Lest we forget...

[Coyote]

Once it came down to making the decision to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants, including children - then the context changes. It changes from being a battle to being a slaughter of non-combatants. A massacre. That is not a false narrative. The false narrative I'm seeing is the one denying this took place.

Well, in fact there are no reliable numbers about how many died, let alone how many were women or children and even less the cause of death for each. Thus, your narrative that "a decision was made to go house to house and shoot the inhabitants in cold blood" is false. Its a narrative intended to sell and exaggerate the story as an atrocity, rather than to present what we actually know about the event.

There are plenty of witness accounts from both participants, observers and survivors to put together a pretty good guess, generally given at around 130-140. Included among them are people who took photographs that have not been released publically by the Israeli government.

A decision was made to go house to house. That is not false - it happened.
People were killed in cold blood - they were unarmed and they included children. How is that false?
Somewhere, along the line - someone decided to do that.
When you add in the fact that there were factions among them that brought up killing civilians (but were voted down) - it becomes more compelling that some made that choice.

The story IS an atrocity - how can it be anything but? Was Hebron an atrocity? Yes! Was Safed an atrocity? Yes! Acknowledging it would be the first step in moving on past it.

Your narrative paints a picture of women and children and elderly men cowering frightened in their homes while terrorists went from house to house and calmly shot them all. But that was not the case -- it was an active battle with active shooters that went on for more than six hours. You don't walk into a house in the middle of an active battle and ask nicely if there are any men with guns there. That would get you killed. War just doesn't work that way.

At that point - the resistance was over most of the men had fled. Why would you go in, pull people out (women, children, elderly) and shoot them? (as was described). Why would you ever shoot children?

Now, does this mean I don't believe any atrocities happened? Of course not. I think there is evidence of at least some women and children being needlessly killed and even, in some cases, deliberately killed. I agree with you that, while the operation as a whole was demonstrably not intended as a massacre, indeed had been forbidden to be so, at least some of the attackers did outright murder at least some of those killed. Which, of course, I condemn.

In my opinion, that makes it a massacre - there were those who wanted a massacre, and they got it, did they not? This was NOT a well trained or well disciplined or even particularly well armed paramilitary - they were inexperienced and unprofessional and referred to as "dissadents". According to witness' - in many cases, people hiding in the houses were deliberately killed, even pulled out, lined up and shot - not just a few. And then you have those who were shot after being taken prisoner. In my opinion - you can't simply bypass slaughtering children, making that choice, once you do...it is a massacre. I can understand children getting shot accidently in war zones, that's a context I can understand - but I can not find any context that ever makes the deliberate killing of children acceptable.

​

Were they warned? The truck never reached the village. Even if it had reached the village at it's designated time of 5am - the battle had already started.

But again, context. The truck was there. The truck was on the road. The loudspeaker and the fluent Arabic speaker were on the truck. The intent was clearly to warn. (Thus no intent to massacre). The truck fell into a ditch which had been built by the villagers as fortification against attack. (Ironic, no?).

And the battle began before the anticipated time due to accidental discovery by one of the men who guarded the village at night. Again, the intent was for the loudspeaker to announce the attack and allow the villagers to flee. (Thus, again, no massacre). Actually, the intent, at least according to some, was to have the loudspeaker announce that the village was surrounded and that everyone would leave and the village would be taken peacefully.

Ok, I'll grant that the original INTENT wasn't a massacre, but a massacre still occurred.

Your narrative leaves out important facts - that village could have been taken peacefully, per Haganah, that they represented no thread at the time, that they had signed and not violated a peace pact, and that non-resisting civilians were systematically killed. It was an utterly unnecessary massacre from start to finish.

Interesting that you qualified your statement with "non-resisting" and "systematically". Neither of these things are true. There's the narrative again.

Are you telling me children were resisting? How about the people hiding in the houses? How were they resisting?

I might agree that the village could have been taken peacefully. Why wasn't it? Might it have been because the villagers stockpiled weapons, built fortifications and trained men to shoot? Again, you leave out important facts in order to sell your "massacre" story. When, in point of fact, the village was not taken peacefully because the villagers chose to fight.

What important facts are you leaving out of your non-massacre story?

According to Wiki: Irgun and Lehi commanders had believed the residents would flee, but the fighters encountered resistance. The residents did not realize that the point of the attack was conquest, thinking it just a raid, and failed to run while they had the chance.

That does not negate the fact it could have been taken peacefully like Abu Ghosh, without a military attack - Abu Ghosh, like Deir Yassim, had remained neutral. Haganah repeatedly stated that it was unnecessary to attack it, and Deir Yassim HAD a peace pact, it had adhered to and it had turned away or notified Haganah of the presence of foreign fighters.

Most of the villages Jewish and Arab were at risk of attack from both Arab militias or Jewish militias and had some degree of fortification.

And what makes you think the peace pact between the Arab and Jewish villages would permit EITHER group to use the village as a base? If the villagers fought off the Arab forces who wanted to use the village in that way, what makes you think they wouldn't have tried to fight of the Jewish forces. (Which they did).

Which is in line with their being neutral - and again, Haganah did not seem to have a problem with that.

And to keep focused on what my point is -- it is not that atrocities did not happen. They clearly did. On both sides. (Like the Hadassah medical convoy attack (also called a massacre) a few days later.) And they should, of course, be condemned. But both sides also used this particular event as propaganda and it is difficult to sort out which is which.

Agree, and when discussing something extremely emotional, which these things are - it's good to remember what the actual points are.

Upselling and memorializing one particular battle in a long (very long) conflict between two peoples as a massacre only serves to entrench (infect) the mentality that the Arabs bear no responsibility toward events and that they are merely victims of oppressors. That the Arabs are being acted upon instead of being a partner in the conflict.

This part, I don't agree with. I think this particular event is a poor example to use to make that particular point.

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

Yes, this is very true. And in addressing the issues surrounding the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, it serves no useful purpose to attempt to rewrite history.

Both sides have committed atrocities. The "Deir Yassin event was one of many; just as Kfar Etzion and Haifa Oil Refinery massacre were at the time.

I'm sure that if you read one or two of Benny Morris's books, you can make a quite impressive lists of very bad decisions the Jewish/Israelis made across the decades that paint them as the black horse. (I can hardly open a page that I don't read some revelation of a Israeli wrongdoing.) Just as you can get a very similar impressive list of Arab Palestinian activities. My favorite is the Captured Jewish Holy Sites Desecrated in Jerusalem.

It isn't right to deny or falsify the massacre Deir Yassin in order to put the lid on false narratives. It did happen. And the Palestinians have a legitimate right to remember it because it represented a pivotal for both sides in the war.

Deir Yassin is not a lie or a libel.

(COMMENT)

A positive outcome is only achieved if powered by bold ideas and profound goals and objectives. Only then can the any of us hope a solution will be found. If the Palestine Territory wanted to emulate the post-war development miracle set by Japan's economic growth, the huge effort in Germany, the Arab Palestinians went about it the wrong way.

They need to try something different. Like the Germans and Japanese of today have worked past the conflict of seven decades ago, so it is that the Arab Palestinian must break away from the failed patterns of the Arab League and adopt new ideas that would bring them in competition with Israel; NOT conflict.

Most Respectfully,
R

Totally agree....best post in this thread

Truth and reconciliation is what is needed, to begin with - and then move on.

 

[Boston1]

Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died.

Why only focus on the sensationalistic side ? The worst of the propaganda and incitement ?

It sounds like its all just propaganda. Where are the graves ?

 

[P F Tinmore]

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.

Guns or "suicide belts" or little missiles or bombs are SECONDARY to Organization and Representation. What I SEE is a lot responsible (and some not so responsible) Jewish Zionist organizations apologizing or denouncing the action.. Pretty quickly after it happened.

Whatever the "stateless" or unorganized intend to DO with those armaments and terrorist tools cannot MAR or stain the bigger goal.. And having folks make responsible efforts to DENOUNCE those actions --- is more important than unleashing the militants to just kill and murder.

Nice to have a GPS coordinate for any leadership that APPROVES of this "stateless" violence. Makes it's easy to fix with a cruise missile or a directed strike...

The Palestinian civilians were under attack by the Zionist military. If any of them put up a defense it is their right to do so.

 

[Boston1]

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.

Guns or "suicide belts" or little missiles or bombs are SECONDARY to Organization and Representation. What I SEE is a lot responsible (and some not so responsible) Jewish Zionist organizations apologizing or denouncing the action.. Pretty quickly after it happened.

Whatever the "stateless" or unorganized intend to DO with those armaments and terrorist tools cannot MAR or stain the bigger goal.. And having folks make responsible efforts to DENOUNCE those actions --- is more important than unleashing the militants to just kill and murder.

Nice to have a GPS coordinate for any leadership that APPROVES of this "stateless" violence. Makes it's easy to fix with a cruise missile or a directed strike...

The Palestinian civilians were under attack by the Zionist military. If any of them put up a defense it is their right to do so.

Sounds more like the Zionist military was under attack by the Arab Muslim Pallywood writers and producers. One false narrative after another and maybe Pallywood can slander their way out of this.

 

[Coyote]

Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died.

Why only focus on the sensationalistic side ? The worst of the propaganda and incitement ?

It sounds like its all just propaganda. Where are the graves ?

The sensationalist side call for "240" deaths, most sources seem to say around 130-140. Multiple witness' cite children killed.

If there had not been a massacre - why would they bother to apologize for it?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Guns or "suicide belts" or little missiles or bombs are SECONDARY to Organization and Representation. What I SEE is a lot responsible (and some not so responsible) Jewish Zionist organizations apologizing or denouncing the action.. Pretty quickly after it happened.

Whatever the "stateless" or unorganized intend to DO with those armaments and terrorist tools cannot MAR or stain the bigger goal.. And having folks make responsible efforts to DENOUNCE those actions --- is more important than unleashing the militants to just kill and murder.

Nice to have a GPS coordinate for any leadership that APPROVES of this "stateless" violence. Makes it's easy to fix with a cruise missile or a directed strike...

The Palestinian civilians were under attack by the Zionist military. If any of them put up a defense it is their right to do so.

Defense against stateless terrorism IS justified. Stateless terrorists having bombs/weapons and a agenda to pick civilian targets is ALWAYS a problem.. You seemed to be getting a little carried away with the concept that the WEAPONS create new states. The weapons are secondary to establishing a responsible organization(s) and representation that is AVAILABLE to answer for any unjustified violence..

In this case, the attack was condemned and apologized for by a bunch of responsible parties. We shouldn't be here denying it happened. But we also shouldn't be blaming the Israeli Govt for this tragedy..

 

[Boston1]

Other eye witness accounts claim only 25 deaths, no rape, no children died.

Why only focus on the sensationalistic side ? The worst of the propaganda and incitement ?

It sounds like its all just propaganda. Where are the graves ?

The sensationalist side call for "240" deaths, most sources seem to say around 130-140. Multiple witness' cite children killed.

If there had not been a massacre - why would they bother to apologize for it?

Why did the Israeli's apologize for the beach bombing when after an investigation it also turned out to be a fraud

Eye witnesses who refused to go along with the propaganda said that both sides played up the incident as a propaganda tool.

 

[P F Tinmore]

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??

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.

Guns or "suicide belts" or little missiles or bombs are SECONDARY to Organization and Representation. What I SEE is a lot responsible (and some not so responsible) Jewish Zionist organizations apologizing or denouncing the action.. Pretty quickly after it happened.

Whatever the "stateless" or unorganized intend to DO with those armaments and terrorist tools cannot MAR or stain the bigger goal.. And having folks make responsible efforts to DENOUNCE those actions --- is more important than unleashing the militants to just kill and murder.

Nice to have a GPS coordinate for any leadership that APPROVES of this "stateless" violence. Makes it's easy to fix with a cruise missile or a directed strike...

The Palestinian civilians were under attack by the Zionist military. If any of them put up a defense it is their right to do so.

Defense against stateless terrorism IS justified. Stateless terrorists having bombs/weapons and a agenda to pick civilian targets is ALWAYS a problem.. You seemed to be getting a little carried away with the concept that the WEAPONS create new states. The weapons are secondary to establishing a responsible organization(s) and representation that is AVAILABLE to answer for any unjustified violence..

In this case, the attack was condemned and apologized for by a bunch of responsible parties. We shouldn't be here denying it happened. But we also shouldn't be blaming the Israeli Govt for this tragedy..

It was part of the Zionist's ethnic cleansing operation. The Palestinians had to leave or be killed.

 

[Challenger]

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 ;--)

Making things up again, I see. Still got nothing then.

 

[Challenger]

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

Still has nothing.

 

[Challenger]

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 ?

Frantic attempts to deflect, still got nothing.

 

[Challenger]

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 ;--)

Still got nothing.

 

[Challenger]

Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism

The Israeli, and pro-Israeli, media have made a great deal of noise about the recent Palestinian operations in the occupied Gaza Strip whereby eleven Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on armored personnel carriers. With very few exceptions in the Israeli and pro-Israeli media these operations have been deliberately misrepresented as some sort of “terrorist” attacks, a cynical propaganda ploy designed to discredit the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)
These two points — that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors and that this specifically applies to the Palestinian people — has been repeatedly reaffirmed in a myriad of United Nations resolutions. These include UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981), and many others. While these resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law per se, they do reflect the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states, which is the basis of customary international law. So although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in of themselves, when they address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states.

Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism

Finger is just too funny.

Is the entire Arab Muslim narrative really based of nothing but lies and half truths ?

Third sentence in and we've already got false claims of Gaza being occupied.

Quote

operations in the occupied Gaza Strip

End Quote

Then we get to this little jewel

Quote

Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.

End Quote

A there is no such thing as palestine ergo there are no palestinians B there is no occupation. Gaza in a completely autonomous area fully able to declare statehood anytime it wants to, they're just to busy firing rockets into Israel.

The travesty of inaccuracies goes on with

Quote

legitimate armed resistance

End Quote

Stabbing pregnant woman and firing rockets indiscriminately into civilian areas are not legitimate resistance under the Geneva Conventions

And one last example.

Quote

legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle;

End Quote

There is no colonial power and there is no foreign subjugation ergo there can be no legitimate armed struggle. The Judaic people are native to the area, the area was divided into Arab and Jewish states and attacking civilians is hardly a legitimate struggle.

Anyway this is getting boring so yeah. Fingers entire diatribe is based off a lie

Now trying to take the thread off topic, Still got nothing.

 

[Boston1]

Looks like my little challenged friend is having memory lapses again

Post #131 From Challenged

Quote

I agree, the consensus view from all sides is that the mass rape claims were exaggerations in the case of Deir Yassin, but that does not mean to say they didn't happen, perhaps not at Deir Yassin, but elsewhere.

End Quote

So you admit the claims of mass rape were exaggerations and that they likely didn't happen at Deir Yassin. Exactly as I'd stated earlier.

You then make a baseless claim that mass rape occurred elsewhere.

Sad really when your entire diatribe is based off admitted fantasies and empty accusations ;--)

Oh and if you want eye witnesses, fine, lets check the stories of a couple eye witnesses ;--)

Maybe you missed post #127

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

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

Quote

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


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


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


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

End Quote

So yeah. Who's got nothin now Chump.

PS
Pardon my tardy response. I didn't realize you'd get your panties all in a twist. ;--)

 

[Phoenall]

Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism

The Israeli, and pro-Israeli, media have made a great deal of noise about the recent Palestinian operations in the occupied Gaza Strip whereby eleven Israeli soldiers were killed in two separate attacks on armored personnel carriers. With very few exceptions in the Israeli and pro-Israeli media these operations have been deliberately misrepresented as some sort of “terrorist” attacks, a cynical propaganda ploy designed to discredit the Palestinian legal right to resist occupation.

This justification for legitimate armed resistance has been specifically applied to the Palestinian struggle repeatedly. To quote General Assembly Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX) of 29 November 1974:

3. Reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation form colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle; …
7. Strongly condemns all Governments which do not recognize the right to self-determination and independence of peoples under colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation, notably the peoples of Africa and the Palestinian people; (4)
These two points — that people under colonial and foreign domination have the right to use armed struggle against their oppressors and that this specifically applies to the Palestinian people — has been repeatedly reaffirmed in a myriad of United Nations resolutions. These include UNGA Resolution A/RES/3246 (XXIX; 29 November 1974), UNGA Resolution A/RES/33/24 (29 November 1978), UNGA Resolution A/RES/34/44 (23 November 1979), UNGA Resolution A/RES/35/35 (14 November 1980), UNGA Resolution A/RES/36/9 (28 October 1981), and many others. While these resolutions, coming from the General Assembly do not carry the weight of law per se, they do reflect the views of the majority of the world’s sovereign states, which is the basis of customary international law. So although General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding in of themselves, when they address legal issues they do accurately reflect the customary international legal opinion among the majority of the world’s sovereign states.

Palestine: Legitimate Armed Resistance vs. Terrorism

Just more deflection using islamonazi lying propaganda sources.


Now again who is stopping the Palestinians from exercising free determination and how are they doing this ?

 

[Phoenall]

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.

This blather has nothing to do with the IP conflict, or what happened in 1948.

It has everything to do with it as it shows the start of the attacks on the Jews. Many islamic leaders have spelt it out for the infidel to see, and many go around with their fingers in their ears. The Palestinians are no better or worse than the members of daesh, A.Q., hamas, fatah, et al, they are by nature just muslims and all that this entails. There is no such thing as a moderate muslim, they are just muslims as stated by Erdogan.

 

[Phoenall]

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

It's substantiated. You have plenty of first person reports (much like some of what substantiated the Holocaust). Those reports came from Jewish sources as well as Palestinian. What exactly do you expect?

When one person alone makes a statement that is not substantiated by eyewitness accounts then it is not evidence. With the holocaust 20 people will have said I saw the butcher shoot Eli in the head, that is corroborated testimony. But I forget that you follow the Islamic rule of law that says a muslims word is worth that or a million infidels

 

[Phoenall]

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 ?

Your reply doesn't make any sense.

It does if you are a native English speaker. Your answer shows that you don't know what the IDF was originally created for, and what they did.

 

[Phoenall]

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.

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 ?

There's plenty of evidence that they were killed by Irgun and Lehi, not the least of which they did not deny it, but indeed bragged about it. Are you suggesting that they would have issued an apology if they had not done it? You're grasping at straws.

And the testimony was withdrawn at a later date with the admittance that it was propaganda to have the arab muslims running away. So which statement is the true one by the Jews

that they massacred thousands of arab muslims

that they made up the story

Both told by the same person