Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Jews should leave Palestine and return to Europe, top U.S. journalist says

White House reporter Helen Thomas also slams Obama administration for not condemning 'deliberate Gaza flotilla massacre.'

By Natasha Mozgovaya

Israeli Jews should get out of Palestine and go back "home," to Germany and Poland, senior White House Press Corps member Helen Thomas was taped as saying earlier this week, bringing calls for her resignation by Jewish organization B'nai B'rith.

In a recently uploaded Youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBqt14
, Thomas can be heard saying that Israel "should get the hell out of Palestine," adding that the land was Palestinian, "not German, it's not Polish."

Thomas, in response, posted the following statement on her website, saying she deeply regretted the "comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians. They do not reflect my heart-felt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance. May that day come soon."

When asked where then the Jews should go, the senior White House correspondent said they should "Go home…. To Poland, Germany…and America and everywhere else."

"Thomas’ comments are contemptible, "B’nai B’rith International President Dennis W. Glick said in a statement, adding that Thomas's "distortion of historical reality is astonishing. Her call for Jews to return to Poland and Germany—site of the Nazi genocide, the worst genocide in modern history—is beyond offensive."

Glick added that he felt "Thomas seems to have been schooled by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in a belief that Jews appeared in Israel after the Holocaust," while ignoring "historical facts that Jews have called the Land of Israel home for more than 3,000 years, long before any other group made a home in the land."

"These vile comments, unfortunately, are the culmination of Thomas' ongoing anti-Israel sentiments that she kept thinly veiled over the years," B’nai B’rith International Executive Vice President Daniel S. Mariaschin said.

"There should be no place for her in a news organization. Her comments go beyond commentary and land well in the camp that will stop at nothing to delegitimize Israel."

Last week, during a briefing with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, Thomas' criticized the American reaction to the deadly Israeli raid of a humanitarian aid convoy, saying that "our initial reaction to this flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful."

"What do you mean you regret when something should be so strongly condemned? And if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms. What is this sacrosanct, iron-clad relationship, where a country that deliberately kills people," Thomas had said.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/jews-should-leave-palestine-and-return-to-europe-top-u-s-journalist-says-1.294284


Poor Thomas, how dare her state the obvious. Now she has to incur the wrath of those who jealously protect 'the message'.

Cheers,
Shafique

LOL. While Jews do have a history of thousand years in Israel and always considered it their homeland, whites in the USA have been there for how long? Few hundred years?

Helen should go back where she came from for spouting such stupidity. Whats next white Ozzies claiming Israel has no right to exist, while they practicaly whiped out their indigenous population and are the offspring of European criminals?
What did white Ozzies criticizing Israel do lately for the aboriginals?

Here you can see the video interview with Helen Thomas, a crazy old bat, who might just also be a racist. She is obviously as fair about Gaza as she is good-looking: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQcQdWBq ... r_embedded

She happens to be of Lebanese origin...hmm

LOL. While Jews do have a history of thousand years in Israel and always considered it their homeland, whites in the USA have been there for how long? Few hundred years?

Those new jews that are occupying palestinian land, were not there when their ancestors left thousands of years ago, plus whites in the USA has longer history than those jews imigrated to israel...

Whats next white Ozzies claiming Israel has no right to exist, while they practicaly whiped out their indigenous population and are the offspring of European criminals?
What did white Ozzies criticizing Israel do lately for the aboriginals?

Why should you blame Ozzies of their crime against aboriginals when the israelies follow their footstep in the same fashion, at least in this century there are no aboriginals suffer from persecution but I know muslims will continue to suffer in israel permenantly that's if they keep bringing the same kind of ar.seoles to power time after time? And I know that the only people will manage to stop them are the muslims themselves...

Have you noticed how much White Europeans share in common with zion jews?
Their slaughter took place in Europe, happend in North America,south America, in Africa, in Australia, NZ, and Asia minor as well..all through by white christians superiority complex...
I am really ashamed of being a white but a proud muslim...

Berrin, you are a theist lunatic. Always blaming others to be lost in the forrest.

Every race of humans has blood on its hand. The whites are merely supreme in everything. Blame mercantile capitalism for their magic ability to keep control of global hegemony, although its a weak excuse when you are using the fruits of that system (like internet) yourself.

I'm proud of being human being. We do good, we fail and when we make mistakes we actually try to learn from them. Everybody should look at their own actions to see the impact it has on the world. Unfortunately, we have people who are selfish and some are ideologically driven to embrace fear for some God, that has never been proven to exist. But it keeps them purposefully dedicated to a cause that is ignorant at best.

When people like you think you are better because of some silly faith, you start whining when the bombs hit back. Thats weakness my friend. If you really want parties to develop reason, stop people from learning silly ideology and accept that we are all unique.

You don't need a religious group hug to feel better. You just need to man up, sissy!

Btw: You look like a racist now. As if skin color makes people pick up weapons. Its ideology (e.g. religion) that makes sane people do weird things. If you haven't figured that one out yet, you are still in your infancy like most of us human beings (white, black, green, yellow, aboriginal, purple).

In this century, your kind of self obsessed, arrogant people should be the last ones to tell us what being a good human being or humanity is. If you wanna know what I mean go back and read what you wrote again..
It looks as though you're still in learning process despite your consciousness and your claim to know what is best as a good human. I fear that you're learning stage with haughty self will only end in your grave...

Funny thing is that I didn't even mention me as an individual. I talked about the larger community of people. Human beings. Stop being an anti-white rascist, religious goof.

Get a real education. In e.g. science for the sustainment of mother Earth.

edit: correction, ...sustainment of the human race, because whatever we do on this planet, Earth will outlast us. Mother Earth's climate system will erase us first before she will resettle herself with new life.

External influences disregarded for simplification.

Flying Dutchman wrote:LOL. While Jews do have a history of thousand years in Israel and always considered it their homeland, whites in the USA have been there for how long? Few hundred years?

100% agree with you there FD.

If anyone deserves the right to turn up to a person's house with a religious book in one hand and a tomahawk/rifle in the other and demand they vacate the land because their ancestors owned the place, it would indeed be the Native Americans, Canadians, Africans, Aborigines - I mean their claim to their land is measured in tens of decades, not tens of centuries!

I sometimes wonder whether the Ashkenazi just felt like they were missing a bit of the pie - their European brethren had succesfully colonised areas of the world where they dispossessed the indiginous people, so perhaps they felt they could follow the same pattern in the 20th century.

But to be fair to Helen, she's only asking the Europeans to pack up their bags. There are quite a few similar 'nutters' who say the same things about the non-Whites in Europe (that they should go home). I don't agree with those who say it in Europe and I don't agree with Helen that those Israelis who have now settled in Israel should go (but I can see why both sets think the immigrants to Europe and the Middle East are the problem!)



Cheers,
Shafique

Flying Dutchman wrote:What did white Ozzies criticizing Israel do lately for the aboriginals?

Erm... Land, Housing, Cash, Interest free loans, Health cover, School uniforms, books, stationary, University...
Does it help? Not one bit.
Because you can only help yourself by not taking the easy option, and by not using something from the past as justification.

The Israelis have been reminding the world of the holocaust for the past 50 years and I am starting to get a bit stick of hearing it over and over again.
Just because your grandfather was killed by the Germans, doesn't give you the right to take land from the Palestinians.
Mine was killed by the Japs, but I don't ask them to give me a piece of Tokyo as compensation.

But you need'nt worry about the Ozzies. You know a media company called Fox? Well he is big in Australia also and they are as brainwashed as the Americans.

shafique wrote:I sometimes wonder whether the Ashkenazi just felt like they were missing a bit of the pie - their European brethren had succesfully colonised areas of the world where they dispossessed the indiginous people, so perhaps they felt they could follow the same pattern in the 20th century

Little man speak with forked tongue.

In reality, the facts show that very few Pal-Arab inhabitants of Palestine were forcibly removed from their land.

There was never an agenda by the Haganah for an Arab free Israel and where there were threats of forced expulsion given to the Pal Arab villages, these were the exceptions due to either local commanders not following orders or if the villages were hostile to the Yishuv and this was the Haganah' method of securing their survival.

A few other villages were forcibly evacuated dut to the Haganah's belief that the Arab armies would use these villages as staging areas to attack critical points, such as kibbutzum's or major city centers, etc etc. But again, these are exceptions rather than the stated rule of the Haganah. The flight of Arabs from Haifa and Jaffa was an embarrassment to the Jews who tried to keep the Arabs from fleeing.

shafique wrote:But to be fair to Helen, she's only asking the Europeans to pack up their bags.

Well, to be fair to Americans, some Americans only want illegal immigrants kicked out of this country. But hey, unlike the Europeans who legally immigrated to Palestine and legally purchased land, I can't seem to understand her rationalization that people don't have a right to the land that they live on, all because of the color of their skin.

Then again, I can imagine the number of Brits and Aussies out there who are sick of the legal immigrants from certain regions of the world who bring their extremism, reactionary beliefs and, apparently, low regard for their host country and its values and peoples when they come here to stir the pot and demand handouts from the gubmint.

Without question, Jewish immigration to Palestine was indisputably beneficial to the Pal-Arabs who were already living there. At least, until the Pal-Arabs rejected the 1947 UN partition act and the subsequent events thereafter.

event horizon wrote:In reality, the facts show that very few Pal-Arab inhabitants of Palestine were forcibly removed from their land.

Deir Yassin never happened then. Benny Morris is wrong then. [sigh]


But hey, the point is not how the European colonials got the land of Palestine - but rather whether the descendants of the original inhabitants of Melbourne, Manhattan, Toronto, Johannesburg etc have a greater right to turn up and take over the land of their forefathers that is now 'occupied' by descendants of Europeans.

You don't like them-there facts d'ya 'eh'?

event horizon wrote:

shafique wrote:But to be fair to Helen, she's only asking the Europeans to pack up their bags.

Well, to be fair to Americans, some Americans only want illegal immigrants kicked out of this country.

I was referring to your countrymen (and right wing Europeans) that want more than illegal immigrants kicked out, based on where they or their parents came from.

event horizon wrote:But hey, unlike the Europeans who legally immigrated to Palestine and legally purchased land, I can't seem to understand her rationalization that people don't have a right to the land that they live on, all because of the color of their skin.

As I said, I agree with FD's argument that the more recent displaced people in America, Australia etc have a greater right to get their land back than the European Jews had over land they argue was Jewish 3000 years ago.

Palestinian politicians have no problems with Jewish citizens in Palestine (despite what Comedy Central puts out) - Arafat even had a Rabbi in his cabinet, responsible for Jewish Affairs (he died last month).

The question really is whether the relatively recent immigrants have more right to reclaim land that they didn't own for millenia, compared to Native Americans etc who were dispossessed only a few centuries ago.

Cheers,
Shafique

Benny Morris is an interesting case. The more he researched, the more he changed his original opinions. Let him tell it in his own words:

Madam, - Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.
The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948. And Haifa's Jewish mayor, Shabtai Levy, did, on April 22nd, plead with them to stay, to no avail.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing".

The demonisation of Israel is largely based on lies - much as the demonisation of the Jews during the past 2,000 years has been based on lies. And there is a connection between the two.

I would recommend that the likes of Norris and Landy read some history books and become acquainted with the facts, not recycle shopworn Arab propaganda.

Benny Morris on fact, fiction, & propaganda about 1948

Research of Benny also shows that 2/3 of Arabs that were displaced, have never seen an Israeli soldier.

The war of independence caused more Jewish refugees than Arab refugees.

And Deir Yassin? That wasn't carried out by Israeli soldiers - but by Jewish terrorists, I'd argue. Do you agree?

As for Benny changing his mind as he gets older, I see parallels between his revisionism of his own earlier findings (which revised the Israeli spin) with the difference between the earlier scholarly works of Bernard Lewis and his later polemical writings (which contradict his earlier works).

Benny knew he was contradicting Israeli propaganda when he examined historical records and published his findings, so he can't claim ignorance of what he was saying. Now he is probably tired of hearing his own words contradicting his more recent statements:

I mean, when Finkelstein quotes Benny back to Benny in a recent (May 2010) interview, Benny isn't happy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVH ... r_embedded

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:And Deir Yassin? That wasn't carried out by Israeli soldiers - but by Jewish terrorists, I'd argue. Do you agree?

The Haganah (the predecessor of the IDF) condemned the attack. Any condemnation of Arab progroms against Jewish settlements from Arabs???

shafique wrote:I mean, when Finkelstein quotes Benny back to Benny in a recent (May 2010) interview, Benny isn't happy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVH ... r_embedded

I guess thats why Benny started with:

Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:And Deir Yassin? That wasn't carried out by Israeli soldiers - but by Jewish terrorists, I'd argue. Do you agree?

The Haganah (the predecessor of the IDF) condemned the attack.

But I didn't ask whether the IDF condemned the attack or were compliant in it - in fact I asked whether you agreed that the slaughter of the Arab civilians was carried out by Jewish Terrorists. I'd expect all decent people to condemn terrorist acts, regardless of the religions of the terrorists or their victims.


But a repeat of Deir Yassin was a reason that many Arabs gave for vacating their homes. Blaming them for this reaction to Jewish Terrorism and stopping them from returning to their homes is what is considered by many as unjust. But again, that's not what I asked you - I asked whether you agreed with me that Deir Yassin was an act of Jewish Terrorism, had you agreed I would then have made the point in this paragraph.

shafique wrote:I mean, when Finkelstein quotes Benny back to Benny in a recent (May 2010) interview, Benny isn't happy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTWxfdVH ... r_embedded

I guess thats why Benny started with:

Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections.

The problem was that Norman wasn't mis-citing him at all though.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:But a repeat of Deir Yassin was a reason that many Arabs gave for vacating their homes. Blaming them for this reaction to Jewish Terrorism and stopping them from returning to their homes is what is considered by many as unjust.

Deir Yassin was an Arab propaganda mistake, a grave one:

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, in which he said that the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated horror stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, but unwittingly had caused them to flee instead (2001).

Hazam Nusseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998.

"This was our biggest mistake," said Nusseibeh. "We did not realize how our people would react. As soon as they heard that women had been raped at Deir Yassin, Palestinians fled in terror. They ran away from all our villages."[82][84] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[85] Mohammed Radwan, one of the villagers who fought the attackers, said: "There were no rapes. It's all lies. There were no pregnant women who were slit open. It was propaganda that ... Arabs put out so Arab armies would invade," he said. "They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[76]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#Propaganda

Involved Arabs and eye-witenesses admitting that Deir Yassin was an Arab mistake:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkhSHiwzaIY

Is this a case where the 'victims' blame the victims to be victims?

shafique wrote:The problem was that Norman wasn't mis-citing him at all though.

Read again how Benny starts:

Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections

Sorry to labour the point FD, I didn't ask you whether Deir Yassin was a PR mistake or whether the IDF condemned the slaughter of the villages.

I asked:

- in fact I asked whether you agreed that the slaughter of the Arab civilians was carried out by Jewish Terrorists.

If we agree that Deir Yassin was a terrorist act (hard to argue it wasn't) and you agree that Palestinians did leave their homes because of a fear that this slaughter and rape would be repeated (regardless about how the news of the slaughter made it to their ears), isn't it understandable that it seems unjust that those who left their homes because of this terrorist fear are now being punished again by not being allowed to return?

Surely a fear of your family (wife and kids) being slaughtered by Jewish Terrorists (as they were in Deir Yassin) is as great as a fear of your wife being raped before being killed? Would the knowledge that the rapes may have been exagerations have changed the fact that Palestinian women and babies and men were slaughtered?

It is a simple argument:

1. Jewish terrorists slaughtered a whole village
2. Palestinians left their homes (with their keys) in fear that this may happen to them
3. Israel spreads stories after the event (which Morris refutes) that Arab radio tells Palestinians to leave their homes. (FD - help me out here, has Morris taken back this part of his earlier conclusions?)
4. Israel prevents these people from returning to their homes (citing 3 and other excuses for this).


Edit: And the Jewish terrorists also used Deir Yassin to make the Palestinians panic - taken from the same Wiki link you gave (strange that you chose not to quote what Irgun says):

Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that, "so far, 254 Arab bodies have been counted."[80] He later said: "I told the reporters that 254 were killed so that a big figure would be published, and so that Arabs would panic."[81]

So, the terrorists wanted the Arabs to panic, and so did the Arabs - to encourage the men to fight against the terrorists and others just intent on taking the land.

Read again how Benny starts:

Israel-haters are fond of citing - and more often, mis-citing - my work in support of their arguments. Let me offer some corrections

Yes, and in this case the former applies - Norman was not mis-citing Benny and he is indeed fond of quoting Benny to Benny. The 'corrections' did not correct the quote Norman gave.

Cheers,
Shafique

FD - do you know whether Benny has taken back what he said in this interview from 2004:

Rape, massacre, transfer

Benny Morris, in the month ahead the new version of your book on the birth of the Palestinian refugee problem is due to be published. Who will be less pleased with the book - the Israelis or the Palestinians?

"The revised book is a double-edged sword. It is based on many documents that were not available to me when I wrote the original book, most of them from the Israel Defense Forces Archives. What the new material shows is that there were far more Israeli acts of massacre than I had previously thought. To my surprise, there were also many cases of rape. In the months of April-May 1948, units of the Haganah [the pre-state defense force that was the precursor of the IDF] were given operational orders that stated explicitly that they were to uproot the villagers, expel them and destroy the villages themselves.

"At the same time, it turns out that there was a series of orders issued by the Arab Higher Committee and by the Palestinian intermediate levels to remove children, women and the elderly from the villages. So that on the one hand, the book reinforces the accusation against the Zionist side, but on the other hand it also proves that many of those who left the villages did so with the encouragement of the Palestinian leadership itself."

According to your new findings, how many cases of Israeli rape were there in 1948?

"About a dozen. In Acre four soldiers raped a girl and murdered her and her father. In Jaffa, soldiers of the Kiryati Brigade raped one girl and tried to rape several more. At Hunin, which is in the Galilee, two girls were raped and then murdered. There were one or two cases of rape at Tantura, south of Haifa. There was one case of rape at Qula, in the center of the country. At the village of Abu Shusha, near Kibbutz Gezer [in the Ramle area] there were four female prisoners, one of whom was raped a number of times. And there were other cases. Usually more than one soldier was involved. Usually there were one or two Palestinian girls. In a large proportion of the cases the event ended with murder. Because neither the victims nor the rapists liked to report these events, we have to assume that the dozen cases of rape that were reported, which I found, are not the whole story. They are just the tip of the iceberg."

http://www.deiryassin.org/bennymorris.html

At Deir Yassin not the whole village was killed. Estimates are that the village had 600 inhabitants. Different estimates put the number killed between 100-250.

The name "Arab Higher Committee" is very significant for historical reasons. Why not Palestinian Higher Committee?

You're right - I should have said that up to 250 were slaughtered before the village was cleared of inhabitants.

In fact, I should have asked you about whether the remaining villagers and their descendants should be allowed to return to the homes/land they owned. Surely it is understandable why the survivors of the massacre decided to leave the village - the question is whether they should continue to be punished for fleeing from terrorists?

Still, the questions above remain - viz - do you agree that this was a terrorist act, and that the Irgun/terrorists used/intended this slaughter to cause panic and has Benny found evidence that Israeli soldiers did NOT rape Palestinians as quoted above?

I also asked whether you understood why some people think it is an injustice to further punish Palestinians who left their homes (which no one disputes they owned - many have keys and titles, to this day) because of the reign of terror that happened in 1948? (And this injustice is not lessened/condoned by allegations over who put forward the news or embelished the news - Palestinians were raped and killed, according to Benny - but the point is that the Palestinians who left, left out of fear of being subject to terror). Do you understand why some would say not letting them return to their homes is unjust?

Cheers,
Shafique

Benny Morris also states

The Arab world as it is today is barbarian.

Is he wrong?

Is Gush Etzion, which was ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948 and after 1967 when Israel conquered it reestablished as a Jewish bloc of kibbutzim in the Westbank, an illegal Israeli settlement?

Perhaps he is right - has he changed his mind about it recently? I think he could indeed make a good case for the Arab world being barbarian, others may disagree with his view. However, his statements above are about historical records about what happened in 1948, rather than opinions.

But seriously, you're not avoiding the questions are you?

1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
2. Do you agree that Palestinians left their homes because of this terror (including reports of rapes - which Morris showed actually did take place in documented cases)
3. Do you understand why people would view not letting Palestinians back to their homes (legally owned for generations and generations in many cases) - in Deir Yassin and other places - constitutes a big injustice?

Cheers,
Shafique

I was still looking for answers for the following question:

1. Any condemnation of Arab progroms against Jewish settlements from Arabs?

2. The name "Arab Higher Committee" is very significant for historical reasons. Why not Palestinian Higher Committee?

3. Is Gush Etzion, which was ethnically cleansed by the Jordanians in 1948 and after 1967 when Israel conquered it reestablished as a Jewish bloc of kibbutzim in the Westbank, an illegal Israeli settlement?

Couldn't find any, so I have to conclude:

1. There is no Arab condemnation for Arab progroms against Jewish villages.
2. It is called "Arab Higher Committee", because there was no real Palestinian identification
3. Still spinning my head around question 3 though.

To answer your qeustion:

1. No, I agree with Benny, is he wrong?
2. No, I agree with Benny, is he wrong?
3. Please rephrase, the question is posed a bit awkard.

I don't really understand why you seek my agreement, but OK. Looks like projection issues.

As for Helen, of she wants to turn back the clock 60 years, she has to be consistent. She really screwed up this time. Perhaps Arab immigrants should also leave than.

Hold your horses.

I'll deal with your questions (asked after I asked mine) after we've cleared up your answers and I've restated question 3.

shafique wrote:1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
2. Do you agree that Palestinians left their homes because of this terror (including reports of rapes - which Morris showed actually did take place in documented cases)
3. Do you understand why people would view not letting Palestinians back to their homes (legally owned for generations and generations in many cases) - in Deir Yassin and other places - constitutes a big injustice?

Flying Dutchman wrote:To answer your qeustion:
1. No
2. No
3. Please rephrase, the question is posed a bit awkard.

You ask why I'm asking you the questions and whether this is 'projection issues'. I'm not sure what 'projection issues' are - but the reason I'm asking is to establish (for eh's sake really) what is historical fact and what is spin/opinion. Once we agree what has actually happened, then perhaps we can comment give our views on the events - but if we disagree on what happened, then our views will be meaningless (I mean, you could blame Arabs for leaving their houses and imagining that Palestinians were slaughtered, whilst I would not blame them for leaving because Palestinians were slaughtered - so here the 'facts' would be to establish whether Palestinians were slaughtered or not)

Ok.

So, let's examine question 1:
1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
Ans: No.

So, the slaughter was not carried out by Jewish Terrorists? Historical records do show that a slaughter of civilian villagers (including women and children), and historical records show that those doing the killing were Jewish. Therefore you could only be objecting to the word 'Terrorists'.

Does that mean you don't consider the Irgun who carried out the killings to be terrorists? They did after all say they did this to cause panic (you linked to this in Wiki).

Please clarify (i.e. why do you believe the answer is 'No' - not asking a new question here, just asking for a fuller answer)

2. Do you agree that Palestinians left their homes because of this terror (including reports of rapes - which Morris showed actually did take place in documented cases)
Ans: No.

Interesting answer. Please clarify - are you saying that there aren't any Palestinians (even those in Deir Yassin) who left their homes because of the terror in 1.? You do agree there are Palestinians who left their homes, though, don't you? If so, why would their accounts of leaving in terror not be true?

(Again, asking for clarification, not a new question)

3.. Do you understand why people would view not letting Palestinians back to their homes (legally owned for generations and generations in many cases) - in Deir Yassin and other places - constitutes a big injustice?
Ans: Please rephrase.

Ok, apologies for not being clearer.


Some people believe that it is unjust (i.e. unfair, against human rights, immoral, wrong, bad, not good) to punish people who left their homes (which they owned) because of a fear that they would be killed like those who were killed in Deir Yassin etc - punish them by not letting them return to their homes, just because they chose to leave out of fear. (Even those that emigrated, or hated Jews etc - they still owned their homes - but here I'm only asking about the Palestinians who left out of fear).

The question is, do you understand why people would view this situation as unjust?

(I promise to answer each and every question, in full and to the best of my knowledge - heck I'll even look up what I'm unsure about - but let's just clear up the questions above first)

Cheers,
Shafique

I see you've edited your answers since I posted my post. Well, feel free to quote Benny in your answers, and then I'll tell you whether I think he's wrong or not.

Edit - I agree that Helen's idea that the immigrants should leave is indeed Kooky. Just because the immigrants have caused trouble doesn't mean they should leave if they are legally entitled to be where they are - as 'eh' says, it is quite another thing to want illegal immigrants to leave, but to just ask Europeans to leave a Middle Eastern piece of territory is as racist as asking non-Europeans to leave Europe or America.

But, given you've taken it on yourself to answer the questions you posed... I'm going to look into your questions and reply (in full)

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:

Flying Dutchman wrote:To answer your qeustion:
1. No
2. No
3. Please rephrase, the question is posed a bit awkard.

Quote me correctly please:

Flying Dutchman wrote:]1. No, I agree with Benny, is he wrong?
2. No, I agree with Benny, is he wrong?
3. Please rephrase, the question is posed a bit awkard.

shafique wrote:So, let's examine question 1:
1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
Ans: No.

So, the slaughter was not carried out by Jewish Terrorists? Historical records do show that a slaughter of civilian villagers (including women and children), and historical records show that those doing the killing were Jewish. Therefore you could only be objecting to the word 'Terrorists'.

Does that mean you don't consider the Irgun who carried out the killings to be terrorists? They did after all say they did this to cause panic (you linked to this in Wiki).

Please clarify (i.e. why do you believe the answer is 'No' - not asking a new question here, just asking for a fuller answer)

I agree with Benny, who puts the total amount of casualties between 100-110, not up to 250.

shafique wrote:2. Do you agree that Palestinians left their homes because of this terror (including reports of rapes - which Morris showed actually did take place in documented cases)
Ans: No.

Interesting answer. Please clarify - are you saying that there aren't any Palestinians (even those in Deir Yassin) who left their homes because of the terror in 1.? You do agree there are Palestinians who left their homes, though, don't you? If so, why would their accounts of leaving in terror not be true?

(Again, asking for clarification, not a new question)

Again, I agree with Benny, check earlier quotes.

shafique wrote:3. The question is, do you understand why people would view this situation as unjust?

I understand why some people consider this as unjust.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Quote me correctly please:

I did. You edited it afterwards - see my post above which deals with this point explicitly.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:So, let's examine question 1:
1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
Ans: No.

So, the slaughter was not carried out by Jewish Terrorists? Historical records do show that a slaughter of civilian villagers (including women and children), and historical records show that those doing the killing were Jewish. Therefore you could only be objecting to the word 'Terrorists'.

Does that mean you don't consider the Irgun who carried out the killings to be terrorists? They did after all say they did this to cause panic (you linked to this in Wiki).

Please clarify (i.e. why do you believe the answer is 'No' - not asking a new question here, just asking for a fuller answer)

I agree with Benny, who puts the total amount of casualties between 100-110, not up to 250.

'Up to 250' included a figure of 110. Sorry if that usage of English was not clear to you.

Question still stands.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:2. Do you agree that Palestinians left their homes because of this terror (including reports of rapes - which Morris showed actually did take place in documented cases)
Ans: No.

Interesting answer. Please clarify - are you saying that there aren't any Palestinians (even those in Deir Yassin) who left their homes because of the terror in 1.? You do agree there are Palestinians who left their homes, though, don't you? If so, why would their accounts of leaving in terror not be true?

(Again, asking for clarification, not a new question)

Again, I agree with Benny, check earlier quotes.

Ok, I'll check the earlier quotes.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:3. The question is, do you understand why people would view this situation as unjust?

I understand why some people consider this as unjust.

Cool.


Whilst I'm checking Benny's comments, and you're answering question 1 (assume the numbers killed is 110 for argument's sake) - can you clarify which particular pogroms you are referring to in your question (you say Arab pogroms).

Wiki lists two in the Arab world - one in 1941 and one 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

I can then look up whether they were condemned or not.

Cheers,
Shafique

Ok, here's Benny's quote.

Most of Palestine's 700,000 "refugees" fled their homes because of the flail of war (and in the expectation that they would shortly return to their homes on the backs of victorious Arab invaders). But it is also true that there were several dozen sites, including Lydda and Ramla, from which Arab communities were expelled by Jewish troops.

There was no Zionist "plan" or blanket policy of evicting the Arab population, or of "ethnic cleansing".

Does the 'flail of war' include the residents of Deir Yassin who weren't slaughtered (say 500 of them) fleeing after the 100 odd men, women and children were slaughtered by Irgun whose intention was to cause panic?

Why would Arab expectations on how they will do in the war change the fact that people left their homes because of fear?

I couldn't see where Benny says the people left not because they were afraid. So agreeing with Benny doesn't quite answer the question - unless you're interpreting it differently.


Ok, let me deal with question no. 2.

The Arabs chose to use Arab and not Palestine to emphasise their 'Arabness' as opposed to non-Arab invaders. The last time I looked, Palestinians at the time were primarily Arabs and Jews.

3. Anyone with legal entitlement to live in Gush Etzion before 1948 should be entitled to live there. Jordanians stealing Jewish land is just as wrong as Israelis stealing Palestinian land. Whether the settlement should be in Palestine or Israel is dealt with in UN resolutions.

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:'Up to 250' included a figure of 110. Sorry if that usage of English was not clear to you.

Yes, also up to ten thousand. My answer therefore still stands.

shafique wrote:can you clarify which particular pogroms you are referring to in your question (you say Arab pogroms).

Wiki lists two in the Arab world - one in 1941 and one 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

So easily forgotten, I know, its called bias and hypocricy.

Start with Jaffa 1921 and Hebron 1929. Strangely enough I pointed these progroms out to you on several occasions, but you keep on forgetting them.

1921 started with:

Arabs massing in Jaffa, all brandishing clubs, knives, hatchets and metal pipes and hysterically chanting "itbach el-Yahud (slaughter the Jews)."

-- Sun Jun 06, 2010 6:07 pm --

shafique wrote:I couldn't see where Benny says the people left not because they were afraid. So agreeing with Benny doesn't quite answer the question - unless you're interpreting it differently.

Selective quoting:

The Palestinian Arabs were not responsible "in some bizarre way" (David Norris, January 31st) for what befell them in 1948. Their responsibility was very direct and simple.

...they launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.

Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities

Benny lays the direct responsibility with the Arabs.

I really donot understand why you first ask my opinion/agreement, while you obviously have yours ready already. And then when you disagree with mine, you try to convince me otherwise. You are like those ex girlfriends, asking which dress is nicer.

shafique wrote: The last time I looked, Palestinians at the time were primarily Arabs and Jews.

Around that time Arabs called themselves Arabs and Jews identified them as Palestinians.

shafique wrote:3. Anyone with legal entitlement to live in Gush Etzion before 1948 should be entitled to live there. Jordanians stealing Jewish land is just as wrong as Israelis stealing Palestinian land. Whether the settlement should be in Palestine or Israel is dealt with in UN resolutions.

Cool, Gush Etzion is a legal settlement.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:'Up to 250' included a figure of 110. Sorry if that usage of English was not clear to you.

Yes, also up to ten thousand. My answer therefore still stands.

1. Do you agree that the up to 250 slaughtered at Deir Yassin was carried out by Jewish Terrorists
Ans: No, I agree with Benny..

Why are you refusing to say whether you agree that the Jewish killers of Deir Yassin who slaughtered up to 110 (according to Morris) or over 250 (according to Irgun at the time), were terrorists or not?

Are you ashamed to answer the question? (Serious question, not rhetorical).

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:can you clarify which particular pogroms you are referring to in your question (you say Arab pogroms).

Wiki lists two in the Arab world - one in 1941 and one 1945:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pogrom

Start with Jaffa 1921 and Hebron 1929.

Ok - well, let me see what the Palestinians/Arabs in 1921 and 1929 said about these two 'pogroms', see how many were killed etc and what the reactions were. (You may also want to edit the Wiki page and add these two - as I said, they aren't listed as pogroms)

The honest answer is I don't know who condemned this back then. I'll start a new thread to discuss.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:I couldn't see where Benny says the people left not because they were afraid. So agreeing with Benny doesn't quite answer the question - unless you're interpreting it differently.

Selective quoting:

Sorry, I couldn't see where Benny says that those who left didn't leave out of fear. The inhabitants of Deir Yassin, for example, that weren't slaughtered by the Irgun terrorists left their homes out of fear. Those that didn't leave, are now Israeli citizens.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Benny lays the direct responsibility with the Arabs.

I didn't ask about responsibility - I asked about whether Palestinians left their homes out of fear or not. The fear of the residents of Deir Yassin was that they too would be slaughtered by Irgun terrorists, for example.

Flying Dutchman wrote:I really donot understand why you first ask my opinion/agreement, while you obviously have yours ready already.

Well, because I want to establish whether your historical view is that the Irgun who massacred the residents of Deir Yassin were terrorists (as I interpret the events) or part of the Israeli army of independence (as some Israelis and Palestinians allege).

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote: The last time I looked, Palestinians at the time were primarily Arabs and Jews.

Around that time Arabs called themselves Arabs and Jews identified them as Palestinians.

Historical fact FD - in British Mandate Palestine, there were Jews and Arabs and non-Semites. They were all Palestinians. What the forces fighting the nascent Israeli nation called themselves hardly seems to matter in the scheme of things to me.

Flying Dutchman wrote:

shafique wrote:3. Anyone with legal entitlement to live in Gush Etzion before 1948 should be entitled to live there. Jordanians stealing Jewish land is just as wrong as Israelis stealing Palestinian land. Whether the settlement should be in Palestine or Israel is dealt with in UN resolutions.

Cool, Gush Etzion is a legal settlement.

Yes, it's a legal settlement of Jews on Palestinian soil, provided they have legal entitlement and haven't stolen the land from someone else (Jew or non-Jew). No argument about that.


Anyway, I think we're making progress. You only seem to be hung up on whether the Deir Yassin murderers were terrorists or not, but don't deny that they slaughtered 110 villagers.

There's no denying that Palestinians had title to their houses and villages, and never gave that up. There's no denying that fear of being killed influenced at least some Palestinians to leave, but you defend Israel's stance to punish those that left by not letting them (or their descendants) return. To me, that sounds like the definition of collective punishment - but that's just me.

Cheers,
Shafique