Lest we forget...

[jillian]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.”​

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.

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

That is a proven massacre beyond all doubt.

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

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 ?

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?

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.

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]

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.”​

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

....

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.

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]

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.

You sound like a Holocaust Denier. Same rationalizations.

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.

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

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

Start a thread on it why don't you?

 

[Coyote]

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 ?

Some of it is sourced in this thread.

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

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 ?

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

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

 

[Boston1]

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 ?

Some of it is sourced in this thread.

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

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 ?

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

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

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 ?

Some of it is sourced in this thread.

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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]

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.

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.

Again your making an assumption

Quote

Why else would they kill children

End Quote

We don't know that any children were killed.

 

[Boston1]

Some of it is sourced in this thread.

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

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 ?

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

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

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

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.

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]

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.

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.

Again your making an assumption

Quote

Why else would they kill children

End Quote

We don't know that any children were killed.

Yes, we do - their bodies were found.

 

[Boston1]

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.

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.

Again your making an assumption

Quote

Why else would they kill children

End Quote

We don't know that any children were killed.

Yes, we do - their bodies were found.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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 )