Isabel Kershner, writing from Lod, Israel:
Lod’s 75,000 residents are mostly Jewish, with Arabs making up a quarter or more of the population. Previously an Arab city known as Lydda, it was conquered by Israeli forces in July 1948. Most of the Arab residents were expelled — on the personal orders of David Ben-Gurion, the leader of the new state of Israel, according to some historical accounts — and turned into refugees. At least 250 men, women and children were killed in the fighting; more died of exhaustion and dehydration on the march east in the summer heat.
My mole says: "While I think it's important that they included this historical
background, I really wonder if they're covering themselves from
CAMERA-type criticism. What is the controversy that makes this so
uncertain? Why can it not be readily documented one way or the other?"
My mind says: Last month Taghreed El-Khodary, the NYT correspondent in Gaza, said that Kershner can't go into Gaza because she is an Israeli. Huh. Wouldn't it be nice to get a Palestinian's view of this history?
Related posts:
- Peretz says America’s historical mission is to ‘protect Zion.’ Got that?
- Russia Reminds Me of Israel
- Chairman of New-York Historical Society Underwrites Monument of Nakba Denial
- Neocons Seem to Be Driving American Interests Off the Cliff in Russia and Central Asia
- Reuters: ‘Jewish lobby’ accounts for Obama’s silence re Gaza
{ 3 comments }
The controversy concerns the direct responsibility of Ben Gurion, not the fact of the expulsion, so your pogrom analogy doesn't work. I was very encouraged when I read the piece in the Times, precisely because (a) it referred to the expulsion as fact, not as something disputed – something one would not have expected to hear 20 or 30 years ago, and (b) it mentioned it at all in the course of an article which was actually about an entirely different aspect of Lod/Lydda.
I think a better analogy would be, "according to some historical accounts, there was "fighting" in Jewish towns in Russia". The word "pogrom" is a much harsher than the sanitized word "fighting" that is used to explain the Arab deaths in Lyydda. The article mentions that at least 250 men women and children in Lyydda were "killed in the fighting"(this is the IDF estimate, not the larger Palestinian estimate which is around 400 or more) but fails to mention that according to IDF archival sources, the Israeli soldier casualties were a total of 2 to 4 killed and 12 wounded. And according to those same IDF sources, most, if not all, of the IDF casualties happened when 2 or 3 Jordanian Army armored cars entered Lyydda and then retreated. So, in other words, "fighting" that resulted in the deaths of 250 Arab, men women and children and the death of only 2 to 4 IDF soldiers can certainly be called a "massacre" or a "pogrom", but instead it is only termed "fighting" as if there was some kind of parity of death and destruction. The article also fails to mention that the march in which so many lost their lives was a forced one, and included looting and harassment of the Arab refugees.
Always interesting to watch how they frame the issues, using language as the tool of obfuscation. Everyone know Orwell. X's "pogrom" is Y's "desperate reaction to oppression." To sort out the events one has to dig deep into the economic reality of the relevant time. That's right, most humans are primarily driven by basic economic concerns and they don't like being handicapped by the powers that be, which very often in history turns out to be goy elites and their jewish middlemen and minions, the goy elite getting the top meal, the jews getting the middle meal, and the masses of goys getting shit. These days in the USA the goy elite and jewish elite are partners; the masses of goys still get shit; and the jewish elite actually control what's left of the goy elite. Check it out.
Comments on this entry are closed.