“So, the difference between the bombings done by Zionists looking for a state and the bombings done by Palestinians looking for a state is that the Palestinians were sucidal.”
No, the difference between the bombinds done by Zionists and the bombings done by Palestinian terrorist groups is that the Zionists were attacking what was a military target.
Palestinian terrorists explicitly target and seek to maximize civilian casualties.
Another factor that is a key difference is that the Palestinian terrorist groups are motivated out of hatred for Jews, and the calls for the death of innocent Israelis had been prevalent in their culture in the form of speeches, demonstrations and educational materials for generations.
First, Zionist terrorist bombings in the Yishuv most certainly targetted civilians. Indeed, there was no Palestinian army or real Palestinian organization, so all attacks on non-British targets were innately terrorist attacks. Also, there are many Palestinian attacks on soldiers guard ing checkpoints and the like (one at Erez the other day) and these are referred to as “terrorist attacks” by mainstream Israeli press: and that’s very unfair.
You probably want specific Irgun and Stern Gang actions that targetted civilians. December 12, 1947: 20 Arabs, 5 Jews, and 2 British soldiers killed and 30 woudned n Jewish terrorist bomb attacks on buses in Haifa and Ramleh. December 29, 1947: Jewish Irgun terrorists throw grenades from passing taxi into cafe near Damascus gate, killing eleven Arabs and two British policemen. And of course, Deir Yassin, where no doubt a massacre occured although it will be forever unknown how many actually died: the Irgun most likely exaggerated the figures of the number that they killed, trying to terrorize Palestinian Arab civilians into leaving. (Source: http://www.cdiss.org/terror_1940s.htm )
If you expand your definition of terrorism to that of “war crimes,” which I believe is the most popular internationally understood definition, then Israel is guilty of them too. What else do you call the decision to drop a one-ton bomb on a home in Gaza because a suspected Hamas militant is living there? Sure, it killed him, but it also killed 12 other civilians, including many of his children. The rules of warfare also dictate that combatants and paramilitarists who are not actively particpating in an attack- which describes the vast majority of targets that Israel has for it’s extrajudicial assassination policy- that they are not legally combatants and as such launching a rocket at their car or dropping a bomb on them is most certainly illegal. It was also a war crime to shut off power and water to the city of Jenin (one example of many) before that city was sieged; nevermind what happened in the refugee camp, shutting off vital resources to a town you occupy is clearly illegal. Zionists killed civilians in the Yishuv, and by any stretch of the imagination, they’re either targetting civilians now or being extremely negligent.
Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians self-determination and the right to return to their homes is a violent act in and of itself. It does not justify violence against non-combatants, however given the fact that 1. a Palestinian sees an Israeli family demolish their ancestral home and build a new one over it and 2. Israel has compulsory military service you can see why many Palestinians fail to realize why the non-combatants aren’t legitimate targets as well.
The fact is, suicide bombings targetting civilians did not become standard practice until the 90s, with many citing Baruch Goldstein’s 1994 massacre of 34 Arabs in Hebron as the event that caused Hamas to start targetting civilians. 1994 is 27 years after the occupation of East Jerusalem, West Bank, and Gaza, and 46 years after the war of 1948 and the resulting refugees denied their right to return. It took quite a long time of occupation and violence before Palestinians started to resort to the modern suicide bombing.
I suggest you read, if not all of, then the chapter on Rejectionism of Fateful Triangle, by Noam Chomsky. He’ll go through in better detail than I can all of the steps that Palestinians ever tried to take towards a peaceful resolution, the peace offers the PLO made in the mid and late 70s, the UN security council resolutions in the same time for a peace along similar lines with total international backing but a US veto… The war on Palestinian and Lebanese civilians in 1982, designed solely to destroy the PLO as a negotiating force. Israel has a policy of destroying legitimate negotiating partners, through politics or, more often than not, military force, and then asking why there’s nobody around to negotiate with.
"First, Zionist terrorist bombings in the Yishuv most certainly targetted civilians. Indeed, there was no Palestinian army or real Palestinian organization, so all attacks on non-British targets were innately terrorist attacks. Also, there are many Palestinian attacks on soldiers guard ing checkpoints and the like (one at Erez the other day) and these are referred to as “terrorist attacks” by mainstream Israeli press: and that’s very unfair. "
i don’t recall anything of the Zionists that’s anywhere near as prolific or as bloodthirsty as the rhetoric and action of groups like Hamas, Al Aqsa, Fatah, Islamic Jihad, etc…
The acts you’re referring to are carried out by terrorist organizations, that makes them terrorist attacks. if they were carried out by an official Palestinian army, that would be a different story… but they’re not… they’re terrorist attacks seeking to further disrupt the attempts for peace, and weaken the security that prevents further suicide bombing attacks from occuring in.
Regardless, in modern-day Israel extremists are controlled and held accountable, as opposed to what we’ve seen through much of the Palestinian cause where acts of terror are not only encouraged by the leadership, but financially rewarded. Hopefully, that will change now.
“Israel’s refusal to allow Palestinians self-determination”
How are they refusing to allow Palestinian self-determination? They’re withrawing from the territories with the understanding that the PA WILL be able to control their extremists.
The Palestinian people have been kept living as refugees and exploited by their own leadership, NOT Israel. Hopefully, that will change now.
“The fact is, suicide bombings targetting civilians did not become standard practice until the 90s”
Fantasy… while I’ll grant you that suicide bombings became more prolific in the 90s, and the extremist groups have revolutionized modern terrorism similar to how Arafat pioneered plane hijackings in the 70s, the fact remains that hatred and Jews and violent rhetoric calling for their deaths and the elimination of the state of Israel has been around since the country was founded.
As for Noam Chomsky, and his views on the PLO in the 70s are a little one-sided, to say the least.
Israel has been fighting a defensive war since it was founded in 1948. Terrorist apologists never seem to grasp that basic fact.
Mere opinion. But interesting nonetheless. Palestinian demands on the right of return issue consist of “they all go back. Or else we don’t negotiate.” There’s something about the “negotiation” part of it that just hasn’t sunk in, evidently…now somebody will pop in and say that’s not true, there’s been willingness to settle for this, that, or the other thing. I’d like a cite for whatever it is up front, I can provide plenty in which Arafat says that the right of return is not subject to concessions. Period. Which is why the refugee camps have been going strong for over 50 years and no one has been resettled. They are content to wait. Or the powers that be in the PLO has been content to have them hold out for better, rather, indefinitely.
Israel has little to no power over that decision, and I see absolutely no reason to compel them to accept the refugees en toto under threat. It’s particular vile because the history of this time - 20th century - involved more population transfers and displaced peoples and casualties, by millions, than any other I know of…the Greeks and Turkish are unconcerned, Pakistan and India only slightly so, Germany’s “displaced” and “casualties” explain themselves, etc, and a whole assortment of countries expelled Jews specifically. To complain now that many chose one specific place, the one place to which they do have a legitimate claim both historical and religious, past and then-present, and to suggest that they had no compelling moral “leverage” to do so or no really good reason for being there, is the worst kind of selective interpretation of history. The very worst kind.
The rest of the arguments with regards to right to the land are unlikely to resonate strongly with Americans in general, actually. Many of us are descended from people who escaped various things elsewhere, and there’s always been this continuous struggle for peaceful coexistence since day 1. I simply don’t get the need for racial pride and prominence that Arab governments whine about. Never did. Never saw a fundamental difference in fairness between the Jewish state that exists and the Islamic states that exist throughout the Middle East. Never will. The incessant complaining remains very much imo to be that lots of people have a bug up their butts about the Jews, and refuse to get over it. Very sad.
Again, you are all deviating from the highly relevant topic of growing european anti-semitism, and getting lost in the morass of who has suffered more, israelis or palestinians, and the legitimacy of israel. put it aside for it gets you nowhere, or at the risk of creating more furor, perhaps it heats up from those who want twist the issue and avoid anti-semitism altogether.
in fact, reading the spectacle, those attacking the legitimacy of israel and creating two sets of standards are mimicking the europeans perfectly from the bbc to chris patten.
my question to you all is this: when does anti-israeli or anti-zionist expressions cross over the line to anti-semitism, and who is engaging in it over in europe.
Maalak, that quote is clearly out of context (you took the last item in a list and added my conclusion) and in my opinion that’s really not fair.
I am not, by any means, justifying the fact that Palestinians fail to make the proper distinction between combatant and non-combatant. However, given the fact that Israelis are settling on occupied land, and most Israelis do serve in the armed forces, it honestly can’t be seen as that big of a surprise.
Palestinians and Israelis both fail to make the differentiation between combatant and non-combatant under the standards of international humanitarian law, and they both consequently fail to make the differentiation between legitimate resistance to occupation and terrorism. Israel feels that those who at any time have called for violent resistance are military targets, which is incorrect, Israeli feels that families of suicide bombers are combatants (home demolitions), which is also incorrect in accordance to international law. Israel calls acts of resistance against military soldiers in land occupied in 1967 “terrorism,” which is incorrect. That said, many Palestinians regard blowing oneself up in Tel Aviv legitimate resistance, which is incorrect, and regard Israeli children and non-active reservists as combatants, which is incorrect.
There is a strong parity between the Israelis and Palestinians at every level here.
hmm, do you have a cite (and please don’t give me a far-right Israel advocacy site) for the allegations you just made against Chris Patten and the BBC.
Allegations of antisemtism should not be used to try and score political points as it devalues real allegations.
No problem. When you make a point that can be nailed down, then I won’t misrepresent it.
But you do think that the wrongs done to the Palestinians should be redressed.
So, how do you plan to redress their complaints? You have said that Palestinians who left in 1948 should return, and you weren’t sure if their children should have the right of return, too.
And since you are insisting that I am putting words in your mouth when I say that you are in favor of returning the Palestinians to Israel proper, I’m glad that we agree that the Palestinians shouldn’t be allowed to return.
Why?
Yes, very good to catch on.
And this is shameful moral equivilence. It’s like saying that NOT beliving in God gives you equal right to work on the sabbath and to murder. Your anti-religion bias is rank bigotry.
So you believe that Israelis have a right to live in Israel and Palestinians do not have a right to be resettled back in Israel. I’ve got to tell you, I don’t see where we disagree. Well, there’s the bit where you think poorly of religion, I guess. Maybe after a few more postings, you’ll be telling me that you’re now a Born-Again Christian.
Well, now that it appears that we agree on everything, I can’t see what the fussin’ and the feudin’ is all about.
I said what I said, because it accurately reflected what the original Jewish pioneers who returned to Israel thought. They weren’t looking for a state (they started returning 10-20 years before Herzl founded Zionism). They were looking to return home. They weren’t representing any country, so calling them colonists is laughable. They bought land at WAY over market value, and then had to fight off Arabs who didn’t like the fact that other Arabs sold the Jews land.
Now, if you want to construct an ahistorical strawman, go right ahead. But I’m not going to argue against it.
They did have a say in it. They fought a war over it. They lost. You seem to think that the Western Powers dispatched armies or something to make the state of Israel. They didn’t. The various Jewish terrorist groups (and yes, I will say they were terrorists, as they certainly were, and I don’t think that what they did was right) pissed off the Brittish so much, they were siding with the Arabs by the end of the Mandate. No one gave the Jews anything to defend Israel. Jews around the world raised money and bought crappy Axis weapons and sent them to Israel (irony of ironies, really). The UN declared the State of Israel, and then said, “good luck!” while the Arab armies invaded.
As for your statment that how strongly you want something being irrelevent is false. No one in their right minds thought the Jews would win in 1948 (or in 1967; IIRC, in June 1967, de Gaulle had a speech prepared to lament the destruction of Israel). But the fact is, they wanted it more. 10% of the Jewish population died in war of independence, but they were fighting for their home, and they won.
Perhaps. I just take what the Palestinians say at face value. They say they want to kill all the Jews. They say they want to stop the “Judiazation” of a city that has had a majority Jewish population for centuries, and which is at the center of the Jewish religion. So, if that makes me psychic, then I’m a psychic.
Oh it’s easy to remember the treatment of Jews under Jordan’s rule of Jerusalem; Jordan threw them all out. They destroyed the cemetery on the Mount of Olives that dated back to Roman times, using the tombstones to pave the streets. They blew up centries-old synagogues. They used the area around the Western Wall as a garbage dump. And there is zero reason to believe that things would be any different under Palestinian rule.
During the 1930’s, there was awful warfare in the streets of Jerusalem. There was certainly an Arab attempt (led by Arafat’s uncle, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who was a buddy of Hitler’s) to drive the Jews out of Jerusalem. So your history isn’t so good.
Jews did go to other parts of Palestine from Hebron in 1929 when Arabs started murdering them. There had been Jews in Hebron for a very long time (it was where Abraham lived and is buried), and in 1929 the community was driven out to other parts of Palestine. Now the Jews who returned to Hebron in 1967 are treated by the world as evil usurpers. Nope, no double standards there.
Well, you keep bringing up colonization by white people in brown lands when there is none. Usually when people keep bringing up topics in out-of-context settings, they have a fixation. My mistake.
See, there’s the colonialism thing again. Do you bring this up in everyday conversation?
“Nice weather today, eh?”
“The only reason we have nice weather is that a bunch of white people colonized Zambia and stole their sunshine!”
Aha! Something we disagree about. Well, I don’t think either one of us is going to convince the other.
What made the Turks legitimate and the British illegitimate? Skin color? The Turks were hated, by the natives, too.
And it wasn’t accepted by the Turks. But that’s OK, because as I said before, the returning Jews weren’t looking for their own country at first. Only once it became clear that they would need to fight for the right to stay in the land they considered their homeland did the need for a state arise. Political Zionism assumed a state from the beginning, but that was 10-20 years after the first returning Jews.
So what about Arabs who came to Palestine after the 1880s? Did they have more right to the land than the Jews did? Because the population of Palestine in the 1880s was pretty tiny. Many of the people who now claim refugee status come from familes that entered Palestine at the same time as the Jews. Why one group is legitimate and the other is illegitimate smacks of racism to me.
This is almost certainly false. Arabs didn’t enter into Palestine until the 7th century. And as I just mentioned, there was a HUGE jump in population in Palestine after the 1880s. Relatively speaking, very few of the Palestinians who claim refugee status are from families that had been in the area for long.
Well, then why does France have the borders it does? Why is Alsaice part of your country? Why isn’t it German territory?
If you are going to argue that you are right, you should be able to say WHY you are right.
I don’t think that a statute of limitations has anything to do with anything. I think it is Jewish land, but that is because of religious reasons. I think that while might does not make right, it sure settles the argument when all other means fail. The simple reason why Israel exists now is because the Jews won in 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973.
I feel badly for the Palestinians, because they were screwed by their Arab and Muslim “brothers” over and over again, goaded into fights they couldn’t win and left to rot as refugees so they could provide a target for hate so the citizens of these failed states didn’t notice how shitty their own lives were. However, I also know that letting Palestinians back into Israel will destroy Israel, and I don’t want Israel destroyed. If the Palestinians can live in peace with Israel with a state in Gaza and the West Bank and some sort of sharing agreement for Jerusalem, fine. If not, then the least worst solution is, unfortunately, massive deportation from the West Bank. But they aren’t going back to Israel, and they lost their right to live in Israel when they lost the last 5 wars.
I really don’t like the idea of mass deportation. In fact, I hate it. But the other options are genocide, either of the Jews or the Palestinians, and I hate those options more. But mass deportations have happened repeately in the 20th century. A million Hindus and Muslims moved when Pakistan split from India. Greek and Turkish Cypriots were moved. The Palestinians need to either accept that they are no different from Indians, Pakistanis, Cypriots, Germans, and everyone else who was relocated after their side lost. If they can’t accept that fact, then they are going to keep on fighting until one side kills the other. And let me tell you, if a REALLY crazy right-wing government gets elected in Israel due to a massive Palestinian atrocity (nuclear bomb in Tel Aviv, perhaps?), there won’t be any question as to whether the Palestinians should have a right of return, because there won’t be any left.
You mean like the Communist Manifesto? Or do only religious books get scorn from you?
Then why bring it up?
You refused to define what rights are and where they come from. I think you should stop using that word if you won’t define it.
After WW II, Europe was covered in refugee camps. They were empty by the 50’s, because the Europeans took in the refugees. The Palestinians are still in camps because they are being used as political pawns by other Arabs and Muslims.
I don’t want to debate about religion because there’s no point. However, when you don’t give specific answers and instead rely on some sort of general feeling, I consider that a religious argument, too.
My answer is that statute of limitations is bunk. I was hoping that you would see that, but I guess you haven’t.
Except that this standard has never actually been applied in the history of, well, history. There are probably still Germans alive who were booted from Sudetenland and from Poland. They ain’t going back, and no one is talking about boycotting Poland or the Czech Republic until they do. But Israel gets singled out. Go figure.
I do have to say that your English is excellent. My French, well, it was bad enough that when I visited Montreal years ago, they asked me to speak English…
You just described the US, AU, NZ, and CA pretty well. Yet no one is boycotting their graduate students or calling Kiwis Nazis. I want to know the reason for the double standard. Saying that it happened a long time ago is not an answer that I find acceptable. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
You can add: “The Jews won the war” to the list of reasons.
They aren’t intellectual. But they are positions. They spell out why I think what I think. I’m not looking for something out of Decartes or Sartre (who was pro-Israel and did write an essay on anti-semitism). Just actual statements of what you believe. If you claim a factual basis for those statements, they need to be supported by facts. If you don’t, that’s OK, too. But don’t expect that I will respect your non-factual statements any more than you respect mine.
It becomes legitimate when you win the war.
I feel bad for them. They (or their ancestors) who left made an awful mistake. The Arabs who stayed behind are citizens of Israel and kept their homes. The ones who left, didn’t. But they want to go back to their homes now and they can’t because it would be suicide for the State of Israel, and countries aren’t in the habit of committing suicide.
Getting their own state in the West Bank and Gaza isn’t a bad real-world solution to a lousy problem. We’re talking about having a Palestinian homeland within a couple dozen miles from where they claim they were evicted. That’s a good deal better than most war refugees get.
That’s funny. See, my sarcasm detector is now working.
And that’s where we are going to disagree.
I don’t think might makes right. I think that might settles arguments rather well, though. If we disagree about who owns my house, and there is no political authority to appeal to, then the only way to settle it is with force.
Then I’ll feel bad for you, but it’s mine now. You can buy a house in my neighborhood (there are several for sale, much nicer than my house, actually), and I’ll let you visit, because I’m a nice guy. You can offer me a great deal of money for my house, and I might sell it to you, just as the Jews offered money for the land they purchased from the Arabs. But if I flee my house so that invading armies can have an easier time killing my neighbors, and you move in, I think I’m screwed.
If I flee my house to make it easier for my neighbors to be murdered, I’m also a bad neighbor. Letting someone who has a history of being a bad neighbor back is a bad idea, in my opinion.
It’s funny you should mention this, really, as my next door neighbor’s mother used to own my house. She owned a good chunk of the land in my neighborhood, and my neighbor actually helped build my house. Any time he has advice on the house or wants to stop by, he’s welcome. That’s because he respects the fact that I bought his mother’s house, and isn’t trying to kill me because he thinks that it should still be his, property titles be damned.
The Arabs who tried to kill Jews that bought land, fair and square, were wrong. In the end, it came down to the Jews not being intimidated off the land they bought, and many of the Arabs fled in the battle which they began by not being good neighbors. I feel bad that they were so greedy and mean. I’m not going to go out of my way to reward their venal behavior, but if they do want to finally live in peace, that would be wonderful. Good neighbors are good things.
Let’s look at the issue of settlements, for a moment… this is something that’s always bothered me.
First, that land was acquired in a defensive war, giving them full right to occupy it for their security and set conditions for their withdrawal, which as we’re seeing in what’s happening now they are willing to work with. To date, they’ve returned over 90% of the territories acquired in the 1967 war, and the settlements in question are less than 2%.
But even then… Jews and Arabs have lived in that area for generations… so my question is:
Why can’t Jews live in the territories?
They’re not displacing Palestinians with their settlements… these lands are disputed currently, and Israel has chosen to establish settlements in key areas it thinks is vital to it’s defense, which having been forced into a defensive war is their right.
(Although I do think that some of the settlements were pushing the matter too far, Israell isn’t beyond reproach by any means… but I do respect that this is a conflict they were forced into by those who see the entire nation destroyed.)
Over 1,000,000 Arabs are full citizens of Israel with every right (their only distinction is that they aren’t required to serve in the military)… so I wonder… will Jews not be allowed to live in a Palestinian state?
It is true that Chris Patten has fought to make sure that the PA is funded, and he has fought to ensure that no one in the EU will look into whether some of this money is being used to pay for terrorism. I can spend some time looking for cites for both (Patten fighting for PA funding, and Patten resisting attempts to investigate how that funding has been spent), but these are matters of the public record.
Whether he is doing this because he hates Jews (unlikely to me) or because he is a burocrat that doesn’t want to be embarassed by what will likely be found (likely) is between Chris Patten and God.
Whatever his motivation, it’s sad that he doesn’t want to ensure that the funding he manages isn’t going to evil causes.
Depends mostly on your personal definition of “anti - semitism”. Webster defines it as hostility towards or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic or cultural group.
Now we can debate about what constitutes hostility or discrimination.
Do you consider a joke about Jews hostile? Discriminative? Does making a joke make one anti - semitic ?
Do you consider hostility towards Israel to be hostile towards Jews ?
If someone expresses disagreement with Jewish religious teachings, cultural influence or religious influence over politics is this hostile or discriminative ? Anti - semitic ?
Most importantly, does my support for Palestinian liberation cross that line?
Anti - semitism is an ugly word that gets thrown around alot by the pro - Israel people as a last resort. If you can’t win fairly just call them anti - semitic.
They left home because thier nieghbors army was slaughtering entire villages.
That legend was put to rest long ago. Give me a break.
And Monty , the law of return as it applies to Jews, allows for Jews to enter Israel as an Olah (think I spelled that right), a religious pilgrim. It is a religious rite made into national policy.
Well the funding of the PA by the EU is beacuse Israel refues to pay the tax revenues from the Palestinians owed to the PA. An investigation was conducted into allegations of the PA misusing money for terrorism but no evidence was found to support this (though OLAF are currently investigating these claims).
Huh? Slaughtering entire villages? Can you be more specific?
That sounds like a pretty accurate analogy to me… The Arabic world was unwilling to negotiate for any sort of agreement that accepted the existence of a Jewish state in 1948, thousands left of their own free will in anticipation of the war, thousands of others were convinced the people who left that they would be able to return after the fledgling nation of Israel was crushed (and yes, a much smaller percentage was forcibly evicted when there were acts of violence) If Israel was as intolerant as some would like to portray, it wouldn’t have the thriving Arabic population it does now.
It’s also interesting to note that you hear many exagerated claims of displaced Palestinians, when in fact the numbers of Jews who were forcibly expelled from the rest of the Muslim world was much greater in number.
How many Jews are allowed to return to their homes and become citizens of the major Arabic/Muslim countries, where they would enjoy equal rights as Arabs do in Israel?
Well, Israel is taking the extraordinary step of severing ties w/the BBC this week for .
Moreover, I was not citing that they made anti-semitic statements. Rather, they have either expressed anti-Israeli statements or in Patten’s case actively blocking an investigation of whether EU funds were used to finance terrorist operations in israel.
but again, you deflect from the european perspective. i can give you the names of others in britain for instance who have fired israelis from jobs because they’re israeli, or the recent instance of a oxford prof who put in an e-mail that he won’t hire an israeli in his lab simply for his nationality. or the editor of a professional periodical who wouldn’t publish a piece until it hammered israeli policies and/or actions more. does this amount to anti-semitism or not?
an EU representative at an international gathering denies anti-semitism is taking place in europe as the number of incidents skyrocket. if the catalyst for these crimes and desecrations is simply disagreement or abhorrence at israeli policies and actions, then what does this say about europeans true feelings and motives?
Do you know why Israel has threatened to block visas for BBC journalists? Because the BBC ran a documentry about Israel’s nuclear program.
Did Patten really block an investigation or did you just make that up? You can clearly see from the link in my last post that his own investigation found no evidence and he “welcomed” the independant investigation by OLAF.
As I said further back in the thread the man behind the academic boycott of Israel is infact Jewish himself, so even though I don’t agree with the academic boycott I can’t realistically call it antisemtic.
The Deir Yassin Massacre of Palestinians by Jewish soldiers
“For the entire day of April 9, 1948, Irgun and LEHI soldiers carried out the slaughter in a cold and premeditated fashion…The attackers ‘lined men, women and children up against the walls and shot them,’…The ruthlessness of the attack on Deir Yassin shocked Jewish and world opinion alike, drove fear and panic into the Arab population, and led to the flight of unarmed civilians from their homes all over the country.” Israeli author, Simha Flapan, “The Birth of Israel.”
Was Deir Yassin the only act of its kind?
“By 1948, the Jew was not only able to ‘defend himself’ but to commit massive atrocities as well. Indeed, according to the former director of the Israeli army archives, ‘in almost every village occupied by us during the War of Independence, acts were committed which are defined as war crimes, such as murders, massacres, and rapes’…Uri Milstein, the authoritative Israeli military historian of the 1948 war, goes one step further, maintaining that ‘every skirmish ended in a massacre of Arabs.’” Norman Finkelstein, “Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict.”
Also interesting to note how you bring the rest of the muslim world into the fray. Is that what it all comes down to for you ? Muslim versus Jew ? You know that has been the undoing of peace for a long time now. Maybe you could move beyond that mentality ?
The source is biased, but the references are all well-documented.
Finkelstein’s “research” at best is sloppy and inaccurate, at it’s worst he goes out of his way to distort the truth of events.
Is that what it comes down to? No, I don’t see the same level of hostility towards the Muslim world from Israel… and in discussing what happened in 1948, I don’t think you can ignore the treatment of Jews in the rest of the Arabic world.
Read the following analysis of anti-semitic materials and tell me if you don’t notice a trend in the rhetoric…
Hatred and intolerance of Jews is what has been the undoing of the peace process. Had that not been the primary obstacle to working to establish a homeland in 1948, the Palestinians would have had a nation of their own long ago.