Lest we forget...

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Humanity]

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

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

 

[Boston1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nice catch on the letter head.

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

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

 

[Boston1]

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

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

Why am I not surprised

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


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

Try this one and see how your reading skills are today

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

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

 

[Challenger]

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

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

 

[Hollie]

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

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

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

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

 

[Phoenall]

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

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

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

 

[Shusha]

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

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


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

 

[Coyote]

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

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


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

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

 

[Coyote]

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

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


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


A precise account of what happened at Deir Yassin will probably elude us forever. Each eye-witness tells a different story with a slightly different timetable. Some key documents are still classified. Nonetheless, it is possible to relate the broad outlines of what must have happened with a good degree of confidence. I shall do that below in summary form, and then I shall detail the reasons for reaching each of the major conclusions. Some of the most important references are appended as exhibits, listed in the Introduction.
​

It certainly seems odd that in 1948 there was an acknowledged massacre and suddenly, in 2016 there is no massacre?

Why are documents still classified, almost 70 yrs later?

Deir Yassin was a village near the entrance to Jerusalem, north west of Givat Shaul. Not wishing to endanger itself, it had concluded a peace pact with Givat Shaul that was approved by Yitzhak Navon, who headed the Arab division of Haganah intelligence. A similar pact was made by the village of Abu Ghosh. There is every indication that Deir Yassin kept to this pact. They had repeatedly and actively resisted alliances and offers of help from irregulars headquartered in Ein Kerem,3 though it is possible that some Palestinian irregulars were quartered there against the will of the inhabitants. The village was separated from the Jerusalem road by a high ridge, and villagers could only reach the main road through Givat Shaul. There was no possibility of controlling the main road or firing on the main road from the village. Estimates of village population at the time range from 450 to 1,200, including refugees from nearby Romema and Lifta. 4​

At the beginning of April Irgun and Lehi commanders met and decided to attack Deir Yassin. They rejected suggestions by their own commanders, and by Haganah commander David Shaltiel, to attack strategically important targets (Sheikh Jerakh, Ein Kerem, Qoloniya) because they felt they were too difficult for their inexperienced and ill-equipped soldiers. 5They investigated and found, to the best of their knowledge, that Deir Yassin was a quiet and peaceful village, and decided to attack it nonetheless. It was later claimed that Deir Yassin served as a base of attacks and or quartered foreign soldiers, but these were not part of the considerations involved in deciding upon the attack. During some of the preliminary meetings the idea of a massacre was discussed and rejected.6 David Shaltiel gave the Etzel/Lehi commanders a letter saying he had no objection to attacking the village, provided they could hold the village thereafter. 7


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


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

 

[Boston1]

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

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


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

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

Bottom line is "what really happened"

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

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

 

[Coyote]

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

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


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

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

Bottom line is "what really happened"

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

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

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

 

[Boston1]

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

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


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

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

Bottom line is "what really happened"

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

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

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

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

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

Pallywood has its costs.

 

[Kondor3]

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

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

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

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

 

[Boston1]

Better yet, we should forget.

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

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

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

 

[Shusha]

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

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


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

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

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

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

 

[Coyote]

..

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Coyote]

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

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


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

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

Bottom line is "what really happened"

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

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

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

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

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

Pallywood has its costs.

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

 

[Coyote]

Better yet, we should forget.

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

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

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

Why should a massacre ever be forgotten?

Should the Holocaust be forgotten? (No!)

But you want the Palestinians to forget this? Why?