proxy army" attack Pal'istanians in 1917 when, 
1) there was no state of Israel in 1917, and,
2) there were no residents of the mythical Pal'istan you have created in your own mind and believe existed in 1917.


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 28, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Not one single answer here is correct. 



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Israel did not exist in 1917.
Zionism was not a Proxy to Britain.  
The 1924 Treaty of Lausanne did not mention Palestine at all; not one single word.  
The 1924 Treaty, however, did pass the Title and Rights to the Applied Powers. (Article 16)
Immigration by the authority of the Allied Powers (holding Title & Rights) is not aggression.
The British had been granted authority; the 1920 Riots were instigated by Arabs.
The Haganah was created after the 1920 Arab Jerusalem riots and 1921 Jaffa riots.
The authority for the Immigration was establish Allied Powers in 1920 by the San Remo Agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> ...









And only islamonazi morons see Israel defending itself from constant attack as being an attack by Israel.   When the arab muslims stop firing illegal weapons into Israel then Israel will stop " attacking" in defence.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Not according to the reports that show the arab muslims were attacking the Jews as israel did not exist at that time, It was the Arab league that invaded Jewish lands in 1947 with the sole intention of wiping out the Jews and destroying any chance of their being a Jewish homeland. The problem has always been and always will be islam and its 7C religion.


 Show one instance of Israel attacking that was not as a direct result of arab muslim attacks ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...







 LINK as you have failed to produced even one proving this in the last 5 years

 LINK as the territory was the mandate of palestine and was granted to the Jews as their NATIONal home

LINK as you have failed to provide one saying this in the last 6 years

LINK as you have failed to provide one saying this in the last 6 years

No colonisation took place other than that by arab muslims, the land was Jewish from 1917 and you are trying once again to deny the Jews support from International law. And denying them their rights that you demand be given to illegal immigrant arab muslims.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


LINK as the territory was the mandate of palestine and was granted to the Jews as their NATIONal home​
It is *you* who has never proven this to be true.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 Only because you deny that INTERNATIONALO LAWS should ever work in the favour of the Jews.

 Are you denying the Treaty of Sevres, the treaty of Lausanne, the LoN mandate of palestine, the granting of land to arab muslims to create Syria, Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Egypt and Saudi by the LoN under the mandate system. 


I HAVE POSTED THE MANDATE OF PALESTINE OVER 1000 TIMES AND HIGHLIGHTED THE SECTIONS THAT SAY THE LAND WAS FOR THE CREATION OF THE NATIONAL HOME OF THE JEWS AND STILL YOU DENY THAT IT EXISTS PROVING THAT YOU WANT TO DENY THE RIGHTS OF THE JEWS TO FREE DETERMINATION, A HOMELAND AND THE PROTECTION OF INTERNATIONAL LAWS. IT IS YOU THAT REFUSES TO PRODUCE A LINK TO A SITE OF IMPECCABLE CREDENTIALS THAT SHOWS THE LON NEVER GRANTED THE LAND TO THE JEWS


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Hossfly said:
> ...


Show one instance of an attack that was not related to colonialism.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 29, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...


And you have been shown 1000 times that the Jewish National Home was not a land transfer, it was Palestinian citizenship.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...



You terrorist lovers always get it backwards.  The land is ancient Jewish religious and ancestral land.  And despite the many invasions, the Jews always maintained a presence and kept coming back over the mellenia. The Arabs are the real invaders and colonialists.  The Middle East is littered with countries they invaded, looted, and destroyed.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 29, 2016)

Roudy said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall said:
> ...



Battle of Hebron - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The *1834 Hebron massacre* occurred in early August 1834,[1] when the forces of Ibrahim Pasha launched an assault against Hebron to crush the last pocket of significant resistance.

Mass killings and rapes by the Egyptian troops took place in Hebron after they captured the city from the rebels. The Jews of Hebron had not participated in the rebellion, but Egyptian soldiers who entered the city ignored this.[13] For three hours, troops committed atrocities against the people of Hebron.[16] The Jews were not subject to Pasha's conscription policy but suffered the "most cruel outrages"[17] and were targeted for "special violence".[18] While many Muslims managed to escape the impending danger, the Jews remained, confident they would not be harmed by the Egyptians. Apparently, the Jews of Jerusalem had received an assurance from Ibrahim that Hebron's Jews would be protected.[19] In the end, seven Jewish men[16][20][21] and five girls[1][16] were killed. Isaac Farhi also described violent attacks on the Jews of Hebron committed by Egyptian soldiers.[22] He writes that the attack in Hebron was even worse than the plunder in Safed. Synagogues were desecrated,[23] houses were ransacked, and valuable items were stolen[24] leaving the Jewish community of Hebron destitute.[25]


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 29, 2016)

Roudy said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


A hundred year old attack by Egypt is the best you can do?


----------



## Shusha (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Show one instance of an attack that was not related to colonialism.



Not one single attack was related to colonialism.  Because there is not and never has been a "colony" of Jewish people in Israel. Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people (historically undeniably true).  

The problem was and is the perception held by the Arabs (ironically the invading and colonizing culture) that the Jewish people have no rights to sovereignty in land the Arabs perceive as "theirs".


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Every single one of them, as they were done for the arab muslim religion that says the land has to be fought for one taken. Just look at the TRUE reasons given before the attacks for the reasons behind the attacks, not the post defeat reasons that are just lame escuses for the failure of the muslims


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








No you have just stated that as your POV without onced showing that this is what the words mean. the actuak words arwe

The Avalon Project : The Palestine Mandate



*The Council of the League of Nations:*
Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have agreed, for the purpose of giving effect to the provisions of Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations,* to entrust to a Mandatory selected by the said Powers the administration of the territory of Palestine, which formerly belonged to the Turkish Empire, within such boundaries as may be fixed by them*; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed* that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favor of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people,* it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country; and

*Whereas recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country*; and

Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have selected His Britannic Majesty as the Mandatory for Palestine; and

Whereas the mandate in respect of Palestine has been formulated in the following terms and submitted to the Council of the League for approval; and

Whereas His Britannic Majesty has accepted the mandate in respect of Palestine and undertaken to exercise it on behalf of the League of Nations in conformity with the following provisions; and

Whereas by the afore-mentioned Article 22 (paragraph 8), it is provided that the degree of authority, control or administration to be exercised by the Mandatory, not having been previously agreed upon by the Members of the League, shall be explicitly defined by the Council of the League Of Nations;

confirming the said Mandate, defines its terms as follows:

*ARTICLE 1.*
The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they may be limited by the terms of this mandate.

*ART. 2.*
*The Mandatory shall be responsible for placing the country under such political, administrative and economic conditions as will secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions*, and also for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race and religion.

*ART. 3.*
The Mandatory shall, so far as circumstances permit, encourage local autonomy.

*ART. 4.*
An appropriate Jewish agency shall be recognised as a public body for the purpose of advising and co-operating with the Administration of Palestine in such economic, social and other matters as may affect *the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine*, and, subject always to the control of the Administration to assist and take part in the development of the country.

The Zionist organization, so long as its organization and constitution are in the opinion of the Mandatory appropriate, shall be recognised as such agency. It shall take steps in consultation with His Britannic Majesty's Government to secure the co-operation of all Jews who are willing to assist in the establishment of the Jewish national home.

*ART. 5.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power.

*ART. 6.*
The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. 

*ART. 7.*
The Administration of Palestine shall be responsible for enacting a nationality law. There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine. 

*ART. 8.*
The privileges and immunities of foreigners, including the benefits of consular jurisdiction and protection as formerly enjoyed by Capitulation or usage in the Ottoman Empire, shall not be applicable in Palestine.

Unless the Powers whose nationals enjoyed the afore-mentioned privileges and immunities on August 1st, 1914, shall have previously renounced the right to their re-establishment, or shall have agreed to their non-application for a specified period, these privileges and immunities shall, at the expiration of the mandate, be immediately reestablished in their entirety or with such modifications as may have been agreed upon between the Powers concerned.

*ART. 9.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for seeing that the judicial system established in Palestine shall assure to foreigners, as well as to natives, a complete guarantee of their rights.

Respect for the personal status of the various peoples and communities and for their religious interests shall be fully guaranteed. In particular, the control and administration of Wakfs shall be exercised in accordance with religious law and the dispositions of the founders.

*ART. 10.*
Pending the making of special extradition agreements relating to Palestine, the extradition treaties in force between the Mandatory and other foreign Powers shall apply to Palestine.

*ART. 11. *
The Administration of Palestine shall take all necessary measures to safeguard the interests of the community in connection with the development of the country, and, subject to any international obligations accepted by the Mandatory, shall have full power to provide for public ownership or control of any of the natural resources of the country or of the public works, services and utilities established or to be established therein. It shall introduce a land system appropriate to the needs of the country, having regard, among other things, to the desirability of promoting the close settlement and intensive cultivation of the land.

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration. Any such arrangements shall provide that no profits distributed by such agency, directly or indirectly, shall exceed a reasonable rate of interest on the capital, and any further profits shall be utilised by it for the benefit of the country in a manner approved by the Administration.

*ART. 12.*
The Mandatory shall be entrusted with the control of the foreign relations of Palestine and the right to issue exequaturs to consuls appointed by foreign Powers. He shall also be entitled to afford diplomatic and consular protection to citizens of Palestine when outside its territorial limits.

*ART. 13.*
All responsibility in connection with the Holy Places and religious buildings or sites in Palestine, including that of preserving existing rights and of securing free access to the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites and the free exercise of worship, while ensuring the requirements of public order and decorum, is assumed by the Mandatory, who shall be responsible solely to the League of Nations in all matters connected herewith, provided that nothing in this article shall prevent the Mandatory from entering into such arrangements as he may deem reasonable with the Administration for the purpose of carrying the provisions of this article into effect; and provided also that nothing in this mandate shall be construed as conferring upon the Mandatory authority to interfere with the fabric or the management of purely Moslem sacred shrines, the immunities of which are guaranteed.

*ART. 14.*
A special commission shall be appointed by the Mandatory to study, define and determine the rights and claims in connection with the Holy Places and the rights and claims relating to the different religious communities in Palestine. The method of nomination, the composition and the functions of this Commission shall be submitted to the Council of the League for its approval, and the Commission shall not be appointed or enter upon its functions without the approval of the Council.

*ART. 15.*
The Mandatory shall see that complete freedom of conscience and the free exercise of all forms of worship, subject only to the maintenance of public order and morals, are ensured to all. No discrimination of any kind shall be made between the inhabitants of Palestine on the ground of race, religion or language. No person shall be excluded from Palestine on the sole ground of his religious belief.

The right of each community to maintain its own schools for the education of its own members in its own language, while conforming to such educational requirements of a general nature as the Administration may impose, shall not be denied or impaired.

*ART. 16.*
The Mandatory shall be responsible for exercising such supervision over religious or eleemosynary bodies of all faiths in Palestine as may be required for the maintenance of public order and good government. Subject to such supervision, no measures shall be taken in Palestine to obstruct or interfere with the enterprise of such bodies or to discriminate against any representative or member of them on the ground of his religion or nationality.

*ART. 17.*
The Administration of Palestine may organist on a voluntary basis the forces necessary for the preservation of peace and order, and also for the defence of the country, subject, however, to the supervision of the Mandatory, but shall not use them for purposes other than those above specified save with the consent of the Mandatory. Except for such purposes, no military, naval or air forces shall be raised or maintained by the Administration of Palestine.

Nothing in this article shall preclude the Administration of Palestine from contributing to the cost of the maintenance of the forces of the Mandatory in Palestine.

The Mandatory shall be entitled at all times to use the roads, railways and ports of Palestine for the movement of armed forces and the carriage of fuel and supplies.

*ART. 18.*
The Mandatory shall see that there is no discrimination in Palestine against the nationals of any State Member of the League of Nations (including companies incorporated under its laws) as compared with those of the Mandatory or of any foreign State in matters concerning taxation, commerce or navigation, the exercise of industries or professions, or in the treatment of merchant vessels or civil aircraft. Similarly, there shall be no discrimination in Palestine against goods originating in or destined for any of the said States, and there shall be freedom of transit under equitable conditions across the mandated area.

Subject as aforesaid and to the other provisions of this mandate, the Administration of Palestine may, on the advice of the Mandatory, impose such taxes and customs duties as it may consider necessary, and take such steps as it may think best to promote the development of the natural resources of the country and to safeguard the interests of the population. It may also, on the advice of the Mandatory, conclude a special customs agreement with any State the territory of which in 1914 was wholly included in Asiatic Turkey or Arabia.

*ART. 19.*
The Mandatory shall adhere on behalf of the Administration of Palestine to any general international conventions already existing, or which may be concluded hereafter with the approval of the League of Nations, respecting the slave traffic, the traffic in arms and ammunition, or the traffic in drugs, or relating to commercial equality, freedom of transit and navigation, aerial navigation and postal, telegraphic and wireless communication or literary, artistic or industrial property.

*ART. 20.*
The Mandatory shall co-operate on behalf of the Administration of Palestine, so far as religious, social and other conditions may permit, in the execution of any common policy adopted by the League of Nations for preventing and combating disease, including diseases of plants and animals.

*ART. 21.*
The Mandatory shall secure the enactment within twelve months from this date, and shall ensure the execution of a Law of Antiquities based on the following rules. This law shall ensure equality of treatment in the matter of excavations and archaeological research to the nationals of all States Members of the League of Nations.

(1) "Antiquity" means any construction or any product of human activity earlier than the year 1700 A. D.

(2) The law for the protection of antiquities shall proceed by encouragement rather than by threat.

Any person who, having discovered an antiquity without being furnished with the authorization referred to in paragraph 5, reports the same to an official of the competent Department, shall be rewarded according to the value of the discovery.

(3) No antiquity may be disposed of except to the competent Department, unless this Department renounces the acquisition of any such antiquity.

No antiquity may leave the country without an export licence from the said Department.

(4) Any person who maliciously or negligently destroys or damages an antiquity shall be liable to a penalty to be fixed.

(5) No clearing of ground or digging with the object of finding antiquities shall be permitted, under penalty of fine, except to persons authorised by the competent Department.

(6) Equitable terms shall be fixed for expropriation, temporary or permanent, of lands which might be of historical or archaeological interest.

(7) Authorization to excavate shall only be granted to persons who show sufficient guarantees of archaeological experience. The Administration of Palestine shall not, in granting these authorizations, act in such a way as to exclude scholars of any nation without good grounds.

(8) The proceeds of excavations may be divided between the excavator and the competent Department in a proportion fixed by that Department. If division seems impossible for scientific reasons, the excavator shall receive a fair indemnity in lieu of a part of the find.

*ART. 22.*
English, Arabic and Hebrew shall be the official languages of Palestine. Any statement or inscription in Arabic on stamps or money in Palestine shall be repeated in Hebrew and any statement or inscription in Hebrew shall be repeated in Arabic.

*ART. 23.*
The Administration of Palestine shall recognise the holy days of the respective communities in Palestine as legal days of rest for the members of such communities.

*ART. 24.*
The Mandatory shall make to the Council of the League of Nations an annual report to the satisfaction of the Council as to the measures taken during the year to carry out the provisions of the mandate. Copies of all laws and regulations promulgated or issued during the year shall be communicated with the report.

*ART. 25.*
In the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern boundary of Palestine as ultimately determined, the Mandatory shall be entitled, with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations, to postpone or withhold application of such provisions of this mandate as he may consider inapplicable to the existing local conditions, and to make such provision for the administration of the territories as he may consider suitable to those conditions, provided that no action shall be taken which is inconsistent with the provisions of Articles 15, 16 and 18.

*ART. 26. *
The Mandatory agrees that, if any dispute whatever should arise between the Mandatory and another member of the League of Nations relating to the interpretation or the application of the provisions of the mandate, such dispute, if it cannot be settled by negotiation, shall be submitted to the Permanent Court of International Justice provided for by Article 14 of the Covenant of the League of Nations.

*ART. 27.*
The consent of the Council of the League of Nations is required for any modification of the terms of this mandate.

*ART. 28.*
In the event of the termination of the mandate hereby conferred upon the Mandatory, the Council of the League of Nations shall make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary for safeguarding in perpetuity, under guarantee of the League, the rights secured by Articles 13 and 14, and shall use its influence for securing, under the guarantee of the League, that the Government of Palestine will fully honour the financial obligations legitimately incurred by the Administration of Palestine during the period of the mandate, including the rights of public servants to pensions or gratuities.

The present instrument shall be deposited in original in the archives of the League of Nations and certified copies shall be forwarded by the Secretary-General of the League of Nations to all members of the League.

Done at London the twenty-fourth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-two. 






 So where does it even hint that the only reason for the mandate is to make immigrant Jews palestinians and subject to islamonazi government ?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...









 Then how about the 1929 massacre of the Jews on the mufti's orders, or the attacks on the Jews during the civil war of 1920 and 1931. And lastly the invasion by arab league troops in 1947 to wipe out the Jews and stop the creation of Israel. The proclamations of the arab leaders spell out why they were invading, and it was only after they put troops in place that they changed their words because the UN warned them it was a breach of the UN charter which they had signed.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 29, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Show one instance of an attack that was not related to colonialism.
> ...









 It is the concept of dar-al-islam and dar-al-harb as contained in the koran

Divisions of the world in Islam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


_*Dar al-Islam*_ (Arabic: دار الإسلام‎‎ literally _house/abode of Islam_;



_*Dar al-Harb*_ (Arabic: دار الحرب‎‎ "house of war"


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Well, you have it patricianly correct.  It was not a "land transfer."  Land Transfers are real estate matters.  Sovereignty and Independence are are  something all together different.  _(A lesson which has been explained many times in this discussion group.)_



P F Tinmore said:


> [And you have been shown 1000 times that the Jewish National Home was not a land transfer, it was Palestinian citizenship.


*(COMMENT)*

The establishment of a Jewish National Home was the stated intention of the Allied Powers, as passed via the San Remo Convention and the Mandate.

It has nothing to do with "Citizenship."

The issue of nationality and citizenship where processed through the Mandate for action, but the technical aspects with dictated by the Palestine Order in Council and Citizenship Order (as amended over time).

The initial sovereignty transfer has been explained several times.  The establishment of the State of Israel had several components to it.  Most of which you do not understand.  The umbrella methodology is was under the "Declarative Concept;" as recommended by the UN Special Committee for Palestine and adopted under the General Assembly as an acceptable means and pathway to Independence and Statehood _(Step Preparatory to Independence)_.

And don't cite that lame Article 30 of the Treaty of Lausanne.  The intention of Article was to fulfill the intent of the Allied Powers to create "Stateless People" _(a person who is  not considered as a national by any State under the operation of its law)_.  Until 1988 the Government of Palestine (GOP) was a territory under the Mandate and determined by the High Commissioner.  Citizens of the (GOP) were citizens under the Administration set-up by the Mandate.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jul 29, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> And you have been shown 1000 times that the Jewish National Home was not a land transfer, it was Palestinian citizenship



You have such a strange understanding of the meanings of words:  

_the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people

recognition has thereby been given to the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and to the grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country

secure the establishment of the Jewish national home, as laid down in the preamble, and the development of self-governing institutions,

the establishment of the Jewish national home and the interests of the Jewish population in Palestine

The Administration of Palestine ... shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage ... close settlement by Jews on the land ...

The Administration may arrange with the Jewish agency mentioned in Article 4 to construct or operate, upon fair and equitable terms, any public works, services and utilities, and to develop any of the natural resources of the country, in so far as these matters are not directly undertaken by the Administration._


Why do you think the these terms were used, with respect to the Jewish people?

reconstitution
national home
self-governing


Why do you think the Jewish agency was given these powers?

construction and operation of public works, services and utilities
development of natural resources


It seems to me the plain language of the Mandate demonstrates an expectation of Jewish sovereignty as a national entity (you know, a nation).  Arguing against the plain meaning of the text seems well, just silly.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 30, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Roudy said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


Didn't Poor Fucking Tinmore ask for an Arab attack that didn't have to do with "European" colonial invasion?  And here we have one showing Arab Muslim invasion and Arab Muslim colonialism.  There are many more such examples.


----------



## Challenger (Jul 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> 
> No different than today.








They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing. As usual zionists try to paint them as "evil terrorists" bent on the extermination of "the Jewish people" in order to deflect attention from the magnitude of their crimes against defenceless old people, women and children.


----------



## Shusha (Jul 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.



So, you are putting forth the argument that the events in Lydda in 1948 happened outside the context of war and that there was no military value to the town and that *not a single military action was taken by any of the residents of the town.*

Really?  That's what you are going with?


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> ...









 Of course they were and they did not lift a finger to hurt the Jews at any time did they. Just as hamas, fatah and islamic jihad have never raised a finger against the Jews to warrant return of fire. How is it that every arab muslim is an innocent civilian to your neo marxists and islamonazi's. Why do you constantly inflate the numbers even when the evidence shows that they were impossible to achieve. As in claiming 700,000 refugees were forcibly evicted when the last census showed that only 350,000 lived there and this figure included trans Jordan. The most crimes were committed by the same arab muslims who raped, stole, pillaged and murdered their way across palestine from 1917 to 1948.  Try reading some proper history books and see what they have to say, or does your brain turn off when it see's the truth and goes into hibernation.


 NOW WHEN DID THE LoN GIVE THE LAND TO THE ARAB MUSLIM IMMIGRANTS AFTER HAVING ALREADY GIVEN THEM TRANS JORDAN


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 30, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.
> ...








Dont confuse him with the TRUTH or he will have to resort to claiming it is zionist propaganda or hasbara lies just to stop his shakes and terrible nightmares.


----------



## Roudy (Jul 30, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > What was happening at the time was a war.  As usual, Team Pallywood tries to paint the Arab Muslims as innocent civilians being massacred by violent and evil Israelis when they were in fact, militants hiding and attacking from amongst a civilian population.
> ...


----------



## RoccoR (Jul 30, 2016)

Phoenall,  et al,

Well, actually --- the Lydda and Ramle Event (July 1948) did happen in the broader context of the May 1948 War of Independence against the aggressor initiated action of the Combined Arms Force of the Arab League.



Phoenall said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

There are all kinds of perspectives to that particular event and other multiple events of a similar character.

•  Those only interested in the event for its political exploitation value as Anti-Israeli Propaganda, do not see it as anything other than "ethnic cleansing."

Potential Aspects:

•  They do not recognize the action, as a matter of internal defense and rear area protection, a countermeasure to threats against sabotage, subversion and espionage.

•  Protecting lines of communication and supply routes.

•  Protection against insurgent action and covert action (stay behind mode).​
This is a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" battlefield obligation.   Israel, as a party to the conflict, MUST to the extent feasible, remove civilian persons and objects under its control from the vicinity of military objectives.  While many, many many pro-Arab-League aggression, want to paint this event (and other events like it) as illegal and against international humanitarian law, the practice of this rule as a norm of customary international law applicable in international, and arguably also in non-international, armed conflicts, is well established.  

Most pro-Arab League aggression defenders, want to suggest something else entirely; --- by citing Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention:  Deportations, Transfers and Evacuations.  They rarely if ever cite (if ever) the exception:  *"Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand."*   But event the ICRC recognizes that this practice does not violate the prohibition of the forcible displacement of a civilian population --- because the recognized exception is when "security" considerations.   In these contemporary times, International Law articulates this idea in part as Article 58(a) of Protocol 1.


*Article 58 [ Link ] -- Precautions against the effects of attacks*

The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible:

(a) without prejudice to *Article 49** [ Link ]* of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives;

(b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas;

(c) take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.​
As you can see, there are more reasons to effect the evacuation than not.

The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied.  This is a type of selective hearing, wherein they see only what they want to see; that which is favorable to them --- but, unfavorable to the Israelis.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Shusha (Jul 30, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> ​The principle purpose of the anti-Israeli movement to continuously bring this type of complaint, is because they want to attempt to convince the reader that there is absolutely on other interpretation, reasoning or law, that can be applied.



The purpose is to perpetuate the antisemitic libel that Jews are evil and murder "innocent" Arabs without cause.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 31, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> Phoenall,  et al,
> 
> Well, actually --- the Lydda and Ramle Event (July 1948) did happen in the broader context of the May 1948 War of Independence against the aggressor initiated action of the Combined Arms Force of the Arab League.
> 
> ...


You missed the fact that the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was the reason for the war.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 31, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Roudy said:
> ...


Do you mean all of that stuff that happened *after* the beginning of the colonial project?


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 31, 2016)

Shusha said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > They were innocent civillians and they were massacred by the IDF as part of a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing.
> ...


You really need to read your own post.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 31, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > Phoenall,  et al,
> ...







 What ethnic cleansing was that then as the arabs started the violence way back in 1920. The claims of ethnic cleansing are just arab islamonazi propaganda as the only ethnic cleansing taking place is the one instigated by the arab muslims.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 31, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 What colonial project was that then, as the troubles started as far back as 635 C.E. when mo'mad commanded the muslims to KILL THE JEWS. Is that the colonial project you mean, the one started by the muslims that is still ongoing today.


----------



## Phoenall (Jul 31, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...







 You really need to learn to stop turning your brain off every time there is an international law that supports the Jews.

 The arab muslims instigated military actions in 1921 against the Jews and the British, and the LoN should have stepped then and pushed the arab muslims back into Egypt, Syria and Jordan


----------



## P F Tinmore (Jul 31, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Bullshit the problem began when a mentally deluded psychopath decided to take the wordt parts of Judaism and Christianity and call it islam. Then proceeded to take over the world starting with the Jews who he saw as weak unprotected tribes of wanderers. From then on the islamonazi's have lived the dream of unfettered carnage and mass murder against the Jews and Christians. Even their own people see the filastins as the scum of the scum and want nothing to do with them, which is why they are not allowed the right of return to their nation of birth. They left their own nations and tried to take the land granted to the Jews under INTERNATIONAL LAW away from them because they were stateless travelling farm workers. That was the whole crux of the problems the islamonazi belief that all the world is theirs to own and that the Jews were not protected by islamic law and so where fair game. 


 IT IS ALL IN THE KORAN AND HADITHS WHICH IS THE ONLY LAW THE MUSLIMS OBEY


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 1, 2016)

Challenger said:


> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> "The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine."  Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre


I try not to focus on the evil things people have done to each other.

I do remember Sept 11th  every Sept 11th however.

I go back to the same bar and grille where I watched the CNN drama unfold that day when our office director closed up and sent us all home immediately.

And on Dec 7th each year I watch my Tora Tora Tora movie again.  I remember when that movie first came out back in 1970 how it was such a big deal since it tried to tell the truth about Gen. Short and Adm. Kimmel both asleep at the switch.

Then again on Sept 11th the FBI was asleep at the switch, the Air National Guard was asleep at the switch, and GW Bush got credit for being the Commander Asleep At The Switch In Chief.

Both Dec 7th and Sept 11th were surprise attacks that could have been averted if officials and their rank and file had demonstrated greater vigilance.

But the USA seems to be a reactive society and while there is always time to do things over there is never time to do it right the first time.

Regarding the Israelis, I remember the year 1948 from history.  I vaguely remember the 1968 and 1973 wars from memory.  I was a kid then and world affairs was not my forte.  I do remember when all the Israeli athletes got killed in Munich.  What is so hard about having bodyguards when you travel?


----------



## Shusha (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.



In other words:_See, whatever happened to the Jews in the past just doesn't matter.  Its not important.  The Jews were massacred, expelled, ethnically cleansed, invaded, colonized, had their nation destroyed and their Temple razed to the ground (twice).  But, meh, who cares?  Its just the Jews.  They don't really count as a people, anyway.  _


No, Tinmore, the problems began, and continue, because the Arab Muslim mentality is to view Jewish human rights as "aggression" and to view the Jewish Nakba as irrelevant.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...



You need to start formulating actual arguments to present in the debate.  Start with these:  Were any of the residents of Lydda combatants as opposed to "innocent civilians"?   Was there a military value to holding the village?  Did this event happen within the context of war?

Team Palestine, as a whole, really has trouble understanding what "innocent civilian" means.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > The problems began when Britain landed in Palestine with the Balfour declaration in its pocket. That was the initial aggression.
> ...


The Jews are an ancient Babylonian civilization that were not comfortable under Roman conquest.

The Romans apparently were too imposing.

This led to rebellion and war with Rome, which was the beginning of the Jews' major international problem of losing their homeland in the first place.

Then they waited almost 2000 years to claim their homeland back.  That was probably forced upon them by the Arab conquest and the scourge of Islam.  The Turks were not about to give the land back.

The Jews' first practical opportunity to get back into Judea was around the turmoil of the 1st world war -- The Great War as it was then called.  Even then, the Jews did not flock to Palestine (as it was called by then) until after WW2.

The delays were problematic.

Now that the Jews are back in their original homeland that is also problematic.

Naturally the scourge of Islam does not care about their Biblical mythology at all.  And the Palestinians do not want to share the land or coexist either.

Solution: a blood feud to the last man, woman, and child.

Problem solved.


----------



## yiostheoy (Aug 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Happy now?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...








 They have no real argument and so rersort to LIES, PROPAGANDA and BLOOD LIBELS as evidence. The deny the Jews the same human, legal and moral rights that they demand be presented on a golden tray to the arab muslim illegal immigrants. At the first mention of the LoN treaty that made the granting of 22% of palestine  to the Jews for their national home they deny that it says this, yet then go on to claim that it gives the arab muslims 78% of palestine for their homeland. They are just JEW HATING NAZI SCUM that have no place in modern society and should be deported to an islamonazi state that agrees with their POV.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 1, 2016)

yiostheoy said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 Close but you failed to mention that the arab muslims had agreed to allow the Jews live in Israel until they saw how much oil was being sold for, and they thought the whole M.E was sitting on a sea of Oil.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Shusha said:
> ...


Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...









 First time you have admitted that the arab muslims calling themselves palestinians are living on stolen land. Have you seen the truth at last and realised that the land was always Jewish


----------



## Shusha (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.



*Thank you* for so succinctly demonstrating my point that Team Palestine has a poor understanding of what "innocent civilians" means.  

Above, you make an ENTIRE GROUP and every member in it, in the context of this thread, viable targets for violence and murder.  You discard the distinction between combatants and non-combatants; between a purpose in military combat and exterminating the vermin; between 

You make one entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually guilty, even if they are pregnant women guarding their children, or babies in their cradles, or old men at prayer in a holy sanctuary, or people drinking chocolate at a cafe.  

And you make the other entire group, and every member in it, collectively and individually innocent, even if they are shooting guns or throwing grenades, or launching rockets, or building attack tunnels, or stabbing people.    

That, my friend, is the vile ideology of the Shoah, of the Rwandan genocide, of the Armenian genocide, of the destruction of the American First Nations Peoples.  That is the vile ideology of the Palestinian mentality.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.



Not true.  Innocent civilians live on "stolen" land all over the world.  You, yourself, live on land stolen from the American First Nations Peoples.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.
> ...


The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.

When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.

Big difference.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore, et al,

OH Hell...



P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

••  First, in 1948, the Jewish Right to Self-determination was totally legal.
••  Second, the territory was not sovereignty to the Palestinians.​
In order for it to be illegal _(forbidden by law)_, there must have been some instrument that defines the action --- or proscription.

The territory was not "stolen."  The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers; with the exception of Jordan; when the HM the King (UK) recognized Trans-Jordan was granted full independent (1946) as a State and His Highness The Emir as the sovereign thereof.  _(TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN HIS MAJESTY IN RESPECT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND HIS HIGHNESS THE AMIR OF TRANSJORDAN.)_

The Jewish had the same rights of self-determination as the Palestinians of Jordan and the Palestinians west of the Jordan River.  The UN _(both the Special Committee and the General Assembly)_ recommended the "Steps Preparatory to Independence" that guided the the action of the Jewish Provisional Government for Israel.

*(QUESTION)*

What law are you claiming was violated in 1948?

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore, et al,
> 
> OH Hell...
> 
> ...


The territory was not "stolen." The Title and Rights of the territory were in the hands of the Allied Powers;​
Why do you keep pimping this lie? You know that the Allied Powers merely held the territory in trust for the inhabitants.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Article 16 Clause says that the Allied Powers had "the future of these territories and islands being settled or to be settled by the parties concerned."  The Arab-Palestinians (or any variation thereof) were not a party to the Treaty.

By 1948, the Legal Jewish Immigrants with citizenship as established by the citizenship law, was an inhabitant _(people who fulfill the requirements for legal residency)_* --- *_(Article 7 of Mandate:  "__There shall be included in this law provisions framed so as to facilitate the acquisition of Palestinian citizenship by Jews who take up their permanent residence in Palestine)_.

All aspects of your interpretation is exceptionally short-sighted.  

•  There was no promise made to the Arab Palestinians, as they consistently declined to participate in the Article 22 tutelage requirements, as offered by the Mandatory.  
•  The Arab Palestinians had no greater standing in the eyes of the deciding Allied Powers (having Title and Rights --- and the power and authority to determine the "future of these territories."
•  Than the "trust" was that as may be determined by the Allied Powers in the establishment of the Mandate.​
The Arab Palestinians want something for nothing.  They want the right to be on the losing side of a World War _(twice in one century - Ottoman/Turks in WWI and NAZIs in WWII)_ and then demand to be rewarded for it.  Then they want to be rewarded after forming an Arab League coalition which mounted a coordinated attack against the Jewish People exercising their right to self-determination.  They want the sympathy for the unlawful use of force _(Article 2(4) Chapter 1, UN Charter)_ against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel, to take by force that which they could not achieve through peaceful diplomatic efforts.  And then when defeated, refused to make the effort to assume a posture of peace.  Instead, the Arab Palestinians adopted "Armed Struggle" as the means of achieving the desired outcome _(in contravention with Article 2(3), Chapter 1, UN Charter --- "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered")_.

You may want to ignore Article 16 of the Lausanne Treaty, or Article 132 of the Treaty of Sevres before that, or Article 16 of the Mudros Armistice, but the intent is very clear --- the Title and Rights were placed in the hands of the Allied Powers, as negotiated by the Allied Powers and the Ottoman Empire/Turkish Republic.

Most Respectfully,
R

.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> As it turns-out, you even misinterpret that...
> 
> ...


against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​
What were Israel's international borders in 1948?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...



I can recall at least three separate instances of your babbling being addressed in tedious, excruciating detail. 

It's a pattern of behavior where you make the same pointless comments / false claims in multiple threads, your pointless comments are addressed / false claims refuted, yet you rattle on with the same nonsense moments later in a different thread.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

You keep asking this question over and over again.  You don't want to hear the answer.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.

In 1948, the borders where still moving with the FEBA.  In 1949, the borders were in dispute. By the turn of the 21st Century, the International borders were negotiated in accordance with the treaties with Egypt and Jordan.

You can attempt to challenge the legitimacy of the borders by any means that you want.  What was in 1948, has no relationship to the present day.  The Israeli Borders that pertain to the West Bank and Gaza Strip are defined in Treaty of Peace EGYPT and ISRAEL (with annexes, maps and agreed minutes). Signed at Washington on 26 March 1979; and Treaty of Peace between The State of Israel and The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan 26 October 1994; BUT --- it is clearly defined what the present day International Borders are for Israel, relative to the Palestinians.  But the Palestinians have not present day border that they control.  Nor have they made any attempt to establish such borders.

•  Article 3:  The international boundary between Israel and Jordan is delimited with reference to the boundary definition under the Mandate as is shown in Annex I(a), on the mapping materials attached thereto and co-ordinates specified therein.

•  Article II. The permanent boundary between Egypt and Israel is the recog nized international boundary between Egypt and the former mandated territory of Palestine, as shown on the map at Annex II,​
Anything else is merely an attempt to confuse the issues.

So you can continue to ask questions about condition 70 years ago.  But it has no bearing today on where the International boundaries are.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Roudy (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...


A pimp for Hamas Islamist terrorists calling others pimps.  Now that's funny.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

Hollie said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > RoccoR said:
> ...


You can't violate the territorial integrity of a country that has no territory.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 1, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> You keep asking this question over and over again.  You don't want to hear the answer.
> 
> ...


The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.​
Does that mean the borders of the military occupation?


----------



## Hossfly (Aug 1, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


WTF are you nattering about now. You make no sense.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> The difference being that when Europeans stole America it was not illegal to do so.
> 
> When the Zionists stole Palestine it was illegal.
> 
> Big difference.



Rocco has the actual legal arguments well in hand.  And I agree with him and don't have much to add to that part of it.  So I'm going to tackle this on the moral front, as I am wont to do anyway.  so.....




WTF?  So that is your moral stance?  That it is perfectly morally correct to steal people's land prior to (insert date here) when (insert law here) was enacted to prevent the theft of land?  

Why do you think laws change, Tinmore?  Because its acknowledged that the existing code of practice is IMMORAL.  If you can make restitution -- shouldn't you?  If you can correct the problem -- shouldn't you?  If you can be morally better than the "old laws" -- shouldn't you?  FFS!  Of course you should.  Jeez, its like saying that you will damn well keep your slave and continue to rape your wife because when you bought him and married her it was perfectly legal to enslave and rape and now that you know better there is no reason to actually do better.


----------



## Shusha (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​
> What were Israel's international borders in 1948?



You play such a weird hypocritical game with this.  

On the one hand you argue that Israel had no international borders and therefore is ineligible for nationhood.  

On the other you argue that "Palestine" had clear international borders and therefore became a nation in 1924 (or whatever date you are arguing) because it had clear borders.  

You are using the same facts and data to deny one and support the other.  Its ridiculous.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > Indeed, "innocent civilians" do not live on stolen land.
> ...








 And then he denied he was a nazi Jew hater and did not single out the Jews for racist attention. He is the worst kind of racist that wallows in the slime of his own hatred with pleasure.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Shusha said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...








 WHO SAID   detail the international law that says the lane was owned by arab muslims after being given to the Jews by the lands legal owners. So when did the zionists steal palestinian land when it was theirs under international law and international treaty.

 YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD ABOUT USING INTERNATIONAL LAW RETROSPECTIVELY AS IT WILL THEN BE USED AGAINST YOUR THEFT OF FIRST NATIONS LANDS


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore, et al,
> ...









 Ans just where is that written down in an international treaty and agreed by all parties. The LoN mandate makes it very clear that 22% of palestine was for the Jewish NATIONal home while 78% was for the arab muslim national home. It was also agreed that the two peoples would not inhabit each others lands without being allowed by the soveriegns to do so.


 WHY DO YOU DENY THE JEWS THEIR LEGAL, MORAL AND HUMAN RIGHTS TO SELF DETERMINATION, A HOMELAND AND THE RIGHT TO DEFEND AGAINST YERRORISM AND VIOLENCE ?


----------



## Hollie (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...


As usual, unable to form a coherent argument, you resort to spamming the thread with meaningless piffle.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...










 Those as laid down by the LoN in 1923 that you have been given thousands of times.

What are the international borders of palestine as delineated in their declaration of independence ?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

Shusha said:


> P F Tinmore said:
> 
> 
> > against the territorial integrity and political independence of the Provisional Government of Israel,​
> ...











And in the process confuses himself as to what part of the argument goes with which part of the truth.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore said:
> ...







 So that means that the nation of palestine only exists in your fantasy world then, and Israel can over run it any time they want


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Yes which is also called the green line or 1967 ceasefire lines. Which gives Israel all of area C and Jerusalem


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

No, Occupied Territory and Sovereign control are two different things.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > The borders are physically were the Israelis enforce sovereign control.
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

The Arab Palestinians should be very familiar with both concepts.

•  From 1918 to 1920, it was under the effective control of the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration.
•  From 1949 to 1950, the West Bank was under the effective control of the Jordanians _(other Palestinian Jordanians)_ Occupation by the Hashemite Kingdom.
•  From 1950 to 1988, the West Bank was Sovereign territory of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. 
•  From 1949 to 1959, until the dissolution of the All Palestine Government (APG), the Gaza Strip was a Dependent Territory to Egypt.  
•  From 1959 to 1967, the Gaza Strip was a Protectorate under an Egyptian Military Governorship.
•  From 1967 to 2005, the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the Government of Israel (GOI):

§  From 1967 to 1988 the Gaza Strip was under the effective control of the GOI as a "Dependent Territory" _(a territory that does not possess full political independence or sovereignty as a sovereign state yet remains politically outside of the controlling state's integral area.)_.  
§  From 1988 to 2005 after the Declaration of Independence by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), acting as the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people," was under the effective control of the GOI over the Gaza Strip as an Occupied "Protectorate" _(a state that is controlled and protected by another state)_.
§  From 2005 until present, the Gaza Strip is a internally disputed government in a declared Jihadi conflict with the GOI.  The GOI has effectively relinquished ground control to the Gaza Strip in 2005.​•  From 1967 to 1988, the the West Bank was under the GOI effective control of sovereign Jordanian territory until it was politically abandon.
•  From 1988 to 1994, the West Bank was a "Protectorate" under occupation by the GOI.



•  From 1994 to 1995, the West Bank and Gaza Strip were both Transitional in Political Status under the 1993 Declaration of Principles (Oslo I Accords) and the 1995 Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II Accords).
•  From 1995 until Present:  

§  Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of *Area A* ; Full civil and security control by the Palestinian Authority.
§  Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of *Area B* ;  Palestinian civil control and joint Israeli-Palestinian security control.
§  Under the Palestinian approved agreement, the establishment of *Area C* ;  Full Israeli civil and security control.​
Other than the Oslo Accords, the status between the 1988 State of Palestine (in a internally disputed government) the recognized "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" have made no to refrain from jihadist armed struggle, political, economic or any other form of coercion aimed against the political independence or territorial integrity of any State.  The Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) openly acknowledge their use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of the GOI.  This includes the  use of force to violate the existing international boundaries of the GOI as a means of solving international territorial disputes concerning the frontiers of the GOI.  You may argue the origin of the sovereign boundaries of the GOI, but you cannot argue the existence of the sovereign control over these boundaries or the recognition by other states.  

In this regard, the question on "where, when and how" the boundaries came into being is a "dispute" that under International Law must be resolved through peaceful means.  It cannot be resolved by the use of Jihad or armed struggle as advocated by HAMAS _(Covenant and Policy explanation)_, the PLO/Palestine _(Charter that was never dissolved or amended)_, or the half dozen or so active affiliated Jihadist and Fedayeen organizations that use _“the calculated use of unlawful violence or threat of unlawful violence to inculcate fear; intended to coerce or to intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological.”_ 

Most respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> No, Occupied Territory and Sovereign control are two different things.
> 
> ...


What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?

What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 First you need to define these universal and inalienable rights and the dates of their implementation. Without this they are meaningless babble with no meaning.

Because they were the borders of the MANDATE OF PALESTINE and not the nation of palestine, and this has been proven to you thousands of times and still you act like a moron. Denying the full text of the treaty because it destroys your POV, and repeatedly using your version of accounts because you wont admit you are wrong.



 YOU HAVE NOTHING BUT YOUR IMMATURE PETULANT SCREECHINGS TO SUPPORT YOUR CASE AND EVEN THEY ARE FAST BEING WHITTLED AWAY TO NOTHING.


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:



			
				First Sentence of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said:
			
		

> Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and
> peace in the world,





			
				Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action Adopted by the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna on 25 June 1993 said:
			
		

> 2. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status, and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
> 
> Taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, the World Conference on Human Rights recognizes the right of peoples to take any legitimate action, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to realize their inalienable right of self-determination.  The World Conference on Human Rights considers the denial of the right of self-determination as a violation of human rights and underlines the importance of the effective realization of this right.





> 10. The World Conference on Human Rights reaffirms the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as a universal
> and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights.
> 
> As stated in the Declaration on the Right to Development, the human person is the central subject of development.  While development facilitates the enjoyment of all human rights, the lack of development may not be invoked to justify the abridgement of internationally recognized human rights.
> ...





P F Tinmore said:


> What part of all this negates the Palestinian's universal, inalienable rights?
> 
> What is the dispute over Palestine's international borders that were defined by post war treaties?


*(COMMENT)*

First, as I have pointed-out before, all people have the exact same Universal and Inalienable Rights _(Hypothetical Description of Conditions NOT in Evidence: All people have the same dimension of rights everywhere; --- however, the Rights in North America are different that the Middle East or the Far East)_ .

Second, "the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence of Colonial Countries and Peoples (also known as the Special Committee on decolonization or C-24), the United Nations entity exclusively devoted to the issue of decolonization, was established in 1961 by the General Assembly with the purpose of monitoring the implementation of the Declaration (General Assembly Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960)."  According to the UN Committee 24, there are no (None - NADA) such entities in the Middle East.

Third, the Hostile Arab Palestinians (HoAP) have exercised their "rights to Self-determination" many more times than have the Jewish People.

Fourth, the Jewish Immigrants became permanent residents and gains citizenship within the meaning of the laws enforce at the time.  And those same Jewish Immigrants, by virtue of that citizenship (the same citizenship held by the HoAP) became equal inhabitants of the territory.       

Fifth, the Jewish Inhabitants had the exact same "rights" as the HoAP inhabitants.

Sixth, the HoAP did not cooperate of by 1923, the Mandatory had made at least three attempt was made to establish an institution through which the Arab population of Palestine could be brought into cooperation with the government. The mandatory Power now proposed “the establishment of an Arab Agency in Palestine which will occupy a position exactly analogous to that accorded to the Jewish Agency”. The Arab Agency would have the right to be consulted on all matters relating to immigration, on which it was recognised that “the views of the Arab community were entitled to special consideration”. The Arab leaders declined that this offer on the ground that it would not satisfy the aspirations of the Arab people. They added that, never having recognised the status of the Jewish Agency, they had no desire for the establishment of an Arab Agency on the same basis.  These rejections by their Right of Self-Determination had a grave impact on the tutelage provided by Mandatory on behalf of the League.  Thus not rendering meaning to Article 22(2) of the Covenant.

Finally, the contributing factor for the more that half-century in a lack of progress in the "Right to Development" expected by the Vienna Convention has lead to a taken the HoAP people backwards.  The Jewish cooperation in tutelage _(not the only contributing factor, but certainly one major factor)_ has lead to Israel being ranked 18th today in Human Development, outstripping in some of the most oil rich nations of the world, and ranking higher every than any of the Arab League Aggressor Nations and Arab Participants in the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, and the 1973 Yom Kipper War.

No matter what objective yardstick you might use in the evaluation of the two peoples (Israelis 'vs' Palestinians) there is no open view where the investors in Israel did not receive many more times the value in their return-on-investment (ROI) than did the investors in any of the Arab Nations.  In fact, the HoAP demonstrated their appreciation to the Jordanians in the Black September Movement of 1970.   And the Government of Yemen is a failed state.   Hezbollah has taken-over the al-Bekka Valley in Lebanon.  Syria is a complete shambles.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 2, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Before I answer your questions, let's make sure we all understand the substantive facts of the questions:
> 
> ...


The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 2, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...


*(COMMENT)*

Actually, the International Bill of Human Rights _(Part "A" being the UDHR)_ uses the term "members of the human family") (as published by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights) in the very first paragraph of the Preamble.

Notice in the in the very next paragraph, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights uses the phrase:  human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common *people*"  --- as opposed to "peoples."

Corroborating Source:  A/RES/3/217 A

This argument is subterfuge.  The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront.  If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it.  Don't hold us in suspense.





Jane Mairs, Director of English language Learning Publishing
*ASK THE EDITOR:*

_*What is the difference between people and peoples?*
Monday June 16th 2014

However, people_ can also mean “all or most humans,” or “all humans of a particular type,” as in these examples:


He doesn't care what _people_ think of him. (people=all people)
_Young people_ carry their mobile phones everywhere. (young people=all or nearly all young people)


Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...









 Only in your twisted brain, and once again you deflect because you have been defeated and soundly beaten by your opponent. The term is used in the same way in both contexts, unless you can show the difference ?    In doing so you will have to admit that you want to remove the Jews inalienable rights and theei legal, moral, religious and human rights as well.


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> ...


There is a world of difference between people and peoples. That is why they use such an odd term when discussing universal rights. You are just conflating the terms to confuse the issues.


----------



## Phoenall (Aug 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > P F Tinmore,  et al,
> ...








 Then you will have no problem in showing what the difference is, or are you just another of your deflections because you have lost yet another argument ?


----------



## RoccoR (Aug 3, 2016)

P F Tinmore,  et al,

OMG ... If you are going to make a substantive point.  Make it.



P F Tinmore said:


> RoccoR said:
> 
> 
> > This argument is subterfuge.  The difference between "Peoples and People;" --- trying to push the true nature of the subject away from the forefront.  If you are going to make a point along this line, then make it.  Don't hold us in suspense.
> ...



*(COMMENT)*

Yes I understand completely.  I think I gave you a source.  The selection I made _(between using "people" and "peoples")_ was determined by the source and not by me individually.



			
				P F Tinmore said:
			
		

> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights uses the term "peoples." You use the term "people." Those have different meanings. Why did you do that?



You asked a question and I answered, in Posting #511, exactly where (complete with links) I derived that word, and that you were mistaken in your observation.

I am again asking for your point.

Most Respectfully,
R


----------



## Coyote (Aug 3, 2016)

*Looks like for the last 100 posts or so this thread has gotten significantly off topic so we need a course correction, here is the OP - let's get back to it or...at least a little closer* 



> This Saturday was the 68th Anniversary of the Deir Yassin massacre. As no-one's opened a thread about it I thought I would.
> "The massacre came in spite of Deir Yassin resident's efforts to maintain positive relations with new Jewish neighbors, including the signing of pact that was approved by Haganah, a main Zionist paramilitary organization during the British Mandate of Palestine." Palestinians mark 68th anniversary of Deir Yassin massacre


----------



## P F Tinmore (Aug 3, 2016)

RoccoR said:


> P F Tinmore,  et al,
> 
> Yes, I've seen this challenge before; and like then --- I don't believe it makes any significant contribution to the discussion...
> 
> ...


I moved this discussion to here:

The Official Discussion Thread for the creation of Israel, the UN and the British Mandate


----------



## Challenger (Dec 1, 2016)

October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.

Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):

_“To comrade Eliezer Peri, good day,

Today I have read the editorial of “Al Hamishmar” where the question of our army’s conduct was aired, the army which conquers all but its own desires._

_A testimony provided to me by an officer who was in Al Dawayima the day after its conquering: *The soldier is one of ours, intellectual, reliable, in all 100%.* *He had confided in me out of a need to unload the heaviness of his soul from the horror of the recognition that such level of barbarism can be reached by our educated and cultured people.* He confided in me because not many are the hearts today who are able to listen._

*There was no battle and no resistance.*_ The first conquerors killed from eighty to a hundred Arabs [including] women and children. *The children were killed by smashing of their skulls with sticks.* _

_There was not a house without dead. The second wave of the [Israeli] army was a platoon that the soldier giving testimony belongs to._

*In the town were left male and female Arabs, who were put into houses and were then locked in without receiving food or drink. Later explosive engineers came to blow up houses. One commander ordered an engineer to put two elderly women into the house that was to be blown up. The engineer refused and said he is willing to receive orders only from his [own] commander. So then [his] commander ordered the soldiers to put the women in and the evil deed was performed.*


_One soldier boasted that he raped an Arab woman and afterwards shot her. An Arab woman with a days-old infant was used for cleaning the back yard where the soldiers eat. She serviced them for a day or two, after which they shot her and the infant. *The soldier tells that the commanders, who are cultured and polite, considered good guys in society have become vile murderers, and this occurs not in the storm of battle and heated response, but rather from a system of expulsion and destruction.* _

*The fewer Arabs remain – the better. This principle is the main political motive of [the] expulsions and acts of horror which no-one objects to, not in the field command nor amongst the highest military command. I myself was at the front for two weeks and heard boasting stories of soldiers and commanders, of how they excelled in the acts of hunting and “fucking” [sic]. To fuck an Arab, just like that, and in any circumstance, is considered an impressive mission and there is competition on winning this [trophy].*

_We find ourselves in a conundrum. To shout this out in the press will mean to assist the Arab League, which our representatives deny all complaints of. To not react would mean solidarity with moral corruption. *The soldier told me that Deir Yassin [another massacre, by Irgun militants, April 1948] is not the peak of hooliganism. Is it possible to shout about Deir Yassin and be silent about something much worse?*_ 

_It is necessary to initiate a scandal in the internal channels, to insist upon an internal investigation and punish the culprits. And first of all it is necessary to create in the military a special unit for the restraint of the army. *I myself accuse first of all the government, which doesn’t seem to have any interest to fight the phenomena and perhaps even encourages them indirectly. *The fact of not-acting is in itself encouragement. My commander told me that there is an unwritten order to not take prisoners of war, and the interpretation of “prisoner” is individually given by each soldier and commander. A prisoner can be an Arab man, woman or child. This was not only done at the exhibition windows [major Palestinian towns] such as Majdal and Nazareth._

_I write this to you so that in the editorial and in the party the truth will be known and something effective would be done. At least let them not indulge in phony diplomacy which covers up for blood and murder, and to the extent possible, also the paper must not let this pass in silence._

_Kaplan”_


_סיפורה של שבירת שתיקה בת 68 שנים_


more to follow.


----------



## Hollie (Dec 1, 2016)

Challenger said:


> October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.
> 
> Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):
> 
> ...


My goodness. Such an angry Pom Pom flailer for the Islamist Entity™. 

You're mindlessy looking for an "ouch" contest. There are cut and paste articles describing islamist atrocities. Consider opening a thread dedicated to cut and paste articles of that type.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 1, 2016)

Challenger said:


> October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.
> 
> Just so we can’t be accused of using “biased” information, here’s an eye-witness account from a Zionist with a conscience (there weren’t many around then, or now for that matter, but there were a few) translated from the original Israeli (emphasis mine):
> 
> ...









 Disputed figures as a search uncovers this 

 Lieutenant-General John Bagot Glubb, the British commander of Jordan's Arab Legion stated the numbers were much smaller, citing a UN report for a figure of 30 women and children killed.



But once again rat boy finds a singular episode and tries to imply that this was the common practise at that time. Will he accept the torture, rape, defilement and subsequebt cannibalism of two israeli soldiers as being indicative of common arab muslim behaviour ?


----------



## Challenger (Dec 2, 2016)

Phoenall said:


> Challenger said:
> 
> 
> > October was a busy month for the Zionist colonists carrying out their program of extermination and ethnic cleansing. Let’s look at one of the biggest Zionist massacres; at Al Dawayima, west of Hebron.
> ...




Oh, this is too rich. Phukwit Phoney, not only uses Wikipedia, which he himself says can’t be trusted,
Al-Dawayima massacre - Wikipedia but uses the Arab Legion Commander’s comments *a man who wasn’t there* against a actual Zionist Israeli *eye witness* account from someone who* was*.

So according to Phukwit Phoney, Wikipedia is now a trusted source and Zionists are liars! Brilliant, thanks Phoney. 

However, our Phukwit friend here misses out something interesting about the possible motivation for Baggot Glubb’s playing down of the figures:

_'The reason why so little is known about this massacre which, in many respects, was more brutal than the Deir Yassin massacre, is because the Arab Legion (the Army in control of that area) feared that if the news was allowed to spread, it would have the same effect on the moral of the peasantry that Deir Yassin had, namely to cause another flow of Arab refugees.'_ --United Nations Conciliation Commission for Palestine Technical Committee, United Nations A/AC.25/Com.Tech/W.3, 14 June 1949.

Priceless!

Cue Phukwit Phoney rant..........GO!


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 2, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Phoenall said:
> 
> 
> > Challenger said:
> ...









 WRONG AGAIN rat boy as it is you that is obviously going into melt down when shown the other side of the coin. What a LOSER you are


----------



## Challenger (Dec 8, 2016)

Never disappoints, what a Phuckwit Phoney is.


----------



## Challenger (Dec 8, 2016)

Here's another account of the Zionist atrocity from eyewitnesses:

"One of the worst but best-documented massacres during the offensive took place at Dawayma. This town was taken by a company of the 89th Commando Battalion which was composed of former Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists. A veteran of the unit has published an account of the massacre. He notes that in order `to kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. After murdering the children, the Jewish soldiers herded the women and men into houses. where they were kept without food or water. Then the houses were blown up with the helpless civilians inside.

The Israelis were particularly sadistic in their treatment of Arab women. One Zionist soldier in Dawayma, `prided himself upon having raped an Arab woman before shooting her to death. Another Arab woman with her newborn baby was made to clean the place for a couple of days and then they shot her and her baby. The conscience-stricken Israeli veteran who revealed these events stressed that they were committed by `Educated and well-mannered commanders who were considered good guys. They became `base murderers and this was not in the storm of battle but as a method of expulsion and extermination. The fewer the Arabs who remained, the better.

At the end of the offensive on the southern front, the UN requested that the Israelis allow a team of observers to visit Dawayma to investigate Egyptian charges that a massacre had taken place there. After three previous requests were denied, on 8 November the Israelis finally allowed Colonel Sore and Warrant-Officer Van Wassenhove to visit the village. As he walked through the town, the Belgian Van Wassenhove saw that many of the houses were still smoking. Some of these houses, the Belgian officer noted, `gave a peculiar smell as if bones were burning. But he was not allowed by the Israeli officer to investigate further. When he asked about a house which was about to be blown up, Van Wassenhove was told `The house has vermin in it and that's why we are blowing it up.

The UN team requested to see the village mosque in Dawayma but an Israeli officer replied, `we never go into the mosque because this is not correct and we must follow tradition in such things.؟ But when the UN officials did get a brief look inside they found that there were quite a few Jewish soldiers in the Islamic holy place, which had obviously been desecrated.

Sore and Van Wassenhove wanted to see the other side of the village, where they suspected there might be more incriminating evidence. The Israelis would not let the UN team go there because they claimed that the area was mined. But Van Wassenhove remarked, `I haven't noticed any place where there could be mines or where mines could have been taken out. He also observed that the road that the Israelis claimed had been mined by the Arabs faced the Arab lines, which is not the side of the village where mines would be placed.

When Sore and Van Wassenhove asked about the evacuation of the village by its inhabitants, they were told that the whole population had fled when the Arab forces left the region. The Israelis denied that they had used force to expel the villagers but they were greatly disturbed when the UN observers came upon the body of an Arab civilian and they refused to allow Sore and Van Wassenhove to examine it. Despite the hostile attitude of the Israelis, the UN team had little doubt about what had taken place at Dawayma.

The American Consul in Jerusalem, William Burdett, had heard about the visit of the UN team to Dawayma. After making inquiries, on 16 November, he reported to Washington, `Investigation by UN indicates massacre occurred but observers are unable to determine number of persons involved. Estimates vary considerably but probably about 300 Arab civilians were slaughtered in the town.

Members of the Israeli government knew what had happened at Dawayma and other towns in the Negev but most were unconcerned. However, one Israeli leader had a conscience. 

On 17 November, Agriculture Minister Aharon Cizling told the Cabinet, "I feel that things are going on which are hurting my soul, the soul of my family and all of us here." Probably referring to Dawayma, he added, `Jews too have behaved like Nazis and my entire being has been shaken'.


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 9, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Never disappoints, what a Phuckwit Phoney is.







No intelligent reply so you resort to the neo marxists favourite trick of personal abuse and LIES


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 9, 2016)

Challenger said:


> Here's another account of the Zionist atrocity from eyewitnesses:
> 
> "One of the worst but best-documented massacres during the offensive took place at Dawayma. This town was taken by a company of the 89th Commando Battalion which was composed of former Irgun and Stern Gang terrorists. A veteran of the unit has published an account of the massacre. He notes that in order `to kill the children they fractured their heads with sticks. There was not one house without corpses. After murdering the children, the Jewish soldiers herded the women and men into houses. where they were kept without food or water. Then the houses were blown up with the helpless civilians inside.
> 
> ...










 No link so we can see which hate site you lifted this from ?


----------



## Challenger (Dec 9, 2016)

And then we have 29th october 1948 the Safsaf massacre:

"Israeli soldiers massacred between fifty and seventy Palestinians in the Galilean village of Safsaf on this date in 1948, following a twelve-hour battle between Israeli forces and a division of the Arab Liberation Army. “In Safsaf, after . . . the inhabitants had raised a white flag,” wrote Yosef Nahmani, a senior Israeli officer, in his diary, “the [soldiers] collected and separated the men and women, tied the hands of fifty-sixty _fellahin_ and shot and killed them and buried them in a pit. Also, they raped several women,” including a 14-year-old. “Where did they come by such a measure of cruelty, like Nazis?,” Nahmani continued. “. . . Is there no more humane way of expelling the inhabitants than by such methods?”

Yes folks, the IDF, the most moral army in the world....


----------



## Phoenall (Dec 10, 2016)

Challenger said:


> And then we have 29th october 1948 the Safsaf massacre:
> 
> "Israeli soldiers massacred between fifty and seventy Palestinians in the Galilean village of Safsaf on this date in 1948, following a twelve-hour battle between Israeli forces and a division of the Arab Liberation Army. “In Safsaf, after . . . the inhabitants had raised a white flag,” wrote Yosef Nahmani, a senior Israeli officer, in his diary, “the [soldiers] collected and separated the men and women, tied the hands of fifty-sixty _fellahin_ and shot and killed them and buried them in a pit. Also, they raped several women,” including a 14-year-old. “Where did they come by such a measure of cruelty, like Nazis?,” Nahmani continued. “. . . Is there no more humane way of expelling the inhabitants than by such methods?”
> 
> Yes folks, the IDF, the most moral army in the world....









Yes they are, they are more moral than your nations army that raped its way across N.I, stole food from the people they were sent to protect and then started to kill them piecemeal. This is why there is to be another inquiry into what went on during the troubles, and most of it on your political parties watch.

 But because no Jews were involved you dont care


----------

