Lest we forget...

[Boston1]

..

I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this. I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes? And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes? And we all agree that people died, yes?

Are the anti-Israelis trying to make the case that in this one village the Palestinians were all just sitting around drinking tea one day and Israel came in and slaughtered the lot?


It seems to me that we are not arguing facts here, so much as narrative -- what it means. Obviously it will mean something different to the Palestinians than to the Jewish people. The Jewish people would see it as a necessary military objective to achieve their goals of independence. The Palestinians will mythologize it to "prove" that they are victims of Israel's "evil".

One side will "see it as a necessary..." the other side will "mythologize it"?

Is the implication here that one narrative is "worse" than the other? I don't see it that way. And I did not intend it that way.

The one side tends to minimize the emotional and traumatic effect done to the other in their narrative. The other side over-emphasizes the emotional effect and trauma and tends to minimize their own responsibility.

No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical. Am I misunderstanding your intent?

Which side here is "minimizing" their own responsibility? To me, it is the revisionist historians. In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians. The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.

And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.

What makes you think it was clearly a massacre ? The same people who cried wolf then are crying wolf now. And we know how the Arab Muslims love to make up stories.

For instance they celebrate the ( oh did we ever screw up this time ) nabka and yet don't recognize that they themselves started the war in the first place.

They claim Gaza is occupied yet Israel withdrew at great cost in what 91 ?

When its one lie after another I'd think taking anything the Arab Muslims say at all with a grain of salt is only prudent.

 

[Coyote]

..

I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this. I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes? And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes? And we all agree that people died, yes?

Are the anti-Israelis trying to make the case that in this one village the Palestinians were all just sitting around drinking tea one day and Israel came in and slaughtered the lot?


It seems to me that we are not arguing facts here, so much as narrative -- what it means. Obviously it will mean something different to the Palestinians than to the Jewish people. The Jewish people would see it as a necessary military objective to achieve their goals of independence. The Palestinians will mythologize it to "prove" that they are victims of Israel's "evil".

One side will "see it as a necessary..." the other side will "mythologize it"?

Is the implication here that one narrative is "worse" than the other? I don't see it that way. And I did not intend it that way.

The one side tends to minimize the emotional and traumatic effect done to the other in their narrative. The other side over-emphasizes the emotional effect and trauma and tends to minimize their own responsibility.

No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical. Am I misunderstanding your intent?

Which side here is "minimizing" their own responsibility? To me, it is the revisionist historians. In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians. The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.

And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.

What makes you think it was clearly a massacre ? The same people who cried wolf then are crying wolf now. And we know how the Arab Muslims love to make up stories.

For instance they celebrate the ( oh did we ever screw up this time ) nabka and yet don't recognize that they themselves started the war in the first place.

They claim Gaza is occupied yet Israel withdrew at great cost in what 91 ?

When its one lie after another I'd think taking anything the Arab Muslims say at all with a grain of salt is only prudent.

Who cried "wolf" in 1948?

Why did Israel specifically apologize for the massacre?

 

[Boston1]

I'm a little confused over what the anti-Israeli argument is over this. I mean, we all agree that it was during the conflict, yes? And we all agree there was a "clash" in modern terminology, yes? And we all agree that people died, yes?

Are the anti-Israelis trying to make the case that in this one village the Palestinians were all just sitting around drinking tea one day and Israel came in and slaughtered the lot?


It seems to me that we are not arguing facts here, so much as narrative -- what it means. Obviously it will mean something different to the Palestinians than to the Jewish people. The Jewish people would see it as a necessary military objective to achieve their goals of independence. The Palestinians will mythologize it to "prove" that they are victims of Israel's "evil".

One side will "see it as a necessary..." the other side will "mythologize it"?

Bottom line is "what really happened"

I rank this one right up there with the Arab Muslims version of the war of independence. They call it the big screw up or the day we made the biggest mistake of our lives, or something like that, and parade around in black, mourning the loss of, um, well, the rest of the mandate area that was never theirs in the first place.

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

I don't think so....I think that this event is fairly well documented.

I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim.

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on.

Pallywood has its costs.

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Because it never happened, or at least not as the Arab Muslim narrative would have it.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

 

[Coyote]

One side will "see it as a necessary..." the other side will "mythologize it"?

Bottom line is "what really happened"

I rank this one right up there with the Arab Muslims version of the war of independence. They call it the big screw up or the day we made the biggest mistake of our lives, or something like that, and parade around in black, mourning the loss of, um, well, the rest of the mandate area that was never theirs in the first place.

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

I don't think so....I think that this event is fairly well documented.

I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim.

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on.

Pallywood has its costs.

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

 

[Boston1]

Bottom line is "what really happened"

I rank this one right up there with the Arab Muslims version of the war of independence. They call it the big screw up or the day we made the biggest mistake of our lives, or something like that, and parade around in black, mourning the loss of, um, well, the rest of the mandate area that was never theirs in the first place.

;--)

Seems like they just love making up stories and holidays

I don't think so....I think that this event is fairly well documented.

I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim.

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on.

Pallywood has its costs.

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time.

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.

 

[Coyote]

I don't think so....I think that this event is fairly well documented.

I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim.

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on.

Pallywood has its costs.

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time.

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.

No one has "admitted" the massacre was an "accident". You don't "accidently" shoot children in their homes. The only one's denying there was a massacre are a handful of revisionist historians trying to white wash what was a tragic event. In that regard, they're very similar to the holocaust deniers.

 

[Coyote]

This massacre took place while Irgun was under the leadership of Menachin Begin - a time when some of the bloodiest attacks on civilian targets took place. This massacre falls right in line with what they were doing.

 

[Boston1]

I understand, but there are Arab first source accounts that refute the massacre story. Which is widely acknowledged to have never happened. From what I can see the claims there was a massacre are from Arab Muslim officials who might have a vested interest in the claim.

Essentially the Arab Muslims have cried wolf enough times that I don't think we can safely give them the benefit of the doubt at this point. Give there are significant evidences contrary to the massacre narrative, the prudent thing to do is chalk it up to more Arab Muslim "hasbara" ;--) and move on.

Pallywood has its costs.

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time.

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.

No one has "admitted" the massacre was an "accident". You don't "accidently" shoot children in their homes. The only one's denying there was a massacre are a handful of revisionist historians trying to white wash what was a tragic event. In that regard, they're very similar to the holocaust deniers.

But you are assuming children were shot in their homes. Your assuming the Arab Muslim narrative, after all the ridiculous stuff they've claimed, is true.

I'm suggesting calmer heads prevail and we not pass judgement until a clearer picture emerges.

What we do know is that some pretty wild stories are a regular occurrence in this conflict and this certainly looks like just another wild story.

PRT 2

No it falls right in line with what the Arab Muslims claim they were doing. Very little evidence supports the Arab Muslim narrative.

 

[Coyote]

Eye witness accounts vary, as the article I posted noted. There are also Arab (and Israeli) first source accounts that do not refute it. Israel itself issued an apology for what they called a massacre. It isn't Pallywood, it's an historic event that new revisionist historians are suddenly trying to whitewash. It's very reminiscent of the Holohoax crowd.

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time.

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.

No one has "admitted" the massacre was an "accident". You don't "accidently" shoot children in their homes. The only one's denying there was a massacre are a handful of revisionist historians trying to white wash what was a tragic event. In that regard, they're very similar to the holocaust deniers.

But you are assuming children were shot in their homes. Your assuming the Arab Muslim narrative, after all the ridiculous stuff they've claimed, is true.

I'm suggesting calmer heads prevail and we not pass judgement until a clearer picture emerges.

What we do know is that some pretty wild stories are a regular occurrence in this conflict and this certainly looks like just another wild story.

I'm assuming, given the reputation of Irgun at the time, that the accounting is quite likely true. 70 years is more than enough time for clear pictures

 

[Boston1]

Not at all. It was advantageous of both sides push the massacre narrative. But now as history dictates, the truth will out, and the propaganda is gradually being exposed.

There was no massacre. Oh there may have been casualties on both sides, but hardly a massacre.

So, you agree with revisionist historians then?

Not at all. What I agree with is that the story was aggrandized for political purposes and has since been shown to be significantly less violent that what either side cared to admit at the time.

Its kinda like the bombing of Berlin in that regard. The allies got lost and accidentally bombed the city. The axis got pissed, hyped the issue and bombed London. The allies used the bombing of London to justify the total war policy. Both sides sought to benefit from the accidental bombing of Berlin, neither admitted it was an accident until much later.

No one has "admitted" the massacre was an "accident". You don't "accidently" shoot children in their homes. The only one's denying there was a massacre are a handful of revisionist historians trying to white wash what was a tragic event. In that regard, they're very similar to the holocaust deniers.

But you are assuming children were shot in their homes. Your assuming the Arab Muslim narrative, after all the ridiculous stuff they've claimed, is true.

I'm suggesting calmer heads prevail and we not pass judgement until a clearer picture emerges.

What we do know is that some pretty wild stories are a regular occurrence in this conflict and this certainly looks like just another wild story.

I'm assuming, given the reputation of Irgun at the time, that the accounting is quite likely true. 70 years is more than enough time for clear pictures

Nonsense

The accusation includes mass rape and murder of children in their beds.

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

Or of entering homes and killing dozens of children as they sleep ?

take your time ;--)

Again you might find one rogue soldier who's guilty of one or the other but mass rape and murder by entire Judiac oganizations ? , I call BS

 

[Shusha]

..
No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical. Am I misunderstanding your intent?

Yes, you are. I don't intend to legitimize the one while delegitimizing the other. I intend to show how both sides grow narratives from their points of view. Neither narrative is "better" or "worse" than the other. They just are.

In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians. The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.

What makes you presume that they stuck to a peace agreement? Why do you presume that?

And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what "massacre" means. It carries a certain connotation to me. Do you reject the idea that there was a legitimate military objective to be gained by taking the village? Do you reject the idea that the villagers fought back? Do you reject the idea that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers?

 

[Challenger]

The fact is that the whole massacre story is a lie.

That's the Hasbara approach to "facts". The massacre happened. That's the fact. Some of the more salacious elements may have been exaggerated for propaganda puropses, much like the "Rape of Belgium" stories in WW1; Germans accused of bayonetting babies and smashing their skulls against walls in front of their mothers who were then raped, etc. Much of this has since been debunked but the facts remain that German troops did commit atrocities during their invasion of Belgium in 1914, and Zionist thugs murdered civilians in Deir Yassin and other places in 1948.

 

[Challenger]

Even BoSton1's main source, professor Uri Milstein disagrees with him,

"The historian Uri Milstein, a myth-shatterer, corroborates Yitzhaki’s assessment regarding the massacres’ extent and goes even further. “If Yitzhaki claims that almost in every village there were murders, then I maintain that even before the establishment of the State, each battle ended with a massacre. In all Israel’s wars massacres were committed but I have no doubt that the War of Independence was the dirtiest of them all. All over the world, massacres constitute an integral part of the norm of war and it is in fact the fundamental basis of human conduct in a situation of battle. The idea behind a massacre is to inflict a shock on the enemy, to paralyze the enemy. In the War of Independence everybody massacred everybody, but most of the action happened between Jews and Palestinians.”

Milstein adds: “In my opinion, the regular armies of Arab states were less barbaric than the Jews and the Palestinians. Until the entry into the battle of the Arab armies, the concept of taking prisoners was unknown. The regular armies, especially that of Jordan and Egypt, were the first in the region who did not kill prisoners, as a matter of principle. Not that they were exceptional, but they killed the least of all, relatively speaking. The Jordanian Legion even succeeded to stop Palestinians of massacring Jews in Gush Etzion, at least in a part of this area. The education in the Yishuv (7) at that time had it that the Arabs would do anything to kill us and therefore we had to massacre them. A substantial part of the Jewish public was convinced that the most cherished wish of say, a nine-year old Arab child, was to exterminate us. This belief bordered on paranoia.” Not only Deir Yassin |  SHOAH

 

[Boston1]

main source my ass.

I presented multiple sources.

Sounds like more terrorist supporters hasbara

The facts are simple, the massacre story is a lie.

Stories of mass rapes and the killing of children as they slept are wildly exaggerated

Its all just more Arab Muslim hasbara nonsense

The accusation includes mass rape and murder of children in their beds.

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

Or of entering homes and killing dozens of children as they sleep ?

take your time ;--)

Again you might find one rogue soldier who's guilty of one or the other but mass rape and murder by entire Judiac oganizations ? , I call BS

 

[Challenger]

main source my ass.

I presented multiple sources.

Well 2 actually; One in post#4 and another in post #12 which you repeated again in post #44

The facts are simple, the massacre story is a lie.

According to the facts, the massacre took place; even your main source agrees, but according to Zionist Hasbara, "nothing happened" or "it was an accident" .

 

[Challenger]

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

No because Judaic forces don't exist and have never existed. Zionist Jewish forces on the other hand...let me look into it. Obviously nice Jewish boys would never touch nasty Arab women...oh wait, that's what the Nazis said about good German boys...and of course the German army never committed rape, neither did the American or British armies..

 

[Boston1]

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

No because Judaic forces don't exist and have never existed. Zionist Jewish forces on the other hand...let me look into it. Obviously nice Jewish boys would never touch nasty Arab women...oh wait, that's what the Nazis said about good German boys...and of course the German army never committed rape, neither did the American or British armies..

In other words your whole rape charge is pure hasbara and you don't have a leg to stand on other than to make false equivalencies.

Again you are a poor debater at best.

Also that nonsense about the sources disagreeing with me. You clearly again haven't followed the link and haven't quoted anything to support your view as I did in my previous.

Again your debating skills are seriously lacking.

Among others you missed post 22 which presents multiple references, not just two as you falsely claim

Quote
Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.

And I'm guessing you haven't been to any places of higher education lately. Wiki is strictly verboten as a reference.

So lets just step back and take a look at your precious WIKI OP ED story

Quote

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[59] In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party andDavid Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[60] Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by The New York Times on April 13.[61]In 1987, in a study regarded as authoritative, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[41]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[62] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[63]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[64] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[62] "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."[62] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[65] A villager known as Haj Ayish stated that "there had been no rape". He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts which "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters".[66] 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. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[67]

End Quote

But why depend on spin from WIKI that would never be admissible in an academic setting

You talk about kindergarden as if your some kinda expert, sorry but I left that far far behind and moved on to employ the principals of higher education.

 

[Coyote]

..
No, not that - the implication is one narrative is legitimized while the other is marginalized as mythical. Am I misunderstanding your intent?

Yes, you are. I don't intend to legitimize the one while delegitimizing the other. I intend to show how both sides grow narratives from their points of view. Neither narrative is "better" or "worse" than the other. They just are.

In this particular case - there doesn't seem to be much responsibility for the event, on the side of the Palestinians. The villagers had, presumably, negotiated a peaceful agreement and stuck to it.

What makes you presume that they stuck to a peace agreement? Why do you presume that?

Because the author of the article states that there is no evidence that they didn't and unless that evidence is provided, then I believe it.

And now, what was clearly a massacre is being ridiculed or promoted as a hoax.

Perhaps we have different definitions of what "massacre" means. It carries a certain connotation to me. Do you reject the idea that there was a legitimate military objective to be gained by taking the village? Do you reject the idea that the villagers fought back? Do you reject the idea that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers?

Yes, I reject the idea that it was a legitimate military objective and that there were military forces there beyond just the villagers - based on the article I quoted:

Was Deir Yassin a legitimate military target?


Revisionists and their apologists, including Uri Milstein in his book , and Morton Klein in the ZOA report, have tried to make a case that Deir Yassin was a legitimate military target, that the Haganah viewed the attack on Deir Yassin as part of their plan, that there were foreign Arab soldiers quartered there and shooting from Deir Yassin.


We can establish that :

1. The motivation for attacking Deir Yassin had nothing to do with military considerations.
2. The attack was not instigated by the Haganah or desired by the Haganah or part of any specific Haganah plan. David Shaltiel showed poor judgment and moral bankruptcy in permitting the attack, but he could not have known there would be a massacre.
3. There may have been a few foreign or irregular Arab soldiers in Deir Yassin, but they were not there in appreciable numbers on April 9, and there is no real evidence of foreign or irregular Arab soldiers stationed there in force except for the 150 that entered and were asked to leave in March.

The justification for these conclusions is given below. remembering that Deir Yassin had had a pact with the Haganah and Givat Shaul and had, according to the Haganah, adhered scrupulously to the pact. This was known also to the Irgun and the pact was publicized in their newspaper Ma’as, three weeks before the attack. 30​

 

[Coyote]

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

No because Judaic forces don't exist and have never existed. Zionist Jewish forces on the other hand...let me look into it. Obviously nice Jewish boys would never touch nasty Arab women...oh wait, that's what the Nazis said about good German boys...and of course the German army never committed rape, neither did the American or British armies..

There is no substantial evidence showing rapes occurred - I think people tend to add mass "rape" claims to inflame the public even if there is little evidence - it's happening today.

Were there rapes?


There is no solid evidence to support earlier claims that there were rapes. They are in fact denied by every villager who has been interviewed. In the BBC/WGBH documentary on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, Hazam Nusseibeh of the Palestine Broadcasting Service news in 1948, admits that he was told by Hussein Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab leader, to fabricate the atrocity claims. Abu Mahmud, a Deir Yassin resident in 1948, said “We said, ‘there was no rape.” He goes on to say that Khalidi replied “We have to say this, so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews.”


However in his new book, Righteous Victims, Benny Morris notes that Yizhak Levy, head of the Shai, reported to Haganah headquarters that Lehi members had told him that Irgun soldiers had raped and later murdered a number of girls, though Levy added, “We don’t know if this is true.”63 Levy did not cite this material in his own book. While this is certainly hearsay evidence, we cannot longer dismiss the rape claims as totally unfounded.​

 

[Challenger]

Can you substantiate any other incidence of any Judaic forces having been found unequivocally guilty of mass rape ?

No because Judaic forces don't exist and have never existed. Zionist Jewish forces on the other hand...let me look into it. Obviously nice Jewish boys would never touch nasty Arab women...oh wait, that's what the Nazis said about good German boys...and of course the German army never committed rape, neither did the American or British armies..

In other words your whole rape charge is pure hasbara and you don't have a leg to stand on other than to make false equivalencies.

Again you are a poor debater at best.

Also that nonsense about the sources disagreeing with me. You clearly again haven't followed the link and haven't quoted anything to support your view as I did in my previous.

Again your debating skills are seriously lacking.

Among others you missed post 22 which presents multiple references, not just two as you falsely claim

Quote
Again its not peer reviewed, its not reviewed at all. Its anything anyone who wants to, has to say.

And I'm guessing you haven't been to any places of higher education lately. Wiki is strictly verboten as a reference.

So lets just step back and take a look at your precious WIKI OP ED story

Quote

The Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun published a survivor's account in 1955, which said the Palestinians had deliberately exaggerated stories about atrocities in Deir Yassin to encourage others to fight, stories that had caused them to flee instead. Everyone had reason to spread the atrocity narrative. The Irgun and Lehi wanted to frighten Arabs into fleeing; the Arabs wanted to provoke an international response; the Haganah wanted to tarnish the Irgun and Lehi; and the Arabs and the British wanted to malign the Jews.[59] In addition, Milstein writes, the left-wing Mapai party andDavid Ben-Gurion, who became Israel's first prime minister on May 14, exploited Deir Yassin to stop a power-sharing agreement with the right-wing Revisionists—who were associated with Irgun and Lehi—a proposal that was being debated at the time in Tel Aviv.[60] Mordechai Ra'anan, the Irgun commander in Jerusalem, told reporters on April 10 that 254 Arab bodies had been counted, a figure published by The New York Times on April 13.[61]In 1987, in a study regarded as authoritative, Sharif Kan'ana of Bir Zeit University concluded by interviewing survivors that 107 had died, with 12 wounded.[41]

Hazem Nuseibeh, the news editor of the Palestine Broadcasting Service at the time of the attack, gave an interview to the BBC in 1998. He spoke about a discussion he had with Hussayn Khalidi, the deputy chairman of the Higher Arab Executive in Jerusalem, shortly after the killings: "I asked Dr. Khalidi how we should cover the story. He said, 'We must make the most of this.' So he wrote a press release, stating that at Deir Yassin, children were murdered, pregnant women were raped, all sorts of atrocities."[62] Gelber writes that Khalidi told journalists on April 11 that the village's dead included 25 pregnant women, 52 mothers of babies, and 60 girls.[63]

The stories of rape angered the villagers, who complained to the Arab emergency committee that their wives and daughters were being exploited in the service of propaganda.[64] Abu Mahmud, who lived in Deir Yassin in 1948, was one of those who complained. He told the BBC: "We said, 'There was no rape.' He [Hussayn Khalidi] said, 'We have to say this so the Arab armies will come to liberate Palestine from the Jews'."[62] "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."[62] He told Larry Collins in 1968: "We committed a fatal error, and set the stage for the refugee problem."[65] A villager known as Haj Ayish stated that "there had been no rape". He questioned the accuracy of the Arab radio broadcasts which "talked of women being killed and raped", and instead believed that "most of those who were killed were among the fighters and the women and children who helped the fighters".[66] 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. They ended up expelling people from all of Palestine on the rumor of Deir Yassin."[67]

End Quote

But why depend on spin from WIKI that would never be admissible in an academic setting

You talk about kindergarden as if your some kinda expert, sorry but I left that far far behind and moved on to employ the principals of higher education.

That was your commentary on another's post sourcing Wikipedia, which you disparaged and still do above. Then bizarrely you use the same Wikipedia article to support your contentions.