Lest we forget...

[fanger]

A holocaust is a religious animal sacrifice that is completely consumed by fire. The word derives from the Ancient Greekholocaustos (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]

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]

... 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]

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.

No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.

 

[Boston1]

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]

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

 

[Boston1]

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]

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.

No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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?

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]

... 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."

I have to admit, that's funny - The Onion is a good satire site.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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?

Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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]

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.

Have you, and if you have why were they originally formed back in the early 1920's ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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]

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.

There are still questions as to how many Jews died in the holocaust but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.

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]

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?

Typical Israeli combat. Military attack on civilians. Same as it is today.

Typical islamonazi propaganda ignoring the truth so you can demonise the Jews. Prove they were civilians and not militia, terrorists, extremists and soldiers ?

 

[Hollie]

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.

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.

Indeed, if you review muhammedan history, you will find that is true.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

No problemo, refute Uri Milstein, then.

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.

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.

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