[QUOTE=Shayna]
When Britain set out to establish a “home” for the Jews following their mass murder in Europe, those Jews who did emmigrate did not “forcibly remove” the local Arabs from their homes.
[/QUOTE]
. . . No cite, but I think I’ve read that in many cases, they did just exactly that; there were even some massacres of those who wouldn’t leave. (And then in other cases the Arabs left willingly, hoping to return after the fighting.)
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
. . . No cite, but I think I’ve read that in many cases, they did just exactly that; there were even some massacres of those who wouldn’t leave. (And then in other cases the Arabs left willingly, hoping to return after the fighting.)
[/QUOTE]
Cite?
[QUOTE=Aeschines]
Cite?
[/QUOTE]
Like I said.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
. . . No cite, but I think I’ve read that in many cases, they did just exactly that;
[/quote]
It’s probably rather doubtful that you read that. I too would like a cite.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
there were even some massacres of those who wouldn’t leave.
[/quote]
You are, perhaps, confusing events during the siege of Jerusalem and Operation Nachshon with the rest of events. Several towns that were guarding the road were, indeed, cleared out. To my knowledge the people there were not massacred, though. Do you have a cite that they were?
Maybe you are confusing Deir Yassin with the rest of the war?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
(And then in other cases the Arabs left willingly, hoping to return after the fighting.)
[/QUOTE]
And due to a calculated effort on the Arab’s side to put out false propaganda about Deir Yassin that said the Jews were raping the Palestinian women. That little bit of propaganda helped the tide of refugees like little else.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
. . . No cite, but I think I’ve read that in many cases, they did just exactly that; there were even some massacres of those who wouldn’t leave. (And then in other cases the Arabs left willingly, hoping to return after the fighting.)
[/QUOTE]
Not during the period I’m referring to (there have been periods throughout history of these lands being forcibly taken by a lot of different parties) – the period that actually established Israel’s independence as a nation. I’m laid up sick with a cold and taking medication, so I’m not mentally up for an in-depth debate at the moment (and my husband just brought my dinner), so I’ll just direct you to this cite for as neutral a general history as is likely to be found, and to this section, specifically (all emphasis mine):
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Like I said.
[/QUOTE]
Well, here’s the internet. Go find a cite to support your claim.
It’s rather irresponsible to make a statement that there were numerous massacres and then refuse to provide a scrap of proof.
Well, here’s one, but it ain’t what you’d call an unbiased source.
Here’s the Wikipedia’s take, FWIW.
Also a list of villages (Arab and Jewish) depopulated during the 1948 war.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
It’s rather irresponsible to make a statement that there were numerous massacres and then refuse to provide a scrap of proof.
[/QUOTE]
I said some massacres. Many expulsions, which is different, if no more mathematically precise. And even more voluntary exodi, as mentioned above.
Mark Twain, BTW, knew how to think correctly about Israel and Palestine before either was ever founded. From The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn:
Or, to quote a briefer Southern aphorism: “First, 'twas the Hatfields; and first, 'twas the McCoys. Or maybe 'twas the other way about.”
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Well, here’s one, but it ain’t what you’d call an unbiased source.
[/quote]
Or a very thorough one. Or a well cited one. Or one with even a pretense of accuracy. Look at how many times “Jews groups” appears as the people responsible. That’s some hard hitting investigative reporting, there.
They also claim "An account of this barbaric massacre was given by Jacques de Reynier, the Chief Delegate of the International Red Cross , who was able to reach the village and witness the aftermath of the massacre: “Three hundred persons” he said, “were massacred … without any military reason or provocation of any kind; old men women, children, newly-born were savagely murdered with grenades and knives by Jewish troops of the Irgun, entirely under the control of their chiefs.”
Here is the actual memo.
Can you find the words “military”, “provocation”, “murder”, “born” in it? Because I sure as heck can’t. That makes the possibility of a direct quote dealing with military provocation for the murder of the newly-born rather suspect, eh? Yes, it’s a translation, but can you find any close synonyms for those words, either?
Perhaps there’s another quote they’re confusing this with? Maybe there’s another memo?
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Here’s the Wikipedia’s take, FWIW.
[/quote]
I wouldn’t say it’s worth all that much. Even if you want to split hairs that there were “some” instead of “numerous” massacres, Deir Yassin is still a single event.
And, in any case, we’ve argued this one to death already in GD. Here’s one well cited article
that might be a jumping off point. Likewise, this is quite good. And another.
If you want to debate Deir Yassin, then sure, game on. But if that’s all you’re going to debate, you should change your claim for massacres, to one single one. And then, hopefully, at least admit that the events at Deir Yassin are anything but cut and dry.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Also a list of villages (Arab and Jewish) depopulated during the 1948 war.
[/QUOTE]
Is there something I’m missing? Maybe I haven’t flashed to Wiki’s format… but that just looks like a list of names, and no elaboration is given unless I missed it somewhere. Besides, the fact that a town’s population left does not, at all, imply that they were massacred.
Come on, surely if your claims are true you can find cites much more easily?
Oh, and, the ‘feud’? Pr’aps it might have something to do with almost five decades of clearly stated genocidal intent. Perhaps.
[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
The conflict has a wider significance because the whole world thinks and acts as if it does. Millions of Muslims living far away from Jerusalem are affronted by the existence of non-Muslim state on what they consider the indefeasible territory of Dar al-Islam; and seeing infidels ruling over Muslims makes it all the more galling – in their world-view, that’s never supposed to happen!
…
heat up so many tempers
…
[/QUOTE]
Affront and temper are all very well and ** Aeschines** notes much the same. These are coffee conversations. Where though does that change the unimportance of Israel? Outside those narrow boundaries, what is at stake?
Again contrast the situation in Iraq. Or in the alternative taking Sam’s invitiation to wild conjecture of murder unleashed - that popular myth so often quashed: cf Astorian. Allowing such an event, what significant index or measure would do so much as blip? Fewer kindly souramis to comfort the weary traveller and …?
I didn’t understand a word of that.
Glad I’m not the only one Sam.
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
I didn’t understand a word of that.
[/QUOTE]
Nevermind. There’s a thread over there about faux lesbians, ages 15-30.
Much has been said about the Palestinians voluntarily pulling out of what became Israel. Suppose people showed up tomorrow in, say, Redondo Beach, CA and announced that in one month this area was going to become part of a newly created nation. And, by the way, this was going to be a religiously based nation and some of the more extreme interpreters of that religion would have a big say in the laws and how and upon who they would be enforced. And let’s say that religion was antithetical to your belief in your religion.
If you left would it be entirely “voluntary?”
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Suppose people showed up tomorrow in, say, Redondo Beach, CA and announced that in one month this area was going to become part of a newly created nation. And, by the way, this was going to be a religiously based nation and some of the more extreme interpreters of that religion would have a big say in the laws and how and upon who they would be enforced. And let’s say that religion was antithetical to your belief in your religion.
[/QUOTE]
We’d kick their ass.
[QUOTE=Sevastopol]
Nevermind. There’s a thread over there about faux lesbians, ages 15-30.
[/QUOTE]
Was this comment supposed to mean something? Were you attempting to derail this thread or did you post thinking you were in a different thread?
Yes. No, no.
[QUOTE=David Simmons]
Much has been said about the Palestinians voluntarily pulling out of what became Israel. Suppose people showed up tomorrow in, say, Redondo Beach, CA and announced that in one month this area was going to become part of a newly created nation. And, by the way, this was going to be a religiously based nation and some of the more extreme interpreters of that religion would have a big say in the laws and how and upon who they would be enforced. And let’s say that religion was antithetical to your belief in your religion.
If you left would it be entirely “voluntary?”
[/QUOTE]
What a lousy analogy. A better one would be if there was land in North America that was occupied equally by two tribes of native Americans, and had been for a long time. Because one tribe of natives had been persecuted and exterminated in other places, they demanded that in THIS place they be allowed to set up their own country. So, the world offers a compromise - the land will be split up. Each tribe gets their own autonomous country. The first tribe says, “That would be fine. Oh, and you people from the other tribe are welcome to live here if you want.” But the big country next door, which is extremely racist against the first tribe, says, “Hey you other people - say no. Get out of the way, and we’ll roll the tanks in, kill all the troublemakers, and then you can have the whole thing.” So the other residents pack up and leave, despite the first tribe’s pleas to stay and live in peace. Then America attacks, but the new country proves to be surprisingly strong, and the attack fails. So the big racist country says to the dislocated people, “Sorry. Here - you camp out on the border, since we don’t want you either. I’m sure you’ll get the place some day.”
[QUOTE=Sam Stone]
What a lousy analogy. A better one would be if there was land in North America that was occupied equally by two tribes of native Americans, and had been for a long time. Because one tribe of natives had been persecuted and exterminated in other places, they demanded that in THIS place they be allowed to set up their own country. So, the world offers a compromise - the land will be split up. Each tribe gets their own autonomous country. The first tribe says, “That would be fine. Oh, and you people from the other tribe are welcome to live here if you want.” But the big country next door, which is extremely racist against the first tribe, says, “Hey you other people - say no. Get out of the way, and we’ll roll the tanks in, kill all the troublemakers, and then you can have the whole thing.” So the other residents pack up and leave, despite the first tribe’s pleas to stay and live in peace. Then America attacks, but the new country proves to be surprisingly strong, and the attack fails. So the big racist country says to the dislocated people, “Sorry. Here - you camp out on the border, since we don’t want you either. I’m sure you’ll get the place some day.”
[/QUOTE]
If you say so.