Amira Hass reports on a talk given by one of the flight crew that assassinated Saleh Shehadeh, and 14 civilians, including eight children and three women in 2002. This was one of the seminal events of the second Intifada and is high on the list of international human rights activists for war crimes adjudication.
Later on the day of the attack the pilot tells us:
“The next day, actually the same day, they tell us that the strike killed Salah Shehadeh, his wife, his daughter, his son and others… The commander of the pilots called us all in for a talk about ethics, the first one I’d ever heard about…”
During the discussion in Tel Aviv, T. asked the teenagers, who are themselves, preparing for their military service, the following question: “Had I known that 14 other people were with him … what should I have done?”
A little late for that question, don’t you think? The same holds true for the talk about ethics.
Of course there are many pro-Israel advocates who can and do easily justify the killing of the 14 innocents. Like the pilot in this story, they can murder a man and his children and then sleep soundly. There was a time when Jewish tradition would condemn such immorality, would in fact be horrified by it. There are still rabbis who do so. But morality in Israel has coarsened. Life has coarsened too, for Israelis and Palestinians.
But mainly I want to know how the murderer has the chutzpah to talk about ethics. By what right?
Dan-I-feel-a-light-dump-to-the-plane-when-the-bomb-is-released-that’s-what-I-feel-Halutz said to the pilots (Haaretz interview on August 21st 2002):
” . . . you can sleep well at night. I also sleep well, by the way. You aren’t the ones who choose the targets, and you were not the ones who chose the targets in this particular case. You are not responsible for the content of the target. Your execution was perfect. Superb. And I repeat again: ‘There is no problem here that concern you. You did exactly what you were instructed to do”.
Fortunately, the Nazi criminals were not judged by Halutz’ standards. Most of them would have been released: only obeying orders.
I note that Halutz talks about human beings as: “content of the target”.
Unfair to judge the pilot, he states specifically that as the pilot he is not privy to the intel and didn’t even know who the target was until after the bombing.
The criticism should be on the decision makers, and, yes, there is a moral dilema whether the murder of innocents can ever be justified in order to save lives of many other innocents. The classic example is whether the allies should have bombed the concentration camps in the 1940’s, killing thousands but saving tens of thousands. Or Hiroshima in order to finish WW2.
The dilemma is a genuine ethical dilemma, and the IAF righfully had ethical talks to discuss the morality of this attack.
You are entitled to your opinion as to whether this particular attack was in accordance with your personal moral standards, but if your moral standard says that the killing of an innocent bystander can never be justifiable, I would have to disagree and say that my moral standard would save many more innocents in the long run than yours.
Can you actually see the dilemma? Or is your moral code black and white without doubt entering into the equation?
Not unfair at all. But I don’t just judge the pilot, but the entire system. How can you do something so offensive & outrageous as to schedule an ethics talk about killing 14 mostly women & children? And then after knowing what he did how can such a pilot continue carrying out such operations in good conscience (or is that an extraneous concept for people like this?).
# Shmuel)
I’m NOT a pacifist, and I do believe that people have a right to take up arms in order to defend what’s theirs.
Maybe the pilot didn’t know who was the “content of the target”, but if my memory is correct it was a bomb of more than 1000 kilos, and it was dropped in a heavy populated neighbourhood. You think the pilot thought he was dropping it in the Neguev ?
Maybe he simply never noticed the slight bump to the aircraft’s wing.
That’s probl what they taught the pilot in that ethics talk he received after he did the dirty deed.
Yes, they used a larger bomb because a previous attempt had been “too small” & not killed Shehadeh. The result was the bomb toppled the entire apt. building killing everyone inside. That’s why Halutz, Almog & others are accused of a war crime in this incident.
“Unfair to judge the pilot”
That’s like saying it is unfair to judge the hit man who is hired to commit a murder.
What if they gave a war, and no one showed up?
Yes, Donovan really changed the world.
Without soldiers to DEFEND against Hitler Donovan would be languishing in jail in the best case scenario, but more likely dead.
I suppose you also think that Palestinians shouldn’t take up arms against nasty Israel? Because then someone might accuse them of the crime of being a “soldier”.
Soldiers have always existed, and always will, nations and people simply never get on with each other, this is a basic instinct with which humans are imbibed.
“One man’s ceiling is another man’s floor” (Simon and Garfunkle) beats Donovan anyday hands down.
# Shmuel)
You didn’t read Shirin till the end. Buffy Sainte-Marie, a Native Canadian of the Cree people, wrote “Universal Soldier” and not Donovan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYEsFQ_gt7c&feature=related
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Soldier_(song)
So you’re denying any validity to the non-violent resistance of the White Rose activists who resisted Hitler? Besides, if people had resisted Hitler at the right time & in the right way he never would’ve come to power. More political resistance & protest in 1930 might’ve prevented this disaster.
Costa Rica, btw seems to be doing just fine w/o an army. Having a disarmed nation & police force tends to deescalate matters both internally & externally. Other nations should try it.
Simon & Garfunkle are good, but don’t underestimate Donovan. He was onto something.
Good job of missing the entire point, including the identity of the song’s composer.
Richard – that’s really scraping the barrel to find Costa Rica as yor ideal example for a country without an army or police. I think that’s probably the exception that proves the rule that every country needs security forces to defend itself from man’s natural desire for violence.
As for ‘non-violently” resisting Hitler to save the world from Nazism in the 1930s – I think that’s the mother of all speculation.
What if they gave a war and found conditions that made it virtually impossible to fight, not in the conventional manner anyway? And not so impoosible with the right set of rules.
There you go with your usual nebulous, non-specific, useless nonsense. That all might sound very high level to some, but without anything even remotely specific, it is just meaningless prattling.
“A little late for that question, don’t you think?” especially for those at receiving end!
French philosopher and culture critic Paul Virilio speaking of “aesthetics of death” and his quote:
“First of all, if I have spoken of a link between war and aesthetics, it is because there is something I am very interested in and that is what Sun Tzu in his ancient Chinese text calls The Art of War. This is because, for me, war consists of the organisation of the field of perception. But war is also, as the Japanese call it, ‘the art of embellishing death’. And, in this sense, the relationship between war and aesthetics is a matter of very serious concern. Conversely, one could say that religion — in the broadest sense of the word — is ‘the art of embellishing life’. Thus, anything that strives to aestheticise death is profoundly tragic. But, nowadays, the tragedy of war is mediated through technology. It is no longer mediated through a human being with moral responsibilities. It is mediated through the destructive power of the atomic bomb, as in Stanley Kubrick’s film, Dr Strangelove.”
http://www.bollyn.com/news-shock-norwegians-enjoy-killing-afghans
This article says pretty much same story. The people from tranquil and “peaceful” Norway kill for fun, who would expect that? They use high powered advanced weapons to kill – from long range – “the art of embellishing death”. Another example are the drones armed with Hellfire missles or F-16 with GBU. The aesthetics of death?
Occupying forces throughout history behave on the same way. They kill, rape, plunder. The Nazi called its war policy “scorched earth”, U.S. call it “shock and awe”, Israel euphemistically call its forces IDF which is military marketing/propaganda.
It is not difficult to conclude that those with military superiority do not recon with the morality as the relevant “force”. For them the death is like, PC game; imagery and distant, not real.
Reading this blog it seems that Israel kills innocent people.
Shaada was behind many suicide attacks resulted in many innocent people who lots their lives.
El-Mabhuh was behind the kidnapping and murdering of 2 Israeli soldiers i know of, Ilan Sadon and Avi Sasportas, Avi Sasportas was killed with two bullets in the face from very close range.
don’t get me wrong,some of the Palestinians rights need to be answered around the negotiation table and no where else.
for everyone’s benefit i attached a paragraph form The Justice of War – Patrick Stephens
http://ayn-rand.info/cth–353-The_Justice_War.aspx
“Going to war
Just-war theory, or the application of the principles of justice to warfare, has a long history. First formulated in the Aristotelian tradition by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, these principles have undergone a secular revision by twentieth century philosophers. But the essential questions that the theory addresses are much the same now as they always have been: When is going to war just? And how can war be waged justly? The first question is addressed by the jus ad bellum (justice to war) principles; the second question is addressed by the jus in bello (justice in war) principles.
The principles of jus ad bellum require that a nation have just cause and right intention in declaring war, that the declaration be openly and properly declared, and that there be some reasonable expectation of winning the war. That a nation have a just cause and a right intention to engage in war is the most fundamental and demanding of the principles of just warfare. Since justice forbids the initiation of force, acts of aggression cannot be morally justified. Only the response to an initiation of force—such as America’s response to the attacks of September 11—can be considered just. This much, at least, is often understood even by antiwar critics. Only the blindest anti-American protesters deny America’s right to retaliate, claiming that the deaths of 5,000 innocent men and women was merely “the biggest bully on the block finally gets a blow struck against him.” These rarer breed of apologists exist, but their numbers are few and their arguments too flaccid to merit an answer. For the most part, antiwar critics acknowledge the injustice of the September 11 attacks and recognize America’s right to seek justice as a response.
“
Indeed it does. Just read my blog & I’ll introduce you to many of them. And in the Shehadeh case there were 14 innocent souls killed.
Sorry, but that won’t due. All Palestinian rights need to be addressed, not some. And if they need to be addressed around the negotiation table why doesn’t Israel do what it needs to do to be around that table & give Palestinians what they need? Why does it engage in useless distractions like assassinating the allegedly guilty & the truly innocent instead of getting down to business?
I don’t know anything about Patrick Stephens, but to refer to the 9/11 attacks & claim that 5,000 died when the actual number was under 3,000 pokes a huge hole in his credibility. Not to mention that his claims seem completely besides the pt. The pt. isn’t whether or not America had a right to retailiate. The pt. is how it retaliated & what it actually did in doing so getting into two huge morasses of wars & occupations w. both having no end in sight.
“Reading this blog it seems that Israel kills innocent people.”
You have to read this blog to see that?! I’d hate to see what else you read.
It “seems” that Israel kills innocent people? Right!
Let’s say i understand your claim about Shaada,
but was Shaada himself innocent ? was Mabhouh Innocent ?
was Mabhouh a legitimate target ? what is your criticisem about his assenation ? no one else was killed.
The pt. is that assassinations out of a motive of revenge are useless. What satisfaction do they provide? So for every al Mabouh you get, the other side will get some of yours. The victim may be an Israeli cabinet minister or a poor grunt like Sasportas. This is blood spilled for the sake of vengeance. Civilized countries don’t take revenge. They pursue justice. And I include my own country in that list when it kills militants using drones or whatever.
I grant you that al-Mabouh was a bad guy. I don’t like people who kill others in cold blood even if they are in IDF. But assassinating al Mabouh at the price of driving a stake into the heart of your relations with 6 or 7 friendly nations isn’t worth the price. This is purely fr. a pragmatic, rather than moral perspective (which also troubles me).
Richard,
Let’s assume they were Really, Really, Honestly, VERY VERY bad guys!
Is this really the only method to deal with bad guys? If everybody will assume assassination as the method of dealing with bad guys, what will remain of humanity, civilization and all these other things it took us several thousand years to build?
I do presume Shehadeh was a bad guy, and al Mabouh as well. I presume they killed a lot of people. But I presume Meir Dagan did as well. So no, I don’t approve of assassination even when my own country uses this tool. “An eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone toothless & blind,” said MLK.
““An eye for an eye & a tooth for a tooth leaves everyone toothless & blind,” said MLK.”
It was actually Mohendes Ghandi who said that. MLK may have quote him, but he did not originate that saying.
Thanks for the correction. MLK did indeed say it & I think I faintly remember hearing it credited originally to Ghandi but clearly I didn’t recall that.
Worth noting that Israel prides itself on not having the death penalty, with the well known exception of Nazi criminals.
Targeted assassinations are just that – Israel carrying out a death sentence, but without even the the due process given to Eichman. The judge, jury and executioners being Army officials, with a couple of politicians signing the death warrant and perhaps a kosher philosopher providing moral backing in the background.
And one last thing that I don’t think was mentioned – Apart from fourteen dead, the Shaade assassination left over a hundred wounded, some of them crippled for life.
“ There was a time when Jewish tradition would condemn such immorality, would in fact be horrified by it.”
But not Zionist tradition, I am afraid.
“morality in Israel has coarsened.”
Has it really, or are Israelis simply being more brazen in their immorality. Richard, we are talking about a country whose first major act was massive ethnic cleansing, and most of whose leaders and citizens considered this perfectly acceptable for them to do. We are talking about a country that has continued to conduct ethnic cleansing projects both internally (e.g. Judaization of the Galilee, ethnic cleansing of parts of the Negev, etc.) throughout its history. I don’t see that Israel’s morality has changed very much at all.
Israel’s “first major act” was not ethnic cleansing but defending itself against invading armies who came from far and wide to wipe Israel off the map.
Luckily it succeeded.
So, Shirin, where in your opinion are Jews to be allowed to live in your “ideal” Israel? The Galil is out, the Negev is out, the settlements are out, maybe they should all live in a Ghetto in Tel Aviv? Or do you propose sending them back to Poland and Germany, etc.
# Shmuel)
We know by now that you have never adventured outside classical Zionist historiography.
If you don’t know Ilan Pappe, the most famous of the New Historians since Benny Morris turned Likudnik, you probably don’t know the rest of them. If you had cared to read opposing views on “the seven invading armies”, you would know by now that this is largely Hasbara.
First of all, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine started before the creation of the State of Israel, and the “invading Arab armies” did not cross into what was supposed to be the Jewish State, except in very few places.
But if you could explain how the Deïr Yassin massacre could take place in the beginning of April ’48 when this village was in territory belonging to the future Arab State.
You apparently have no problem with the fact that you, an English-born Jew, could move to Israel while the native population who was expulsed, can’t return to their homes.
Why is it so shocking to ask people to go back where they come from if they won’t accept living with the native population ? They weren’t invited in the first place !
I hope this is a rhetorical question. If not, the idea of Israeli natives, no matter the injustice that they wrought on native Palestinians doesn’t justify the 100 fold suffering that would ensue were these Israelis expelled to whatever odd countries might be willing to accept them. The notion is simply horrifying, as horrifying as the injustice facing Palestinians currently.
# Richard)
In fact, I wanted Shmuel to answer how he justifies his own presence in the area -he once wrote he left England for Israel – and in the same time he doesn’t recognize native Palestinians’ right of return, but I guess he won’t answer.
I’m NOT talking of expelling anyone, but if the Israeli Jews do not want to live with the Palestinians, and not only the Israeli Palestinians, but the refugees waiting to return home too, they are free to leave. I simply don’t understand what’s horrifying in that statement. My maternel family should give up the dream of returning home, settle down in Syria, Jordan or Libanon, to give Shmuel and other Israelis the right to live without too many Arabs around ?
Well, personally, I don’t want to expel anyone or send anyone packing. There’s room within Israel & Palestine for everyone who wants to live there. There’s room inside Israel for returning refugees as well.
@Deir Yassin:
I’ve never stated here or anywhere that I don’t recognize the right of return for Palestinians. I have said and stand by it that this right is a moral right but not a legal right since the international law on this matter was different in 1948 from that of 1967 or today.
The eventual solution will have to include some form of return to some parts of Israel, and some form of compensation for others. Negotiable.
Rights are not always attained in practice – I firmly believe that any Palestinian who believes that all the villages of pre-1948 will be restored for returning Palestinians is dreaming and will not ever be able to sign a peace agreement which will obviously be a compromise of sorts.
Sorry to say the Z word, but I believe in my right to live in my homeland as a Jew side by side with Palestinians. I wish you would say the same.
# shmuel)
I hope Richard do accept our off-topic dialogue.
“That right is a moral right but not a legal right”
You’ve just confirmed what you deny: you don’t recognize the right of the Palestinians to return home.
That “moral right”-thing is that like a kind of diploma that my uncle can hang on the wall, next to all his medical degrees, somewhere in the diaspora ?? You know, Arabs like hanging diplomas on the wall. A bit of a show-off 🙂
“Palestinians are dreaming”
Yes, I’ve heard your people dreamt for nearly 2000 years before your prayer was heart. We are patient people too, you know, the famous ‘sumûd’.
Shmuel, I don’t want to go into the debate on whether the Middle East is your homeland or not. I don’t want to brake Richard’s comment rules or that you consider me a revisionist, or even worse. So just one question, and I’m talking about someone I used to know: Does the right to settle down in the Jewish homeland include a former Catholic converted to Judaism as an adult ??
“I believe in my right to live in my homeland as a Jew side by side with Palestinians. I wish you would say the same”.
You’re asking me to say that you have the right to live in YOUR homeland, but that those Palestinians who were expulsed are not allowed to retun to THEIR homeland and BIRTHPLACE ?? How many generations was your family away from your homeland ?
So, I’m sorry. That’s simply not possible for me. Each and every Palestinian has the individual right to decide whether he/she would like to return home.
If you accept that, I wouldn’t hesitate. That’s what a One State is all about. And don’t worry, I’m probably not coming 😉
@Deir Yassin
We can agree if you are talking about returning after 2000 years of dreaming. lol
Do you really practically see that kibbutzim and villages and towns will be evacuated in order to allow the Palestinians to “return” literally to their homes that were previously built on these sites? surely the right of return means to the country and not to a building that no longer exists? Do you really believe in reversing tens of years of development?
On the same vein of ideology and correction of moral right do you feel that Russians deported to Siberia under Stalin should be returned to their houses? Or the millions of displaced persons from WW2? Should I be allowed to turn up on the doorstep of some house in Magdeberg Germany from where my 14 year old father was deported to the camps and demand to be allowed to live there?
And what about the Jews who bought land in the Gaza strip (bought legally, not expropriated) be allowed to return there?
The one thing that is true about history is that it moves on every day.
Yes, a Catholic who officially adopts Judaism (and of course rejects Christianity) has a right to live in the Jewish homeland as does a Catholic American who marries a Muslim in Ramallah the right to live in Palestine.
Heartless & cruel. They prob. wrote “lol” next to the text of Altneuland when it was first published too. Now look where Herzl’s dream has taken things. Similarly, the refugees will return home (those that want to) and participate in building their land. I don’t know whether it will be one state of two. But they will return.
I think if the U.S. & other nations are creating a fund to compensate refugees for their losses &/or resettlement then surely we should be able to create a fund that pays Israeli Jews to relinquish property at fair market value if a returning Palestinian insists on the right to return to a particular place to which he has the deed. Conversely, if the Israeli doesn’t wish to do so there should be a mechanism to compensate the returning refugee for the current fair market value of the property, which he/she can then use to buy another property in Israel. These things shouldn’t be seen as insurmountable obstacles. If there’s basic good will (something I realize in short supply), there’s a way to proceed forward.
Yes, if you insist on it. But if the German gov’t offered you twice the value of the property in compensation, why would you? Besides, I don’t think you’re claiming the type of religious/spiritual/historic connection to that piece of land which Jews (& Palestinians) are claiming to Israel.
# Shmuel)
I know that a converted Catholic has the right to join the Jwish homeland.
I am asking you: what do you think about that ?
If a converted Jew has the right to ‘join the Jewish homeland’ – which in this case is purely religious or spiritual – while a Palestinian doesn’t have the right to join his very physical homeland, this is pure xenophobia, as far as I’m concerned. But that’s maybe the solution: that the Palestinians convert to Judaism and ask for the Jewish ROR.
Why do Zionists always ask what I feel about deported Russians, or whatever ? I’m not a deported Russian, and thus I have not thought about that. Do you want to go back to Germany, or are you only asking to make a parallel/excuse ?
By the way, I’m sure that Jews who have ancestry in Germany have the right of return and the right to take up German nationality. One of the German passports used in the Mabhouh-assassination was achieved through the ROR, if my memory is correct.
We are monopolizing the file, Shmuel. I hope people excuse us. Have a good evening !
@Deir Yassin
I DO believe the Palestinians have a right of return, but not to the exact same building or furrow of land, simply for practical reasons.
One of the greatest surprises for me that I ever experienced was when I once flew to Israel and the plane had to relieve itself of excess fuel. We were treated to a fly-over of most of North Israel and the West Bank for about half an hour – and most of it was empty space without people (Palestinian or Jewish) and not cultivated land. There is so much space there for tens of new towns, villages and agriculture. Why waste money on returning to the past when the future can be so bright!
Look at projects such as Modi’im (leave aside for now the argument about whose land), Ramat Bet Shemesh, Arad, Yeroham, Natzeret Ilit, etc. It can be done on land that was barren, for the good of both peoples.
Does the right of return really mean to the exact dunam, or to the Homeland?
@Deir Yassin: “If you had cared to read opposing views on “the seven invading armies”, you would know by now that this is largely Hasbara.
First of all, the ethnic cleansing of Palestine started before the creation of the State of Israel, and the “invading Arab armies” did not cross into what was supposed to be the Jewish State, except in very few places.”
Well I think you read too much “anti hasbara”.
Contained in your quote above is in fact an admission that what I wrote is true and very close to what you agree on.
You say this is “LARGELY hasbara” (not outright lies!) – so there were SOME Arab armies that invaded in 1948, maybe only 5 and not 7? (for fact there was Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan).
You say these armies did not cross into the areas designated for the Jewish State “except in a few places” – so the did cross “in a few places” – how many? 5? 10? 20?
Oh, and don’t forget that no Arab country or leader accepted the 1947 UN partitian plan – so why should the invading armies even look at the “border” between the designated Jewish and Arab states when invading?
And 6000 Jewish killed in the 1948 war – who killed them? Or was it mass Jewish suicide in the face of no invader?
Hasbara can sometimes have correct answers – you should read some and not assume it to be lies when facts prove otherwise.
# Shmuel)
When I wrote “except in very few places”, I was in fact thinking of Jerusalem, supposed to be an international zone. And if I understand you correctly, if the “Arab armies” invaded the future Jewish State in some places, and the different Jewish gangs and the army-to-come invaded the future Arab State in many places, it’s still “the Arab armies invaded Israel” in Zionist translation ??
And when I wrote “largely Hasbara”? you’re right. I should have written ‘pure hasbara’ but I didn’t wan’t to shock you too much.
As far as my “anti-hasbara”-reading is concerned, it’s mostly Israeli historians that I’ve read, and I’ll tell you why.
The French historian and journalist Dominique Vidal (Jewish) wrote very correctly in the introduction to one of his books, the first in French, dedicated to the New Israeli Historians, that what these historians had discoved after the opening of the National Archives around 1987-88 didn’t show anything that Arab, and Palestinian historians hadn’t said and written for decades; that nobody ever cared to listen to them; that not until Israeli and Jewish historians got to the same conclusions were these claims taken seriously.
That why I always try to refer to a Jewish or Israeli intellectual when I refer to someone. I’ve tried much too often to be laughed at when I refer to an Arab intellectual. Even Edward Saïd is not a reliable source to most Zionists.
So if you need some references, you’re welcome. I have tons of them.
You’re saying that 6000 Jews were killed in the ’48 war is a proof that the “Arab armies invaded the State of Israel”.
You do know that fights took place in territories that should belong to the Arab state, don’t you ? You do know that the State of Israel on the ’49-borders is NOT the Israel that was voted by the UN, don’t you ? Where did these extra 23% come from ? God ?
You do know that Palestinians living within the future State of Israel were fighting back in most cases when their villages and town were attacked, don’t you ??
By the way, you never gave me your explanation of the Deïr Yassin-massacre. In the beginning of April ’48, and on territory belonging to the future Arab State. Well, no Jews were killed in Deïr Yassin, only Arabs. How come this village which had declared itself neutral was emptied ?
You’re basically rewriting history. Maybe that’s how you sleep well at night, how do I know ?
@Deir Yassin: “You do know that fights took place in territories that should belong to the Arab state, don’t you ? You do know that the State of Israel on the ’49-borders is NOT the Israel that was voted by the UN, don’t you ? Where did these extra 23% come from ? God ?”
Fights took place in the areas designated for both the Jewish state and the Palestinian state – what does that prove? Both sides wanted both areas! One side lost. As soon as war broke out after the Palestinians and other Arabs didn’t accept the UN partition plan, war determined the borders as international law at that time determined – the winner takes the land (the extra 23% that you claim). These borders are internationally recognised by most of the world.
I have no idea what happened at Deir Yassin except that it is a major arguement of fact between those involved. If there was a massacre there – that’s war, and every war has atrocities. I could counter with various Palestinian atrocities at that time – what does it prove? Only that both sides will do all in their power to gain or regain what they consider to be their rights.
I don’t actually know why we argue here all the time – we actually agree on the solution – a one state solution based on the rights of Jews and Palestinians to live with democratic rights in the jointly ruled territory. (Correct?)
You don’t even know your own history—and ADMIT IT! Even Herutniks admit that the village was attacked. There may be a dispute about how many were killed or what happened. But there is no dispute that Begin’s boys did their best dirty work there.
I don’t recall there being any Arab attacks on Jews in which 250 were killed in cold blood. Deir Yassin was the Sabra & Chatilla of its day. Cold-blooded murder. And it introduced the Nakba BEFORE the war began.
# Shmuel)
Yesterday at 2:37 PM you stated that Israel’s first major act was not ethnic cleansing but defending itself against invading armies coming from far to wipe Israel off the map.
And now, less than 24 hours later, you recognize that fights took place in areas designated for both the Jewish and the Arab State, and that both sides wanted both areas.
Thank you, you’ve progressed since yesterday. Next time, I could maybe convince you of reading some Ilan Pappe: “Une Terre pour deux peuples” (I don’t know whether the original is in Hebrew or English). If you read his books, I promise to read “Altneuland” by Herzl.
Concerning your last three lines, I can only say “‘amîn”.
I don’t think my views have changed – the point about the invading armies is who started the war in ’48 instead of accepting a partition. I still stand by my opinion that the Palestinians missed their big chance (can’t blame them, they didn’t know what would be the outcome), and lost the whole cake.
I might read Ilan Pappe, but don’t you read Altneuland – it’s over a hundred years old and written in a different era and in totally different cicumstances. If you want to read early zionist thinkers try Pinsker.
I recommend Ahad HaAm.
# Shmuel)
I’ve read Leo Pinsker. And Moses Hess, Max Nordau, Ben- Yehuda, Gordon, Jabotinsky, etc etc and of course Herzl and Ben Gourion. Nothing convinced me. Ahad Ha’am and Judah Magnes is a different thing. And the Bund, those are ‘my people’.
What did you read in order to try to understand the Palestinian point of view ??
You’re also refusing to deal w. claims made against yr argument. Israel declared independence. There was no war till then. Some Israelis urged Ben Gurion to wait & negotiate before declaring a state. He refused. He knew what would result. So in effect he dared the Arabs to attack knowing if he declared independence they would.
Richard – major forgetfulness here on your behalf, In Kfar Etzion Arabs killed in cold blood 250 men after surrendering their arms and after lining them up for photographing.
This was the day before the state was declared, and the Arabs attacked, the settlers there defended the settlement (which was on land bought by Jews, not stolen)
I didn’t forget the massacre, but had never heard a number that high.
On Deïr Yassin.
In fact, Palestinian historians have stated that maybe ‘only’ 100 inhabitants were killed. The important thing about DY is the symbolic message: a village situated in the future Arab state and who had declared itself neutral was attacked 6 weeks before the Independance.
The rumours of the DY massacre ran through Palestine and threw thousands of Palestinians on the road, and according to most historians, the goal of the DY massacre was precisely to make people flee.
Today there’s an Israeli public psychiatric hospital, the Kfar Shaul Mental Health Center, in parts of the remaining villages. I wonder what kind of mental disease they’re dealing with ? And the site is clearly seen from Yad Vashem. By the way, I wonder if all those foreign politicians who visit Yad Vashem as an obligatory part of their visit, no matter how short it is, know anything about Deir Yassin.
You can’t distinguish bet. the 2. They go hand in hand w. ea. other. Israel’s existence owes itself to a dreadful act of injustice very similar to the role slavery played in the early history of the U.S. (& continues playing in the form of racial discrimination, etc.) to this day. Just as the U.S. emancipated slaves & eventually integrated African Americans within our society, Israel will have to come to terms w. its own original sin by liberating Palestinians fr. oppression through a Palestinian nation & a Palestinian minority within Israel treated precisely the same as the Jewish majority.
Cheap shot, snarky & deliberately provocative. You know, or should know, that Shirin doesn’t believe this. So don’t put words in the mouths of others esp. when you know those words don’t represent what they believe.
Shmuel, you need to get your head out of the standard Israeli historical fabrications and bring your understanding of history up to date.
And by the way, the ethnic cleansing began well before the supposed invasion of the Arab armies (who, in fact, never invaded Israel), and much of it took place in the areas designated for the Palestinians. In fact, the understanding that ethnic cleansing would be a necessary element to the creation of a Jewish state began with Herzl, and attempts to induce or force the departure of the non-Jewish Palestinians started when the first Zionists came from Europe to colonize Palestine and have continued without pause until now.
In fact, the historical record shows clearly that the 1948 war was not about “invading Arab hordes coming from far and wide to wipe Israel off the map”, but about land grabbing and ethnic cleansing. Benny Morris proved that, although he has never been able to face what his own work clearly demonstrated. Other, more personally courageous Israeli historians HAVE been able to recognize and face the truth about their country’s beginnings.
Your last paragraph is just another steaming pile of processed bull food typical of what you regularly deposit on this page, and this is all the response you will get to it from me.
@Shirin
My last paragraph, you claim is ” is just another steaming pile of processed bull food typical of what you regularly deposit on this page”
You show time and again the inability to confront arguments that don’t conform with your ideas by insulting the person who wrote them.
You have insulted me and anyone who believes that communication between humans is what makes a human superior to the animal. Try and restrain yourself, you might even feel better in the long run!
It would be interesting indeed to know what you really feel is the just solution to the conflict, and what you suggest be the solution for the Jewish population in the disputed areas.
Shmuel, I am more than capable of confronting arguments, as I have demonstrated regularly here. Your last paragraph was not an argument, it was a nasty bit of adolescent personal snark, and not worthy of a response beyond what I gave it.