Zionism

Grinner the Gooner said:
I think a more accurate document for you to post would be the findings of the King-Crane Commission, since Faysal ultimately repudiated his tentative agreement with Weizmann.

On the contrary. Instead of throwing documented views of Zionists and pro-Arabs, I merely wanted to show that thinks could have been different, and that Arabs themselves acknowledged the contribution of Zionism to the region.
which is pretty much in contrast with the daily use of the term in the Arab world, and perhaps not surprisingly in Europe as well.
 
Eh! I am on the rock
And then I check a stock;
I have to run like a fugitive
To save the life I live.
I'm gonna be Iron like a Lion in Zion;
I'm gonna be Iron like a Lion in Zion.
Oh, yeah! Iron, Lion, Zion - Lion, Zion!
I'm on the run
But I ain't got no gun.
See, they want to be the star,
So they fightin' tribal war,
And they saying, "Iron like a Lion in Zion -
Iron like a Lion in Zion -
Iron, Lion, Zion!"

I'm on the rock-a,
Seel-ya-bub, I take a stock,
I had to run like a fugitive, good Lord!
Just to - just to save the life I live. Oh, now!
I'm still - I'm gonna be Iron like a Lion in Zion.
(What did I say?) I'm gonna be Iron like a Lion in Zion.
What did you say? Iron, Lion, Zion!

I'm on the run,
But I don't got no gun.
See, my brothers wanna be the stars,
So they fighting tribal war,
And they saying, "Iron like a Lion in Zion."
Wo! Lion like Iron a Zion!
Eel-ya-bub-a, Iron, Lion, Zion. Yeah, now, now!

Iron, Lion, Zion! I'm on the run! (I'm on the run)
Iron, Lion, Zion!
 
holyland red said:
On the contrary. Instead of throwing documented views of Zionists and pro-Arabs, I merely wanted to show that thinks could have been different, and that Arabs themselves acknowledged the contribution of Zionism to the region.
which is pretty much in contrast with the daily use of the term in the Arab world, and perhaps not surprisingly in Europe as well.


Contribution, yes. Domination, no.

Arabs were always suspicious, and the King-Crane findings overwhelmingly stated this. Had Wilson been in better health, things would probably have been very different.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
Contribution, yes. Domination, no.

Arabs were always suspicious, and the King-Crane findings overwhelmingly stated this. Had Wilson been in better health, things would probably have been very different.

I know very little of American politics, but I'll take your word on that. An american politician wasn't supportive of the Zionist idea, for his own reasons, and could have made a different if the president wasn't ill...I thought the Brits also had a say, and the League of Nations.

I do not know what domination you are talking about, because being aware of Wilson's health, you must be aware that the Jews ended up getting a tiny slice of what was mandatory Palestine. The resultant domination was simply a result of the Zionists enthusiasm In creating a prosperous country, in which Arabs enjoy more civil rights than in any Arab country. Very much in line with the Balfour declaration from 1917: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

And going back to the topic, Faisal clearly stated that Jews will dominate Palestine (baoundaries and exchange of ambassadors with the Arab state- Introduction, Articles I and II).
 
Wilson was the champion of the idea of self-determination, and saw colonialism as undesirable. Therefore, the Arabs responded to the King-Crane Commission and requested that America be granted mandatory power in the region rather than Britain.

Faisal was a British puppet who took Iraq when he couldn't get what he wanted. I'd say the real speakers for the Arabs were the Al-Husayni and later the Al-Nashashibi. They tried to end the Jewish immigration and succeeded in getting the British to issue the White Paper in 1922.

So was Dayr Yasin "enthusiasm", and the resultant flight of the refugees?
 
Wilson was the champion of the idea of self-determination, and saw colonialism as undesirable. Therefore, the Arabs responded to the King-Crane Commission and requested that America be granted mandatory power in the region rather than Britain.

Well, it seems that the Arabs got their wish, and it's the Yanks who call the shots now.

Faisal was a British puppet who took Iraq when he couldn't get what he wanted. I'd say the real speakers for the Arabs were the Al-Husayni and later the Al-Nashashibi. They tried to end the Jewish immigration and succeeded in getting the British to issue the White Paper in 1922.

You may call Faisal a puppet, but Al-Huseini was a Nazi. If the real speaker for the Arabs was the same Mufti who founded muslim SS units in Bosnia during WW2, then the Palestinians only got what they deserve- that without even taking into account the 1948 war on Israel.

So was Dayr Yasin "enthusiasm", and the resultant flight of the refugees?[/QUOTE]

There are contrasting reports regarding what happened in Dir Yassin, but evidently things went awfully wrong there. I am surprised though that soon after expressing your grasp of 20th century ME history, you choose to start the history lesson regarding atrocities in 1948.

What do you make of the Tel-Hai, the 1920-21 riots (Haycraft Commission summary report:"The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties."), 1929 riots (133 Jewish dead, >300wounded), 1936 revolt (415 Jewish dead) etc.?

I reckon you are trying to concentrate on one side of the story, and so far have managed to prove that one fat Yank was anti-Zionist. Well done!
 
Talk of the future, Isreal exists. What would you think a good compromise would be for both sides at present.
 
redsultan said:
Talk of the future, Isreal exists. What would you think a good compromise would be for both sides at present.

Recognition that both sides have the right to live in peace, and settle 1940's refugees in the respective future states, according to their nationality.

I'd think that it would be best if Jews and Arabs already living west of the River Jordan could live wherever they wanted in those two states, granted every civil rights bar voting to the local parliament. Alternatively, all Jews should have the right to vote for the Israeli parliament and Arabs to the Palestinian one. This will guarentee that the future two states maintain their identity, while people are not forced out of their homes.

Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of politicians will lead to drawing a line of some kind, without addressing the demographic changes expected in years to come. The Jews of the WB and GS will obviously be deported from their homes, but the problems will reappear when "Israeli Arabs" demand otonomy in the tiny territory that remains a Jewish state.
 
holyland red said:
Recognition that both sides have the right to live in peace, and settle 1940's refugees in the respective future states, according to their nationality.

I'd think that it would be best if Jews and Arabs already living west of the River Jordan could live wherever they wanted in those two states, granted every civil rights bar voting to the local parliament. Alternatively, all Jews should have the right to vote for the Israeli parliament and Arabs to the Palestinian one. This will guarentee that the future two states maintain their identity, while people are not forced out of their homes.

Unfortunately, the shortsightedness of politicians will lead to drawing a line of some kind, without addressing the demographic changes expected in years to come. The Jews of the WB and GS will obviously be deported from their homes, but the problems will reappear when "Israeli Arabs" demand otonomy in the tiny territory that remains a Jewish state.

Holyland are these you personal observations or something the majority of Isrealis would be willing to support ?
 
redsultan said:
Holyland are these you personal observations or something the majority of Isrealis would be willing to support ?

just my thoughts.

most people will tell you which of the alternatives on offer they support. However, none address the issue of 1.2 million Palestinians with an Israeli citizenship. While stripping them of their citizenship may seem harsh, I think that long-lasting historic compromise should not necessarily be limited to ready made easy solutions. I'm afraid it takes much more imagination that the politician on offer on both sides can be credited for.

I wouldn't rule out a Jewsih support for such a plan, though I have never heard anyone suggesting such a plan. On the other hand I suspect the Arabs will turn it down, as many of them have not given up on controlling the entire territory.
 
Fair negotiations is giving up items of lesser value to gain items of greater value "peace", where the other party has the opposite values, placing higher value on what they receive. The Palestinians seek not just land but also dignity and sovereignty. Arafat's passing, together with a new term of office for Bush, provides a window of opportunity. The United States has the power to accomplish peace, but only if plan has the right elements. There needs to be a great deal of good will on both sides to the plan so that this opportunity is not lost.
 
Fearless said:
Nice t-shirt but land regained in a defensive war does not confer squatter status to a single Israeli.

Defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war. :wenger:
 
redsultan said:
Fair negotiations is giving up items of lesser value to gain items of greater value "peace", where the other party has the opposite values, placing higher value on what they receive. The Palestinians seek not just land but also dignity and sovereignty. Arafat's passing, together with a new term of office for Bush, provides a window of opportunity. The United States has the power to accomplish peace, but only if plan has the right elements. There needs to be a great deal of good will on both sides to the plan so that this opportunity is not lost.


Meanwhilst, back in reality, the Palestinians are shooting the feck out of each other, hanging collaborators and chucking missiles.

If they want a second state, they better prove that they can run it better than they can a funeral.
 
redsultan said:
Defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war. :wenger:

I can't believe it's the word 'war' you've picked up on...it was clearly a war, and Egypt, Jordan and Syria were perfectly capable of defending themselves.

It's the 'regained' and 'defensive' aspects that are a bit more dubious...
 
redsultan said:
Defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war. :wenger:

I was refering to the Six-Day war. You know, the one where Israel was yet again threatened with annilhation by the Arab armies Soviet backed might.

Come to think of it your right. As someome once said about Frank Bruno- 'people who live in glass jaws shouldn't throw punches'
 
holyland red said:
Wilson was the champion of the idea of self-determination, and saw colonialism as undesirable. Therefore, the Arabs responded to the King-Crane Commission and requested that America be granted mandatory power in the region rather than Britain.

Well, it seems that the Arabs got their wish, and it's the Yanks who call the shots now.

Faisal was a British puppet who took Iraq when he couldn't get what he wanted. I'd say the real speakers for the Arabs were the Al-Husayni and later the Al-Nashashibi. They tried to end the Jewish immigration and succeeded in getting the British to issue the White Paper in 1922.

You may call Faisal a puppet, but Al-Huseini was a Nazi. If the real speaker for the Arabs was the same Mufti who founded muslim SS units in Bosnia during WW2, then the Palestinians only got what they deserve- that without even taking into account the 1948 war on Israel.

So was Dayr Yasin "enthusiasm", and the resultant flight of the refugees?

There are contrasting reports regarding what happened in Dir Yassin, but evidently things went awfully wrong there. I am surprised though that soon after expressing your grasp of 20th century ME history, you choose to start the history lesson regarding atrocities in 1948.

What do you make of the Tel-Hai, the 1920-21 riots (Haycraft Commission summary report:"The racial strife was begun by the Arabs, and rapidly developed into a conflict of great violence between Arabs and Jews, in which the Arab majority, who were generally the aggressors, inflicted most of the casualties."), 1929 riots (133 Jewish dead, >300wounded), 1936 revolt (415 Jewish dead) etc.?

I reckon you are trying to concentrate on one side of the story, and so far have managed to prove that one fat Yank was anti-Zionist. Well done!
[/QUOTE]

The yanks are not calling the shots. Every American President has been hamstrung by the power of the Jewish lobby and unable to broker a true peace based on an equitable settlement.

To label Al-Husayni a nazi is missing the point. He of course supported Germany because it would have meant that the hated British would have left Palestine if they were defeated. I doubt you would have seen him goose-stepping around Jerusalem.

I think you can cherry-pick incidences of Arab violence all day long. The fact is that Jews used financial superiority to displace Arabs, then military superiority to force Arabs to flee. Dayr Yasin was a crucial event, and to just dismiss it as something that went wrong is scandalous. Remember the villagers there were collaborators yet the Irgun-LEHI still showed no mercy. 250 mutilated corpses thrown down the wells and the glorification of this directly led to the Arab flight.
 
Plechazunga said:
I can't believe it's the word 'war' you've picked up on...it was clearly a war, and Egypt, Jordan and Syria were perfectly capable of defending themselves.

It's the 'regained' and 'defensive' aspects that are a bit more dubious...

Found this article which I hope expalains-

Last month's Palestinian draft resolution at the UN Security Council again described the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied Palestinian territories." References to Israel's "foreign occupation" also appear in the Durban Draft Declaration of the UN World Conference Against Racism. This language was not just chosen for rhetorical purposes but in order to invoke specific legal claims: For example, Palestinian insistence on using the term "occupied territories" is usually connected to the assertion that they fall under the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention. Yet, Palestinian spokesmen also speak about Israeli military action in Area A as an infringement on Palestinian sovereignty: If Israel "invaded Palestinian territories," then they cannot be regarded as "occupied"; however, if the territories are defined as "occupied," Israel cannot be "invading" them.


Israel entered the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the 1967 Six-Day War. Israeli legal experts traditionally resisted efforts to define the West Bank and Gaza Strip as "occupied" or falling under the main international treaties dealing with military occupation. Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Meir Shamgar wrote in the 1970s that there is no de jure applicability of the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention regarding occupied territories to the case of the West Bank and Gaza Strip since the Convention "is based on the assumption that there had been a sovereign who was ousted and that he had been a legitimate sovereign." In fact, prior to 1967, Jordan had occupied the West Bank and Egypt had occupied the Gaza Strip; their presence in those territories was the result of their illegal invasion in 1948. Jordan's 1950 annexation of the West Bank was recognized only by Great Britain and Pakistan and rejected by the vast majority of the international community, including the Arab states.

International jurists generally draw a distinction between situations of "aggressive conquest" and territorial disputes that arise after a war of self-defense. Former State Department Legal Advisor Stephen Schwebel, who later headed the International Court of Justice in the Hague, wrote in 1970 regarding Israel's case: "Where the prior holder of territory had seized that territory unlawfully, the state which subsequently takes that territory in the lawful exercise of self-defense has, against that prior holder, better title." Israel only entered the West Bank after repeated Jordanian artillery fire and ground movements across the previous armistice lines; additionally, Iraqi forces crossed Jordanian territory and were poised to enter the West Bank. Under such circumstances, even the UN rejected Soviet efforts to have Israel branded as the aggressor in the Six-Day War.

In any case, under UN Security Council Resolution 242 from November 1967, that has served as the basis of the 1991 Madrid Conference and the 1993 Declaration of Principles, Israel is only expected to withdraw "from territories" to "secure and recognized boundaries" and not from "all the territories" captured in the Six-Day War. This language resulted from months of painstaking diplomacy. Thus, the UN Security Council recognized that Israel was entitled to part of these territories for new defensible borders. Taken together with UN Security Council Resolution 338, it became clear that only negotiations would determine which portion of these territories would eventually become "Israeli territories" or territories to be retained by Israel's Arab counterpart.
The last international legal allocation of territory that includes those strategic zones of what is today the West Bank and Gaza Strip occurred with the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which recognized Jewish national rights in the whole of the Mandated territory. Moreover, these rights were preserved under the United Nations as well, according to Article 80 of the UN Charter, despite the termination of the League of Nations in 1946. Given these fundamental sources of international legality, Israel cannot be characterized as a "foreign occupier" with respect to the West Bank and Gaza Strip​
.
 
Fearless said:
I was refering to the Six-Day war. You know, the one where Israel was yet again threatened with annilhation by the Arab armies Soviet backed might.

Come to think of it your right. As someome once said about Frank Bruno- 'people who live in glass jaws shouldn't throw punches'

The June War was a pyrrhic victory IMO. It left the Israelis with an inflated sense of invincibility that has characterized their actions ever since. This is why we had the Yom Kippur War and the increased terrorist attacks.

The whole thing started because of bad intelligence and an outrageous Nasser bluff that was called by Israel.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
It left the Israelis with an inflated sense of invincibility that has characterized their actions ever since.

Rather like Arsenal's 'unbeaten' run
 
Quite. Does life imitate football or does football imitate life? Who said that?

Butterscotch anyone?
 
Plechazunga said:
Except the Israelis didn't actually lose about 6 wars in the middle of their unbeaten run

that's why I said 'unbeaten'
 
Let's not get off topic here.

My final word is the media hyped it, the fans didn't really care, losing to you hurt more than losing any run, and we still hold the unbeaten run for consecutive PL games no matter what conditions you put on it.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
To label Al-Husayni a nazi is missing the point. He of course supported Germany because it would have meant that the hated British would have left Palestine if they were defeated. I doubt you would have seen him goose-stepping around Jerusalem.

:wenger:

missing incidents must be an epidemic where you come from, Grinner

022_01.gif

Bosnian Muslim Handzar SS Division

022_02.gif

Haj Amin al-Huseini, Mufti of Jerusalem and leader of the Palestinian Arabs, seen talking to Heinrich Himmler in 1943.

022_03.gif

Grand Mufti (middle), with notorious Croat NAZI Andrija Artukovic (left) and Mile Budak (right).

022_04.gif

Grand Mufti and Heinrich Himmler.

022_05.gif

Grand Mufti reviewing Bosnian Muslim 13th Waffen Gebirgs Division der SS "Handzar" with SS Brigadefurher and Generalmajor of the Waffen SS Karl Gustav Sauberzweig circa 1943.

022_06.gif

The Mufti giving a NAZI salute while reviewing Muslim SS troops. The picture is produced from the Berliner Illustriete Zeitung.

022_07.gif

Mufti reviewing Bosnian troops of the Waffen SS. The picture is the reproduction of the front page of the Wiener Illustriete (Vienna Illustrated) of 12th January, 1944.
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
I think you can cherry-pick incidences of Arab violence all day long. The fact is that Jews used financial superiority to displace Arabs, then military superiority to force Arabs to flee. Dayr Yasin was a crucial event, and to just dismiss it as something that went wrong is scandalous. Remember the villagers there were collaborators yet the Irgun-LEHI still showed no mercy. 250 mutilated corpses thrown down the wells and the glorification of this directly led to the Arab flight.

Cherry pick? incidents? I'm refering to years-long murderous campaigns, and you insist on "cherry-picking" the myth of Deir Yassin, which is very controversial to say the least. But as the Grand Mufti is your choice of a Palestinian leader I reallty should not be surprised.

On April 6, 1948, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah with the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. The Palmach was part of this effort together with the Irgun (under Menachem Begin) and Lehi forces, their first combined operation. On Thursday, April 8, 1948 they launched an attack on Dir Yassin between 4 and 5 AM. A loudspeaker mounted on an armored car warned the Arabs and asked them to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed. A pitched battle ensued, and when the smoke cleared, 110 to 120 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were dead. The number killed has been confirmed even by Palestinian Arab researchers, such as Bir Zeit University professor Sharif Kanaana who puts the number no higher than 120 (although he clings to the claim of massacre). Another contemporary Arab source deflates the number killed to less than 100, stating, after a count, "that there were no more than 46 corpses". The head of the coroner unit, professor Yehoshua Arieli, testified that the number was 110.

The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population. The loudspeaker is not in dispute. A publication of the Arab League titled Israeli Aggression states:

On the night of April 9, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin was surprised by a loudspeaker, which called on the population to evacuate it immediately.
The village was not peaceful, but the essential part of this quote agrees with Jewish accounts.

The massacre claim, meaning the killing of defenceless people, has long since been discredited by the Israeli government and every other historical study. The story persists because pro-Arab sources constantly repeat it, often inflating the number of dead to 250 or more. There are completely fictional accounts written about Arabs being marched to the mosque and shot against the walls, or even worse stories of torture, rape or any other shocking aspect the storyteller invents. As an example, here is how one Arab website describes the scene:

[The Jews used] machine guns, then grenades and finished of with knives. Women's bellies were cut open and babies were butchered in the hands of their helpless mothers. Around 250 people were murdered in cold blood. Of them 25 pregnant women were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. 52 children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and they were slain and their heads cut off.
To say there is not a shread of evidence for these embellishments is giving them too much credit.

On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts from the time, Jewish and Arab, that tell the story as it happened. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:

The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away.
Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities.

Palestinian Arab eyewitnesses have recently admitted that some of their claims about Dir Yassin were deliberate fabrications. The issue of the Jerusalem Report dated April 2, 1998 describes a BBC television program in which Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Dir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state.

According to the Jerusalem Report:

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,' recalled Nusseibeh. '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.' "
The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, who says:

... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."
Khalidi was one of the originators of the "massacre" allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi's claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.

Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Dir Yassin were:

"...our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.
It has also been alleged that the Dir Yassin hoax was supported by the left-wing political party of David Ben-Gurion in order to smear the right-wing, the Irgun and its commander Menachem Begin.
 
redsultan said:
Defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war. :wenger:

Following up on Plech--you need to figure out when the "war" started and who the belligerents are. Should we consider the events of 1947, 1956, 1967, and 1973 as separate 'wars," or merely as flareups of violence in an unending period of conflict?
Is it Israel against the Palestinians, Israel against all Arabs, the US and Israel against the Palestinians, Western Europe using Israel against the Arabs, the International Jewish Conspiracy (with unwitting Western assistance) against the rightful heirs to the land, or one of several thousand other combinations we could create from the various factions that have participated in the situation since--well, pick a date, 1918, 1922, 1945, 1967, 1992 (when football was invented), or 73 A.D., for that matter.
 
holyland red said:
Cherry pick? incidents? I'm refering to years-long murderous campaigns, and you insist on "cherry-picking" the myth of Deir Yassin, which is very controversial to say the least. But as the Grand Mufti is your choice of a Palestinian leader I reallty should not be surprised.

On April 6, 1948, Operation Nachshon was launched by the Haganah with the aim of opening up the road to Jerusalem. The Palmach was part of this effort together with the Irgun (under Menachem Begin) and Lehi forces, their first combined operation. On Thursday, April 8, 1948 they launched an attack on Dir Yassin between 4 and 5 AM. A loudspeaker mounted on an armored car warned the Arabs and asked them to evacuate their women and children. Hundreds left, but hundreds stayed. A pitched battle ensued, and when the smoke cleared, 110 to 120 Arabs were killed, 40 Jews were seriously injured and four Jews were dead. The number killed has been confirmed even by Palestinian Arab researchers, such as Bir Zeit University professor Sharif Kanaana who puts the number no higher than 120 (although he clings to the claim of massacre). Another contemporary Arab source deflates the number killed to less than 100, stating, after a count, "that there were no more than 46 corpses". The head of the coroner unit, professor Yehoshua Arieli, testified that the number was 110.

The use of the loudsepaker to warn the civilians to evacuate is a key point, certainly not the action of soldiers planning to murder the population. The loudspeaker is not in dispute. A publication of the Arab League titled Israeli Aggression states:

On the night of April 9, 1948, the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin was surprised by a loudspeaker, which called on the population to evacuate it immediately.
The village was not peaceful, but the essential part of this quote agrees with Jewish accounts.

The massacre claim, meaning the killing of defenceless people, has long since been discredited by the Israeli government and every other historical study. The story persists because pro-Arab sources constantly repeat it, often inflating the number of dead to 250 or more. There are completely fictional accounts written about Arabs being marched to the mosque and shot against the walls, or even worse stories of torture, rape or any other shocking aspect the storyteller invents. As an example, here is how one Arab website describes the scene:

[The Jews used] machine guns, then grenades and finished of with knives. Women's bellies were cut open and babies were butchered in the hands of their helpless mothers. Around 250 people were murdered in cold blood. Of them 25 pregnant women were bayoneted in the abdomen while still alive. 52 children were maimed under the eyes of their own mothers, and they were slain and their heads cut off.
To say there is not a shread of evidence for these embellishments is giving them too much credit.

On the contrary, there are eyewitness accounts from the time, Jewish and Arab, that tell the story as it happened. For example, according to the Daily Telegraph, April 8, 1998, Ayish Zeidan, a resident of the village and a survivor of the fighting there, stated:

The Arab radio talked of women being killed and raped, but this is not true... I believe that most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters. The Arab leaders committed a big mistake. By exaggerating the atrocities they thought they would encourage people to fight back harder. Instead they created panic and people ran away.
Dir Yassin was a reasonable military target for Jewish forces, there was warning given before the battle, a fierce battle was fought with casualties on both sides. No massacre, no mutiliations, no atrocities.

Palestinian Arab eyewitnesses have recently admitted that some of their claims about Dir Yassin were deliberate fabrications. The issue of the Jerusalem Report dated April 2, 1998 describes a BBC television program in which Hazem Nusseibeh, an editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service's Arabic news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a prominent Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate claims of atrocities at Dir Yassin in order to encourage Arab regimes to invade the expected Jewish state.

According to the Jerusalem Report:

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,' recalled Nusseibeh. '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.' "
The BBC program then shows a recent interview with Abu Mahmud, who was a Dir Yassin resident in 1948, who says:

... the villagers protested against the atrocity claims: We said, "There was no rape." [Khalidi] said, "We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews."
Khalidi was one of the originators of the "massacre" allegation in 1948. It was Khalidi's claims about Jewish atrocities in Dir Yassin that were the basis for an article in the New York Times by its correspondent, Dana Schmidt (on April 12, 1948), claiming a massacre took place. The Times article has been widely reprinted and cited as "proof" of the massacre throughout the past 50 years.

Nusseibeh, who is a member of one of Jerusalem's most prominent Arab families and presently lives in Amman, told the BBC that the fabricated atrocity stories about Dir Yassin were:

"...our biggest mistake," because "Palestinians fled in terror" and left the country in huge numbers after hearing the atrocity claims.
It has also been alleged that the Dir Yassin hoax was supported by the left-wing political party of David Ben-Gurion in order to smear the right-wing, the Irgun and its commander Menachem Begin.

If you can't say it more succinctly, don't say it at all
 
Plechazunga said:
I can't believe it's the word 'war' you've picked up on...it was clearly a war, and Egypt, Jordan and Syria were perfectly capable of defending themselves.

It's the 'regained' and 'defensive' aspects that are a bit more dubious...

When I said defensive war! you need an enemy capable of defending itself to fight a war Iwas refering to the Palestinian people, if the surrounding states ganged up with Isreal they deserve what they get, and got.

I dont blindly follow my heart.
 
Holyland,

You know there is a famous picture of the England Football team giving a Nazi salute. By your reasoning that would mean that the English supported Hitler. Al Husayni could choose the side who had betrayed his people, or the side that would certainly allow their self-determination. In his position, what would you have done?

As for Dayr Yassin, there is evidence for both sides of the story, I'd like to see the source for the account that you reproduced.
The facts seem to be :
1) The village had a non-aggression pact with the Hagana. (Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers)
2) The Jews had a plan to attack and wipe out the village. (Begin, The Revolt)
3) The Arabs fought back, which is a not unreasonable reaction. (Your account)
4) Jewish policy during 1948 was ethnic cleansing (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem)

I'm prepared to accept that Dayr Yassin may well have been overblown, but the policy of the Jews at this time was ethnic cleansing and it was carried out with relish. Benny Morris documents twenty-four acts of massacre in 1948

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion."
 
Grinner the Gooner said:
Holyland,

You know there is a famous picture of the England Football team giving a Nazi salute. By your reasoning that would mean that the English supported Hitler. Al Husayni could choose the side who had betrayed his people, or the side that would certainly allow their self-determination. In his position, what would you have done?

As for Dayr Yassin, there is evidence for both sides of the story, I'd like to see the source for the account that you reproduced.
The facts seem to be :
1) The village had a non-aggression pact with the Hagana. (Cohen, Palestine and the Great Powers)
2) The Jews had a plan to attack and wipe out the village. (Begin, The Revolt)
3) The Arabs fought back, which is a not unreasonable reaction. (Your account)
4) Jewish policy during 1948 was ethnic cleansing (Benny Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem)

I'm prepared to accept that Dayr Yassin may well have been overblown, but the policy of the Jews at this time was ethnic cleansing and it was carried out with relish. Benny Morris documents twenty-four acts of massacre in 1948

"The worst cases were Saliha (70-80 killed), Deir Yassin (100-110), Lod (250), Dawayima (hundreds) and perhaps Abu Shusha (70). There is no unequivocal proof of a large-scale massacre at Tantura, but war crimes were perpetrated there. At Jaffa there was a massacre about which nothing had been known until now. The same at Arab al Muwassi, in the north. About half of the acts of massacre were part of Operation Hiram [in the north, in October 1948]: at Safsaf, Saliha, Jish, Eilaboun, Arab al Muwasi, Deir al Asad, Majdal Krum, Sasa. In Operation Hiram there was a unusually high concentration of executions of people against a wall or next to a well in an orderly fashion."


Atrocities were part and parcel from the cruel struggle of the two national movements, but I begin to miss your point.
Firstly, many of the names you mention are just that- names without any proof of an actual massacre (just like the case of Tantura, where you probably know the unfolding of events of a recently submitted thesis to the Haifa University dealing with the events in the village).
Secondly, such a firm grasp of history with failure to dismiss earlier massacres of Jews as cherry-picking incidents speaks volumes for your intellectual dishonesty- what did you expect the Jews to do after these earlier events?

I am not familiar with the photo of the English team, but I doubt their manager travelled to Berlin to discuss the extermination of British Jews. Neither any Brit was involved in forming muslim SS units in Bosnia, responsible for murdering thousands of Jews and Serbs.