Trending Topics:

Benny Morris reveals more about the Israeli conspiracy to cover-up the Nakba

Opinion
on 64 Comments

Israeli historian Benny Morris is known for his uncovering of some of Israel’s darkest secrets from the Nakba. Only a week ago, he was mentioned in detail in Hagar Shezaf’s staggering investigative report in Haaretz titled “Burying the Nakba: How Israel Systematically Hides Evidence of 1948 Expulsion of Arabs”. The piece uncovered a secret yet systematic operation by an Israeli Defense Ministry department, causing critical Nakba archives to disappear from the public eye – archives that had already been cited since the late 1980’s by historians such as Morris.

Yesterday, a Hebrew-only piece appeared in Haaretz, by Morris, titled “The Director of Historical Revisionism in the Defense Ministry”. The title is a sarcastic pun on the name of the revealed department, the “Department for Security of the Defense Establishment” (acronym Malmab in Hebrew).

Morris congratulates Shezaf for her “excellent investigative report” and continues to tell in detail of the disappearance of archives he had quoted from concerning the massacre of Deir Yassin from 1948.

Morris’s exposure reveals a multi-layered conspiracy of cover-up, historical revisionism and censorship that cuts across many decades:

About two years ago, when I was preparing a collection of articles for my recent book in Hebrew (“From Deir Yassin to Camp David”), I asked the Defense Ministry and IDF Archive for permission to peruse anew documents which regarded the massacre which was committed by the Etzel [Irgun] and Lehi [Stern Gang] in the Arab town Deir Yassin, on the western approaches of Jerusalem, on February 9th 1948. On that day 100-120 of the village residents were killed, most of them children, women and elderly. These documents were open to researchers and the wide public at the beginning of the 21st century and I had quoted from them extensively in the English article “The Historiography of Deir Yassin” which I had published in 2005 in the Tel Aviv University’s “Journal of Israeli History”. I had now asked to peruse them again, but the directors of the archive refused my request. They had no explanation other than the statement: “now the documents are closed”.

Morris reveals that the documents he was seeking were not only from 1948 (reports from the Haganah Intelligence Service), but also from much later – 1971.

The 1971 documents relate to secret discussions between former Haganah/IDF officials and Foreign Ministry officials concerning what happened in Deir Yassin. And the reason for the discussions is a booklet that was published in 1969 by the Hasbara Department of the Foreign Ministry, under Abba Eban. Morris explains about the content:

In the booklet it was claimed that there was no massacre in Deir Yassin and that the story about the massacre is supposedly an Arab fiction, ‘part of a collection of fables’.

Morris also discloses that it was his father, the late Yaakov Morris, who was the author of the booklet. The release of the booklet caused uproar amongst veterans of the Labor movement who had been leaders in the Zionist militias and the Israeli military in 1948, and they complained about the booklet. In 1971, Shaul Avigdor, who had been a Haganah immigration official, sent a complaint to Gideon Rafael, Director General of the Foreign Ministry. Avigdor attached an opinion from Yehuda Slutzki, author of the official Haganah history book, who affirmed that there indeed was a massacre in Deir Yassin. Yitzhak Levy, who was head of the Intelligence Service in Jerusalem in 1948 and later became Deputy Director General of the Prime Minister Office, wrote to Menahem Begin (Irgun commander and later Prime Minister) also in 1971 – Begin had denied the massacre.

Levitzeh [Yitzhak Levy] wrote that he had investigated the story at the time, and found that Deir Yassin was a quiet town, which had not participated in the battles of 1948 and that indeed a massacre had been perpetrated there by the Irgun and Lehi. Also Israel Galili, from the heads of the Haganah in 1948 and at the time a senior minister in the Israeli government, complained directly to Eban. Eventually Eban replied that his office had shelved the discussed booklet.

Morris summarizes:

The relevant letters from 1971, which were open for perusal in 2003-2004, were closed to researchers and the wide public by order of the Malmab, and therefore in 2018 I was prohibited from seeing them. As well, most of the “incriminating” material from April 1948, which was written by the Intelligence Service officers and was open in 2003-2004, was closed by the Malmab (by the way, even earlier, since I began to work with 1948 matters from the early 1980’s, the Archive of the Defense Ministry and IDF has consistently refused to release for review photographs of the slain of Deir Yassin, which were apparently taken by the Intelligence Service people before they were buried). 

Morris cites Yitzhak Levy, reporting about Deir Yassin in 1948:

The conquering of the town was done with great cruelty. Whole families, women, elderly and small children were killed… Some of the prisoners were taken to detention centers including women and children and cruelly murdered by their captors.

Levy had supplied his report the day after with a follow-up from testimonies of Lehi militants:

Lehi fighters raped a number of women and murdered them later.

Morris writes that these reports contain many more acts of the Irgun and Lehi in Deir Yassin, including looting etc.

Morris decries the “idiocy” of the Malmab in hiding these materials, since “the whole story was told and publicized since 1988 in many books in Hebrew and English, from my pen and from others”. But he resigns to the logic of it all:

Yet, as transpires from Shezaf’s article, the heads of Malmab in their actions hope or hoped that inaccessibility of the Israeli materials, which they had enforced, would cause doubt regarding the work, the conclusions and the very credibility of the researchers – including this writer – in whoever reads their books and articles.

What a cover-up, what a conspiracy (and that’s not just a theory). Everything is being buried, by an arm of the Israeli government. If someone were doing this to Holocaust documents, there would be a cry to the heavens. What a shame. The Jewish State is actively trying to erase the Nakba and any critical discussion of it. Holocaust denial is illegal in Germany – but Nakba denial is not illegal in Israel, and it is thriving.

H/t Ronit Lentin

Jonathan Ofir

Israeli musician, conductor and blogger / writer based in Denmark.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

64 Responses

  1. gamal on July 12, 2019, 2:19 pm

    “H/t Ronit Lentin” the Irish-Israeli

    whose 2018 book

    “Traces of Racial Exception
    Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism” is still freely available

    “Deconstructing Agamben’s Eurocentric theoretical position Lentin shows that it occludes colonialism, settler colonialism and anti-colonialism and fails to specifically foreground race; instead she combines the work of Wolfe, who proposes race as a trace of settler colonialism, and Weheliye, who argues that Agamben’s western-centric understanding of exception fail to speak from explicitly racialized and gendered standpoints.

    Employing existing media, activist, and academic accounts of racialization this book deliberately breaks from white, Western theorizations of biopolitics, exception, and bare life, and instead foregrounds race and gender in analysing settler colonial conditions in Israel”

    https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/traces-of-racial-exception-9781350032064/

    • Talkback on July 13, 2019, 6:38 am

      Just started reading the book. From its preface:

      “‘That’s not who we are, we are better than this’

      From Traces of Racial Exception: Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism (Bloomsbury Academic 2018).

      Preface
      We stole the lands of another people, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We expelled 800,000 of the owners of the land, or made them flee; we renamed their villages and urban neighbourhoods and settled our own people in them, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We uprooted the trees planted by the owners of the land and planted European conifers to cover the ruins of their depopulated villages, which they are not allowed to settle in and many of which we have made our own, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We massacred the populations of whole villages, tortured their men, raped their women and beat and tortured their children, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We occupied and annexed those parts of the land we had conquered in our ‘war of independence’ that the owners of the land call their Nakba, or catastrophe, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We bombed their cities, demolished their homes, flattened their refugee camps, and since 2002 built a 700 kilometres long concrete wall, which we call the separation barrier and the owners of the land call the Apartheid wall, to cut the owners of the land off from each other, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We installed hundreds of checkpoints preventing the owners of the land from getting to work, visiting their families, or reaching hospital to receive medical treatment or give birth, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We started war after war outside the 1949 armistice borders of our state, making hundreds of thousands homeless, claiming self-defence, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We put the owners of the land under a military government regime, ruled them with emergency regulations inherited from the British colonizers, enlisted them as collaborators and informers, and controlled their freedom of movement and expression, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We operate a separate military court system to try the owners of the land, imprison thousands of them including women and children, and put hundreds in administrative detention without trial, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We build our settlements on their lands and allow our illegal settlers to prevent the owners of the land from herding their flocks, tilling their fields and picking their olives, but that’s not who we are we are better than this
      We allow the settlers to take over the homes of the owners of the land and to beat their children on their way to school, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We transferred thousands of Bedouin citizens off their lands and left them in ‘unrecognized villages’ without electricity, water, roads and schools, and demolish these ‘unrecognized villages again and again, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We extra-judicially execute the owners of the land when we suspect that their resistance amounts to ‘terrorist’ acts even after they are ‘neutralized’ and are lying defenceless on the ground; we arrest their children in dawn raids, interrogate them without any adults present, and try them in military courts, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We lock up asylum seekers, who we call ‘infiltrators’, and most of whose cases we never process, in concentration camps away from our towns that they are not permitted to enter, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      We deny the owners of the land the right to remember and commemorate their Nakba, and force them to study our writers and poets, but that’s not who we are we are better than this.
      You see, we are victims of persecution and Holocaust survivors, and their land had been promised to us by our god, and is thus legally ours, and anyone questioning our right to conquer, settle, expropriate, kill, imprison, shoot, bomb, torture, transfer and deport is antisemitic or a ‘self-hating Jew’. [1]

      [1] This is an adaptation of Ghassan Hage’s elegiac and angry J’Accuse against settler colonial white Australia, posted on Facebook on 19 October 2016. With Ghassan Hage’s kind permission.
      https://www.ronitlentin.net/2019/05/08/thats-not-who-we-are-we-are-better-than-this/

      • gamal on July 13, 2019, 8:45 am

        Thanks I only know of her book, I will check it out, had not seen the Ghassan Hage piece either thanks, I am inordinately proud of my country woman Dr Lentin.

      • Misterioso on July 13, 2019, 10:56 am

        @Talkback, et al

        Worth checking out:

        https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/11/14/benny-morriss-untenable-denial-of-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-palestine/

        “Benny Morris’s Untenable Denial of the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine”
        By Jeremy R. Hammond,
        Foreign Policy Journal – Nov. 14, 2016

        EXCERPT:
        “Israeli historian Benny Morris denies the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, but his own research shows that this was indeed how Israel came into being.”

        “The Israeli historian Benny Morris has been very vocal of late in denying that Palestine was ethnically cleansed of Arabs in order for the ‘Jewish state’ of Israel to be established. In a series of articles in the Israeli daily Haaretz, Morris has debated the question with several of his critics who contend that ethnic cleansing is precisely what occurred. Not so, argues Morris. So who’s right?

        “It’s worth noting at the outset that, while such a debate exists in the Israeli media, the US media remains, as ever, absolutely silent on the matter. Americans who get their information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only from the nightly news or papers like the New York Times and Washington Post would never even know that there is a discussion about it. Not only that, but they would have absolutely no familiarity at all with the idea that Palestine was ethnically cleansed of most of its Arab inhabitants in 1948. That this occurred (or even that this might have occurred) is entirely absent from the discussion; it is simply wiped from history altogether, in the narrative of the conflict propagated by the US media.

        “Even in those rare instances when the mainstream media outlets do refer to the expulsion and flight of Arabs from their villages, it is characterized as only as an unfortunate but unintended consequence of a war started by the neighboring Arab states to wipe the new state of Israel off the map—a narrative that is not merely over-simplified, but false.

        “So was Palestine ethnically cleansed in 1948? The debate between Benny Morris and his interlocutors provides a unique occasion to clear up several myths and misconceptions about what actually happened during the 1948 war. An examination of the arguments Morris presents to deny its occurrence is highly instructive, and offers an opportunity to settle the matter once and for all—and, in doing so, to finally move the discussion about how to achieve peace between Israelis and Palestinians forward.”

      • Talkback on July 13, 2019, 2:40 pm

        @ Misterioso

        From your excerpt: “So was Palestine ethnically cleansed in 1948?”

        I’m reading the above mentioned “Traces of Racial Exception Racializing Israeli Settler Colonialism” and there is the notion that “ethnically cleansing” is not only a perpetrator’s term, but that it also serves the idea that the perpetrator in this case is an ethnic group which is a Zionist hoax.

    • Jett Rucker on July 13, 2019, 2:35 pm

      FREELY available? $80 for the e-book, $103 for the paper.

      Not quite freely, I wouldn’t say.

      • ejran on July 14, 2019, 4:14 am

        I have always felt there is a policy behind this somewhere, considering how incredibly affordable most books defending the Zionist version are.

  2. Tuyzentfloot on July 12, 2019, 4:28 pm

    So has Morris mentioned this before it became redundant confirmation?

  3. Brewer on July 12, 2019, 6:27 pm

    I have been looking forward to Morris’ comments since the “Burying the Nakba” story broke.
    Morris is a cantankerous old Zionist who has been quite happy to grasp the nettle of atrocity and justify it in the name of Zionism but he is amazingly staunch when it comes to Historical accuracy. Who can forget his sentiments expressed to Ari Shavit?

    “That was the situation. That is what Zionism faced. A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population. It was necessary to cleanse the hinterland and cleanse the border areas and cleanse the main roads. It was necessary to cleanse the villages from which our convoys and our settlements were fired on.”
    http://www.logosjournal.com/morris.htm

    Despite the obvious parallel with Nazi ideology expressed here, he has a body of work to defend which relies on documents now being censored. He must, therefore, oppose the “revisionists” and, if true to form, will not be quiet about it.

    Destroying Historical evidence is a hazardous enterprise. The very practice itself lends credibility to the information it tries to conceal.

    Classic”blowback” – the falsifiers have drawn attention, not only to their activities but also to the information they wished to conceal.

    • LiberatePalestine on July 13, 2019, 12:35 am

      → A Jewish state would not have come into being without the uprooting of 700,000 Palestinians. Therefore it was necessary to uproot them. There was no choice but to expel that population.

      That would be close to the truth if we assumed that «[a] Jewish state» had to come into being. It’s true that the establishment of the Zionist entity depended on the elimination—by expulsion or murder—of much of the Palestinian population. But the Zionist entity did not have to be established at all. And since it couldn’t be established without a monstrous crime against another nation, the Zionist project was always wrong.

      → Destroying Historical evidence is a hazardous enterprise.

      And it’s downright foolish when the historical evidence has been published.

    • Jonathan Ofir on July 13, 2019, 4:37 am

      Brewer, I absolutely agree concerning Morris. I have written about his genocidal advocacies earlier this year https://mondoweiss.net/2019/01/historian-advocacy-cleasning/ , where he reaffirms what he said to Ari Shavit back in 2004. The second link in that piece is to an earlier piece I did in 2016 about his denial of ethnic cleansing, same theme. This is the Morris of the 21st century, there’s no doubt about it. To ascertain in what way the ‘new Morris’ was hiding inside the ‘old Morris’ is probably a complex task. He seems to frame it as a ‘political’ shift: “I tended rightward in the political context, not the historiographic one; I am still a historian and not a politician”. He lays the blame singularly on the Palestinians: “The change I underwent is related to one issue: the Palestinians’ readiness to accept the two-state solution and forgo part of the Land of Israel.” He appears to be subscribing to Ehud Barak’s myths of “generous offer” and “no one to talk to”, but who can expect “Morris the politician” to be as scientifically scrupulous about current affairs as “Morris the historian” is about history? Alas, Morris’s shift has also meant that he has had to contradict the nerve of his earlier work, and make lip-twisting efforts to present himself as a liberal genocider (and God forbid anyone call him that, despite his congratulation of the “annihilation of the Indians” for the sake of the “great American democracy”).

      It was indeed a moral consideration, whether to bring all this up again in the context of this current piece. I chose to keep it out for the sake of brevity and focus on what Morris is pointing to.

      • Talkback on July 13, 2019, 9:42 am

        Jonathan, what makes him a “liberal” genocider?

      • Jonathan Ofir on July 14, 2019, 7:50 am

        Talkback, “what makes [Morris] a “liberal” genocider? Nothing, it’s just his self perception of being liberal. I call him a genocider, he calls himself a liberal.

      • Talkback on July 14, 2019, 12:46 pm

        LOL, ok. Maybe some Nazis were “liberal Nazis” from Morris’s perspective. Perhaps those who thought about a more humane way to get rid of Jews.

      • LiberatePalestine on July 14, 2019, 9:25 pm

        → I call him a genocider, he calls himself a liberal.

        And Hitler called himself a socialist.

  4. Teddy on July 13, 2019, 10:19 am

    Al-Nakba is not a historical event. It is ongoing today as the zionist colonization of Palestine continues and the genocide of Palestinians unfolds. This is what needs to be documented and widely distrubuted.

  5. Vera Gottlieb on July 13, 2019, 12:27 pm

    Same shameful behaviour as the Nazis…only in smaller dosage???

    • Talkback on July 13, 2019, 2:30 pm

      What shameful behaviour are you refering to? Israel plays in a complete different league when it comes to trying to silence the world about its shameful behaviour and trying to paint the rejection of its racist and genocidal policies as racist itself. It’s completely unparalleled.

  6. CigarGod on July 13, 2019, 2:39 pm

    Don’t you all wonder who the people were that made up these vicious gangs?
    Where did they learn these murderous skills, and become so good at them?
    Where did they live before Israel?
    What were their jobs?
    Were they criminals where they came from?

  7. Brewer on July 16, 2019, 12:07 am

    @Talkback
    “Liberal Genocider” is just one of the phenomena I referred to in another post:
    “There is an inexorability to the fate of organizations based on falsehood, greed and injustice. Inevitably they become fractional, perversity multiplies – and they fall apart through internal contradictions. All the signs are there in Israel today as the fascists are forced into coalition with the loony religionists. ‘Tis indeed a rough beast slouching toward Jerusalem to be born.”

    No matter which way you push and pull the rationale for a race/religious based state, it runs contrary to Kant’s Categorical Imperative or, as my mother would have put it, the Golden Rule – do unto others etc.
    The very concept that Israel bases its existence upon is flawed in this way and the further it pursues this patently immoral, illegal course, the more contradictions/paradoxes emerge.
    History is littered with examples of societies that have attempted such perversions. Eventually they fail as segments of the society, each (in their own estimation) “exceptional” come into conflict with each other.
    Consider also the alliance of Zionism with Evangelical Christianity. What possible future does it have when one party firmly believes that the other will be damned to perdition if it does not change its beliefs?
    Take a good look at how Israeli politics has been driven from left to extreme right by the incompatibility of racism and socialism. I seriously doubt there is a way back, it will continue down that path until it collapses.
    Egalitarianism and Universal Human rights are not a luxury or even a matter of choice in the long run. They are a necessary condition for a sustainable society.

  8. Jackdaw on July 17, 2019, 1:41 am

    @Jonathan
    @Vera

    “Same shameful behaviour as the Nazis…only in smaller dosage???”

    When will historians open up the Arab archives and examine the Arab massacre of 120 Jews at Gush Etzion?

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/02/massacre-marred-birth-israel-independence

    Wait…the Arabs couldn’t massacre 120 Jews.

    Arabs are only innocent victims, ‘children of God, incapable of machine gunning unarmed men and women.

    • Talkback on July 17, 2019, 9:13 am

      Jackdaw: “Arabs are only innocent victims, ‘children of God, incapable of machine gunning unarmed men and women.”

      I’m sure it was much easier for them after Deir Yassin massacre.

      • Jackdaw on July 17, 2019, 2:03 pm

        @Talk the talk

        Right.

        And much easier for the Arabs to massacre nurses, patients, orders and doctors in the Hasassah convoy massacre.

        Of course. Arabs massacre out of revenge. and Jews are cold-blooded killers who never killed out of revenge. Right?

        Do you want to take this even further?

      • eljay on July 17, 2019, 2:33 pm

        || Jackdaw: … Of course. Arabs massacre out of revenge. and Jews are cold-blooded killers who never killed out of revenge. Right? … ||

        Arabs and Jews are people and people kill for a variety of reasons. The fact that people kill for a variety of reasons in no way justifies Jewish / “Jewish State” colonialism, supremacism and (war) crimes.

      • Talkback on July 17, 2019, 5:53 pm

        Jackdaw: “Talk the talk”

        Grow up.

        Jackdaw: “And much easier for the Arabs to massacre nurses, patients, orders and doctors in the Hasassah convoy massacre. ”

        I’m sure this, too, was much easier for them after the Deir Yassin massacre. Which btw happened after a decade of Jewish terrorism.

        Jackdaw: “Of course. Arabs massacre out of revenge. and Jews are cold-blooded killers who never killed out of revenge. Right?”

        Jewish violence against Palestinians is inherent in its colonization and takeover of Palestine and expulsion of its natives. Palestinian violence gainst Jews has always been a reaction to this settler colonal project.

        Jackdaw: “Do you want to take this even further?”

        Why should I stop you from making a fool of yourself?

      • Talkback on July 17, 2019, 6:07 pm

        Re: Hadassah medical convoy massacre

        “The Arabs claimed they had attacked a military formation, that all members of the convoy had engaged in combat, and that it had been impossible to distinguish combatants from civilians. An enquiry was conducted. Eventually an agreement was reached to separate military from humanitarian convoys.”
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadassah_medical_convoy_massacre

        Wait. Does that mean that Jewish combatants placed themselves within civilians?

      • Brewer on July 17, 2019, 7:26 pm

        “In the months prior to May 15, Haganah militiamen in the bloc’s kibbutzim repeatedly fired on Arab civilians, and British traffic, including convoys, moving between Jerusalem and Hebron, under instruction to do so in order to draw and drain Arab forces from the fight for Jerusalem.[13][14] ”
        – Wikipedia

  9. Jackdaw on July 18, 2019, 1:58 pm

    @talk the talk

    “Which btw happened after a decade of Jewish terrorism.”

    Question: Who committed the first massacres in Palestine?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Question: Who committed the first terrorist bombings?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Question: Who made the first car bomb in Palestine?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Question:Who murdered the first British in Palestine?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Question:Who were the first to ethnically cleanse in Palestine?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Question: Who were the first to assassinate Arab politicians in Palestine?
    Answer: The Arabs.

    Yes, and while this was happening, the Arabs were selling their land to the Zionists, hand over fist. Selling their patrimony for pound sterling.

    • Talkback on July 18, 2019, 6:50 pm

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who committed the first massacres in Palestine?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      Yep. As a reaction to Zionism and their hostile intentions according to British reports. Wouldn’t have happened without Zionism.

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who committed the first terrorist bombings?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      When? The first Irgun terrorist bombing out of many was April 12, 1938.

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who made the first car bomb in Palestine?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      When? First bomb in a bus was July 5, 1938 planted by Irgun. Same goes for bombing market places.

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who murdered the first British in Palestine?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      When? Two British policeman were killed April 12, 1938 by Irgun. Btw. Britain was de facto occupying Palestine so that would have been a legitimate act of resistance against this alien domination and denial of the right of self determination.

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who were the first to ethnically cleanse in Palestine?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      When? Otherwise we know that ethnic cleansing was inbuild into Zionism.

      Jackdaw: “Question: Who were the first to assassinate Arab politicians in Palestine?
      Answer: The Arabs.”

      When, who and for what reason? Was that before Jews killed Lord Moyne in 1944? And didn’t a Jew kill a prime ministers of Israel? What’s your point?

      Jackdaw: “Yes, and while this was happening, the Arabs were selling their land to the Zionists, hand over fist. Selling their patrimony for pound sterling.”

      Yep, and then Jews owned less than 6% of Palestine. Care to explain how they acquired the rest and became a majority within 67 lines?

      And would you like to make the claim that Arab violence against Jews was and still is not a reaction to Zionism? Or that Jewish violence against Arabs had and still has nothing to do with Zionism?

      • Jackdaw on July 19, 2019, 1:41 am

        @pillowtalk

        Wrong!

        Question: Who committed the first massacres in Palestine?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        Hebron, Jaffa, Jerusalem, Safed Tiberius, etc.

        See, Segev, Tom. ‘One Palestine’, page 414, describing the Tiberius massacre. Nineteen murdered Jews, eleven of them children. Stabbed, raped and burned. Were those children in the nursery dead or alive when the Arabs poured gasoline on them and lit them up?

        Question: Who committed the first terrorist bombings?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        The Palestinian ‘Black Hand’ terror group murdered a Jewish father and son in Nahalal, from a bomb thrown into their home, on 22 December 1932.

        Question: Who made the first car bomb in Palestine?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        British Police discovered a car bomb being prepared in an Arab garage in Jerusalem during the Great Arab Revolt, 1938. See Milstein, Uri. ‘History of Israel’s War of Independence’.

        Question:Who murdered the first British in Palestine?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        Black Hand murdered a British policeman in 1935, and during the Great Revolt, murdered British soldiers, police and assassinated administrators like Governor Andrews.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Yelland_Andrews

        Question:Who were the first to ethnically cleanse in Palestine?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        Six hundred years of Jewish settlement in Hebron ended after the 1929 Hebron Massacre.
        Likewise after the Jaffa massacre, Jews quit Jaffa, and built Tel Aviv for their safety. Same for Gush Etzion.

        Question: Who were the first to assassinate Arab politicians in Palestine?
        Answer: The Arabs.

        During the terror of 1936-38, 133 leading Arabs, including police officers and civil officials, were murdered by Arab terrorists.

        https://www.jta.org/1946/04/30/archive/arab-black-hand-terrorizes-merchants-in-palestine-seeks-to-enforce-anti-jewish-boycott

        Yes, and while all this was happening, the Arabs were selling their land to the Zionists, hand over fist. Selling their patrimony for pound sterling.

        Okay. 6% of the land was owned by Jews, 18% of the land was owned by Arabs, and the rest of the land was State owned or unclaimed wasteland.

        Lest we forget that during the Mandate, the British enacted laws curbing rampant Arab land sales to the Zionists, and some Arab Palestinian nationalists murdered Arabs who tried to sell land to the Zionists.

        Bye for now.

      • Talkback on July 19, 2019, 8:12 pm

        Jackdaw: “@pillowtalk”

        @Infantile Zionist

        Jackdaw: “Wrong!”

        So which of these violent acts against Jews or British that you have listed were not reactions to Zionist settler colonialism or in the case of violence against British a legitimate act of resistance against alien domination and violent support for settler colonialism?

        Jackdaw: “Six hundred years of Jewish settlement in Hebron ended after the 1929 Hebron Massacre.”

        And how many hundred years of how many Nonjewish settlements have ended since 1948? More than 500 villages were destroyed and depopulated. And this was not sporadic terorism or mob violence, but systematical.

        Jackdaw: “Okay. 6% of the land was owned by Jews, 18% of the land was owned by Arabs, and the rest of the land was State owned or unclaimed wasteland.

        Nope. According to a British report only 6% was state owned and 48% was owned by Arabs:
        https://www.palestineremembered.com/download/VillageStatistics/4-The%20Land%20And%20Its%20Ownership/Page-019.jpg

        It was Israel who transformed about 87% into state land to garanty its racist only-for-Jews development policy.

        But my question to you is by what mean did Jews acquire territory beyond the initial 6%?

        Jackdaw: “… and some Arab Palestinian nationalists murdered Arabs who tried to sell land to the Zionists.”

        That’s almost as despicable as Zionists murdering Arabs to acquire their land.

  10. amigo on July 18, 2019, 3:04 pm

    Jack duh .that’s a lot of accusations you got there.

    Any chance you can back them up with credible proof.

    NB. “CREDIBLE”,

    • Mooser on July 20, 2019, 1:19 pm

      “amigo”, sometimes I feel like Annie Robbins is right and the comment section should be a Zio-troll free zone. Giving these amateur hasbaratchniks freedom-of-speech is like leaving an assortment of loaded guns and razors in the waiting-room of a suicide-prevention clinic.

      • amigo on July 22, 2019, 2:51 pm

        Hello mooser. imagine how boring this site would be if it only featured left wing liberal jew haters and antisemites posting their hateful one sided propaganda.

      • Talkback on July 22, 2019, 3:12 pm

        I wholeheartedly disagree. This site allows Anti- and Non-Zionists to express their opinion without their comments being deleted.

        What happens in the comment section of, for example, Israeli news outlets is that most comments would be deleted. Which means that most of the other comments are just vile racist anti-Palestinan comments which include denying their rights or even their existence, etc. without a proper response.

        MW should be a place, where this imbeciles can freely express their idiocies, too, but then get the proper responses even if it gets ugly.

      • Keith on July 22, 2019, 4:21 pm

        MOOSER- “amigo”, sometimes I feel like Annie Robbins is right and the comment section should be a Zio-troll free zone.”

        Part of the problem with a site like Mondoweiss is how to deal with trolls, particularly Zionist trolls who may be thought to provide “balance.” Back before the Zionist troll invasion, the Mondoweiss comments section was much more lively and interesting. We anti-Zionists had considerable differences of opinion on numerous topics. Now we are flooded with repetitive Zionist talking points which are factually dishonest and which many commenters feel obligated to refute although this very process restricts and frames the narrative. I don’t know how this should be dealt with and am glad that it is not my decision. I have noticed that many Zionist comments are profoundly intellectually dishonest, a cardinal sin in my book. I quote Zeev Sternhell commenting on this very topic.

        “The craft of lying and fabrication is an accepted operating method by radical nationalists for inventing a narrative that meets the needs of nationalist politics. Anything goes for the sake of establishing this narrative – from censoring archives, as is the case here, to unprecedented legislation that distorts history, as in Poland (and supported by Israel). Even if everyone knows that atrocities occurred in the War of Independence, the Haaretz investigative report showed us that the Israeli government, like the Polish government, is not only working to conceal facts, but also to ensure that today’s governmental fabrication becomes tomorrow’s truth. Following in the ways of the Poles is a triple betrayal: of the Holocaust’s legacy, of the fight against anti-Semitism and of historical truth.” (Zeev Sternhell) http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51936.htm

      • Keith on July 22, 2019, 5:53 pm

        “I have noticed that many Zionist comments are profoundly intellectually dishonest….” (Keith)

        Perhaps Zionist commenters take their cue from one of Zionism’s leading intellectuals.

        “Almost all criminal defendants — including most of my clients — are factually guilty of the crimes they have been charged with. The criminal lawyer’s job, for the most part, is to represent the guilty, and — if possible — to get them off.” (Alan M. Dershowitz, “The Best Defense,” 1982) https://www.nytimes.com/1996/03/03/books/trial-and-errors.html

      • echinococcus on July 23, 2019, 12:25 am

        Keith,

        “Now we are flooded with repetitive Zionist talking points which are factually dishonest and which many commenters feel obligated to refute although this very process restricts and frames the narrative. I don’t know how this should be dealt with and am glad that it is not my decision.”

        There’s one thing we theoretically could decide and implement, though: to uniformly ignore all the Zionist “comments” and only discuss them, not with the originating Zionists but among themselves, when we need to discuss it. That, of course, is in practice totally impossible given the mix of people here.

        What the discussants cannot decide about, or fix in any way, is of course the arbitrary and erratic censorship policy.

      • Mooser on July 24, 2019, 1:03 pm

        “What the discussants cannot decide about, or fix in any way, is of course the arbitrary and erratic censorship policy.”

        Oh, you flatterer! I bet you say that about all Moderators.

  11. Ossinev on July 18, 2019, 3:04 pm

    @Jackanory
    Oh yes and just like yur world leading cherry tomatoes your Zionist massacres,bombings,murders,ethnic cleansings, and assassinations were so so much better than others and most importantly were supremely moral because they were mandated by the Bible.

    BTW haven`t you dropped a very large one by admitting that the illegal Arab “squatters” had any claim to the land ie “patrimony”. Pivotus Arsus.

  12. Brewer on July 18, 2019, 5:16 pm

    This a declassified document released by the British Security Service made available Wednesday Sept. 28, 2016. UK opened secret files about ‘Jewish terrorists’ in 1940s. The newly declassified British security services files document repeated attacks by ‘Jewish terrorists’ trying to drive British forces out of Palestine in the drive toward establishing a Jewish state. The files show how British agents tried to contain the threat of militant activities and keep the groups from launching attacks in Europe and Britain.(The National Archive via AP)
    https://www.apnews.com/6520359e2655475e93d4b6bf220ed042

  13. Jackdaw on July 19, 2019, 1:45 am

    @brewski

    I said, “Who committed the FIRST…..”

    First, as in who drew ‘first blood’?

    • Brewer on July 19, 2019, 1:53 pm

      It is very easy to tell – take a look at the boots of the combatants. Those standing on the land in which they were born are the defenders.

      “I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”
      – David Ben-Gurion

    • Brewer on July 19, 2019, 4:45 pm

      Are you serious? “First, as in who drew ‘first blood’?”
      A force invades a virtually defenseless indigenous populace having advertised their intent to drive them out:

      “We have forgotten that we have not come to an empty land to inherit it, but we have come to conquer a country from people inhabiting it”
      – Moshe Sharett 1914
      “I do not believe in the TRANSFER of an individual. I believe in the TRANSFER of entire villages.”
      – Arthur Ruppin, 1931.
      “[Land is acquired] by force — that is, by conquest in war, or in other words, by ROBBING land form its owner; . . . by expropriation via government authority; or by purchase. . . [The Zionist movement was limited to the third choice] until at some point we become rulers.”
      – Menachem Ussishkin, 1904
      “”We must expropriate gently the private property on the state assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border”
      Theodor Herzl, 1895.
      “Palestine thinly populated, in which the Jews constituted today 10 percent of the population, must be evacuated for the Jews.”
      – Nahman Syrkin, 1898.
      “I think that whenever you discuss it or submit a memo on the question of the transfer, you must make it ABSOLUTELY clear that this transfer is one of the conditions on which we are establishing our state and that the Mandatory Government should carry this out.”
      – Shmuel Zuchovitzky, 1938.

      ……and you want to know who whacked who first??
      Come to my house and try it Jackdaw.

      • RoHa on July 19, 2019, 10:22 pm

        Brewer, it’s perfectly true that the Palestinians did not go to Poland or Ukraine or even Golders Green. They were, indeed, staying at home when the Zionists turned up. But as soon as the Zionists arrived, the Palestinians should have quietly left. They had no right to be there, and were only tolerated as service personnel for the tiny handful of native Palestinian Jews who were acting as placeholders for the rest of the world’s Jews.

        If you don’t believe me, ask the guys responsible for this:

        https://original.antiwar.com/cook/2019/07/18/theft-of-silwan-highlights-the-injustice-of-the-israeli-occupation/

      • Jackdaw on July 21, 2019, 12:47 am

        @brew haha

        You are walking History backwards, and distracting from the main point, and even condoning mindless violence and slaughter of innocent Jews.

        Population transfer, in the early 20th century, was an acceptable concept, the model being the massive population transfer of ethnic Greeks from Anatolian Turkey, and in lesser transfer of ethnic Turks.
        It happened, and that transfer was considered acceptable at the time.

        Population Transfer: Late 19th Century – British Mandate Palestine
        Benny Morris, PhD, Professor of History at Ben-Gurion University in Beersheba, Israel, in his 2001 book Righteous Victims, wrote:

        “For many Zionists, beginning with Herzl, the only realistic solution lay in transfer…Following the outbreak of 1936 [Arab Revolt], no mainstream leader was able to conceive of future coexistence and peace without a clear physical separation between the two peoples–achievable only by way of transfer and expulsion…

        Moreover, transfer was seen as a highly moral solution. The Zionist leaders felt that the Jews’ need for a country with empty spaces able to absorb future immigrants morally outweighed the rights of the indigenous Arabs–who were no different than their brothers across the Jordan or Litani [Rivers] and could relocate there with relative ease if the transfer was well compensated and well organized…separation was preferable to an intermingling, which could only end in a bloodbath.

        Transfer would best be accomplished ‘voluntarily.’ But Palestine’s Arabs did not wish to evacuate the land of their ancestors, and they made this very clear. Moreover, neither the Ottoman Turks nor the British were of a mind to clear out the local population to make room for the Jews. The matter raised ethical questions that troubled the Yishuv [Jewish community of British Mandate Palestine] from within and inspired opposition to Zionism from without. Yet transfer, however problematic or cruel, offered a way out of the demographic dilemma, and it was sporadically given an airing.”

        BTW, your Herzl quote is spurious.
        Herzl was talking about paying off landless South American
        pesants to leave an imaginary Jewish State in Uruguay. Had you not truncated Herzl’s quote, we would read that any holdover Uruguayan landowners living in the South American ‘Jewish State’, would be left alone and not dispossessed.

        Let’s also keep in mind that the musing of the early Zionists were made in letters written to one another or in speeches they made to each other in Yiddish.

        The local Arabs, fellahin or effendi, would not have been aware of these letter or speeches,. The local Arabs who slaughtered innocent, defenseless Jews were spurred to violence by the wealthy Arab elite or by religious fanatics from among their community.

        In a Parliamentary Debate on Palestine, Colonel Josiah Wedgwood said:

        “No doubt since the Armistice, or perhaps before it, the military atmosphere there was anti-Jew and pro-Arab. They moved in the society of the effendis, the ex-Turkish officials owning large acres; the old lords of the country. They liked them. They got on with them. They listened to their views, and when the Noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman get up in this House and tell us what are the views of the Arabs about the Jews, how bitterly hostile they are, they are voicing the views of the Arab effendis, the old officials of the Turkish Government. These people hate the Jews, and for a perfectly good and sufficient reason. The Jews go in from Rumania, Russia, Poland, and go in not only as Jews but as outposts of Labour ideals, of Western ideas of civilisation, they plant themselves down in Palestine. The first thing the Jew does is to start a trade union. The next thing he does is to try and get the uneducated and unskilled Arabs to join him in raising wages. There is nothing on earth that any governing class hate more than the ignorant, stupid, slavish proletariat getting ideas as to what wages it ought to get. These wretched Jews, these Bolshevik Jews, start telling the Arabs they ought to get more wages when they are working on Government contracts. Hitherto the effendis have had the time of their lives, getting the Arabs to work for them and swindling them of their pay. This sort of thing has gone on in these Eastern countries for countless centuries. Now that the westernised Jews go into the country and teach that this is not what the working classes ought to put up with the effendis do not like it.”

      • Jackdaw on July 21, 2019, 4:34 am

        Oh…right. Silwan, aka Siloam.

        In the era of the First Jerusalem Temple, about 50 rock-cut tombs of rich and powerful people from the Kingdom of Judah were carved into the mountainside in this area (known as the Silwan Necropolis / Siloam). These graves have been absorbed by the houses of the local village of Silwan.

        Three of the most stately tombs had inscriptions in the Paleo-Hebrew alphabet carved above their entrances. One of these is the famous tomb nicknamed The Grave of Pharaoh’s Daughter. An inscription above another tomb states that this is the tomb of “….yehu the royal steward” (the Shebna inscription).

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ussishkin#Silwan

      • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 8:51 am

        @Jackdaw

        I know many more places in whch Jews are buried or are Jewish cemeteries. I won’t tell you their exact locations, because I’m afraid that Israel is going to occupy, illegaly annex them and Judaize the area while expelling its native residents. I’m sure you understand my legitimate concerns.

      • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 9:00 am

        Jackdaw: “… transfer was considered acceptable at the time.”

        Well not after the era of the Nazis. Do you understand why, by any chance? So much for walking history backwards, LOL.

        Jackdaw: “Moreover, transfer was seen as a highly moral solution.”

        By whom? Zionist expellants? I always thought they were moral human beings. NOT.

        Jackdaw: “The Zionist leaders felt that the Jews’ need for a country with empty spaces able to absorb future immigrants morally outweighed the rights of the indigenous Arabs …”

        Jewish supremacy in a nut shell. Thank you for highlighting their racisim and criminal intentions.

        I have to atmit that your latest attempts to deligitimize Zionism have been outstanding. Keep up the good work!

      • RoHa on July 21, 2019, 9:21 am

        ” about 50 rock-cut tombs of rich and powerful people from the Kingdom of Judah …”

        Are you trying to say that these ancient tombs justify the theft of people’s homes?
        If so, please spell out the argument.

      • Jackdaw on July 21, 2019, 1:37 pm

        @Roha

        ” Are you trying to say that these ancient tombs justify the theft of people’s homes?
        If so, please spell out the argument. ”

        I’m not trying to make any argument here at all.

        The necropolis is a historical fact, which some people might find interesting.

  14. Ossinev on July 21, 2019, 9:55 am

    @Jackdaw
    “Transfer would best be accomplished ‘voluntarily.’ But Palestine’s Arabs did not wish to evacuate the land of their ancestors, and they made this very clear. Moreover, neither the Ottoman Turks nor the British were of a mind to clear out the local population to make room for the Jews. The matter raised ethical questions that troubled the Yishuv [Jewish community of British Mandate Palestine] from within and inspired opposition to Zionism from without. Yet transfer, however problematic or cruel, offered a way out of the demographic dilemma”

    Great to hear that you favour an alternative dynamic solution. The “Two States” one which was always in any case a reliable Zioscam is now enterred . The one state on solution would obviously have you fouling your undergarments but this new one you appear to be hinting at shows real promise. as in clear out the colonising Zionist non native Jews to make room for the true native population ie the Palestinian Arabs including the refugees and their families cleansed during the Nakba.

    Keep up the good work.

    • Jackdaw on July 21, 2019, 1:31 pm

      @squawk back

      Transfer was a concept that was never seriously considered except around a coffee table or in a salon.
      The Jews knew the Arab wouldn’t move and the British wouldn’t move the Arabs, so no Zionist seriously pushed for transfer.

      BTW, a de facto population transfer occurred during the partition of India, post Nazi era. Millions moved, hundreds of thousands were murdered in the process.
      This happened contemporaneous to Israel’s War of Independence, but now, no one seems to care anymore. It’s ‘history’.

      BTW, the Arab States practiced population transfer when the Arab States forced 500,000 ‘Arab Jews’, to flee their homes after Israel’s successful War of Independence; which war cost 6,600 Jewish lives.

      Right?

      • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 2:38 pm

        Jackdaw: “@squawk back”

        Infantile Zionist

        Jackdaw: “Transfer was a concept that was never seriously considered except around a coffee table or in a salon.”

        ROFL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_Committee
        And the expulsion of the Palestians actually happened and is still going on.

        Jackdaw: “BTW, a de facto population transfer …

        Irrrelevant. Palestinian refugees are a present reality.

        Jackdaw: “BTW, the Arab States …”

        Irrelevant with regards to Palestinain rights.

        Do you actually want to legitimize a crime, because others committed it, too? What’s wrong with you Zionist people?

      • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 2:53 pm

        Addendum:

        Plan Daleth:
        “Mounting search and control operations according to the following guidelines: encirclement of the village and conducting a search inside it. In the event of resistance, the. armed force must be destroyed and the population must be expelled outside the borders of the state.”
        http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm

        Benny Morris:
        “”From April 1948, Ben-Gurion is projecting a message of transfer. There is no explicit order of his in writing, there is no orderly comprehensive policy, but there is an atmosphere of [population] transfer. The transfer idea is in the air. The entire leadership understands that this is the idea. The officer corps understands what is required of them. Under Ben-Gurion, a consensus of transfer is created.” ”
        https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262454

  15. Brewer on July 21, 2019, 5:02 pm

    Truly pathetic response replete with blatant falsehood.
    “Population transfer, in the early 20th century, was an acceptable concept”
    Were we to accept this infantile “Tommy did it too” argument we would be forced to the conclusion that the propounders were unable to discern that expelling an indigenous population is illegal and immoral – per se.
    We would then encounter great difficulty in condemning the National Socialist drive to expel Jews from Germany.
    Essentially, this argument is: “They didn’t know it was wrong”.
    This is a blatant falsehood. Many contemporary Jewish and non-Jewish writers recorded their dissent.
    “Yet what do our brethren do in Palestine? Just the very opposite! Serfs they were in the lands of the diaspora and suddenly they find themselves in freedom, and this change has awakened in them an inclination to despotism. They treat the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, deprive them of their rights, offend them without cause, and even boast of these deeds; and nobody among us opposes this despicable and dangerous inclination”
    – Ahad Ha-am, (1891)
    “There is. . . a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having 52 souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews; so we must be prepared…..to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did..”
    – Israel Zangwill, 1904.
    “idealistic Zionists are quite willing to ignore the rights of the vast majority of the non-Jewish population in Palestine….but whether tribalism triumphs or not, it is none the less evil, and thinking men should reject it as such.”
    – Morris Cohen 1919.
    ” . . we protest against the political segregation of the Jews and the re-establishment in Palestine of a distinctively Jewish State as utterly opposed to the principles of democracy”
    – 1919 petition signed by 31 prominent American Jews. These included Henry Morgenthau, Sr., Simon W. Rosendale, Mayor L. H. Kampner of Galveston, Texas; E. M. Baker, Jesse I. Straus; Adolph S. Ochs; and Judge M. C. Sloss.

    • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 7:16 pm

      Brewer: “Were we to accept this infantile “Tommy did it too” argument …”

      Is there anything else to expect from Zionists but infantile behaviour? Point to Israel’s crime and they point to someone else who does the same or worse. That’s their kindergarden mental state.

  16. Jackdaw on July 21, 2019, 5:07 pm

    “And the expulsion of the Palestians actually happened and is still going on.”

    In 1948, there were 110,000 Palestinians living in the newly found State of Israel.
    From that 110,000, grew upwards of 1,500,000 Palestinians now living in the State of Israel.
    Someone needs to tell them that the expulsion is still going on.

    Plan D was an improvised, constrained battle plan to empty hostile Arab villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor.

    Yes, it was used to justify some ethnic cleansing of Arab villages, mainly in the North. It was never intended to be a political plan. It was intended to be a military plan only.
    Sorry.

    “Irrrelevant. Palestinian refugees are a present reality.”

    @Talk-talk.

    Sorry, but you don’t get to decide the relevance of the dispossession of 500,000 Jewish refugees from their homes and property.

    The Palestinians lost the civil war that the started by attacking the Jews in December 1947.

    The Arab States tried to come to the aid of their Palestinian brethren, but the Arab States failed in their efforts too. The Arab States failed to defeat the Zionists locked in the civil war in Palestine, so they Arab States vented their wrath on their Jewish citizens.

    But for the Palestinians starting a civil war against the Jews, the Arab States wouldn’t have intervened, lost, and taken their failures out on their Jewish citizens.

    • Talkback on July 21, 2019, 7:08 pm

      Jackdaw: “In 1948, there were 110,000 Palestinians living in the newly found State of Israel.
      From that 110,000, grew upwards of 1,500,000 Palestinians now living in the State of Israel.
      Someone needs to tell them that the expulsion is still going on.”

      What a stupid argument. It tells us nothing about the numbers of those whose resdidential status was revoked in Jerusalem or of those who were expelled from occupied territories.
      And Plan Daleth was the blue print for systematic expulsion, The other expulsions may have been sporadic.

      Jackdaw: “@Talk-talk.”

      @infantile Zionist

      Jackdaw: “Sorry, but you don’t get to decide the relevance of the dispossession of 500,000 Jewish refugees from their homes and property.”

      That was my answer to a different paragraph:
      “BTW, a de facto population transfer occurred during the partition of India, post Nazi era. Millions moved, hundreds of thousands were murdered in the process. This happened contemporaneous to Israel’s War of Independence, but now, no one seems to care anymore. It’s ‘history’. ”

      You don’t get to decide what’s history either when Palestinians are still expelled and their houses and whole villages demolished by racist scum bags.

      Jackdaw: “The Palestinians lost the civil war that the started by attacking the Jews in December 1947.”

      The war started with the mandate the Zionists declared intention to takeover Palestine. Not to mention the systematic Jewish terror campaign in the late 30s.
      Hamas: A Pale Image of the Jewish Irgun And Lehi Gangs
      https://www.wrmea.org/006-may-june/hamas-a-pale-image-of-the-jewish-irgun-and-lehi-gangs.html

      Jackdaw: “… so they Arab States vented their wrath on their Jewish citizens.”

      They did this in reaction to the Jewish wrath, massacre and expulsion of Palestinians.

      So answer this question: Do you actually want to legitimize a crime, because others committed it, too?

    • Brewer on July 21, 2019, 11:36 pm

      ” the dispossession of 500,000 Jewish refugees from their homes and property. ”

      No matter how much you might like to rewrite History Jack, the movement of Jews from Arab states to Israel bear not the slightest resemblance to the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. I do not believe there is even one recorded instance of eviction at gunpoint, massacre or rape such as is well documented in Palestine.
      In fact it was Yishuv policy to create conditions forcing Jews to migrate to Israel:

      “At a meeting in July 1943 of the Central Committee of Mapai, the dominant party in the Yishuv (and forerunner of the Labor Party), one speaker put it this way: “we can define our role with regard to this Jewry in one sentence: Zionist conquest of these diaspora communities in order to liquidate them and transfer them to the Land of Israel…
      …Following the freeze of the Jews’ assets in Iraq, the government of Israel turned that private capital into national capital. Invoking that property, the government put forward arguments and ideas for trade-offs and jurudical claims.109 The Jews of Iraq became hostages-and a fig leaf-of the Israeli government in its efforts to divest itself of responsibility for compensating the Palestinian refugees. Indeed, declarations voiced by Israel, combined with the registration of property carried out by various committees and the activity of the emissaries, created the impression that it intended to compensate the Iraqi Jews. The warnings against the consequences likely to ensue from such compensation are contained in internal documents of Israeli government ministries.”

      I recommend close reading of Shenhav’s essay:
      http://people.socsci.tau.ac.il/mu/yshenhav/files/2013/07/The-Jews-of-Iraq-Zionist-Ideology-and-the-Property-of-the-Palestinian-Refugees-of-1948.pdf
      A simplified version here:
      http://www.dangoor.com/70006.html

      Others were more direct:
      “I write this article for the same reason I wrote my book:
      to tell the American people, and especially American Jews, that Jews from Islamic lands did not emigrate willingly to Israel; that, to force them to leave, Jews killed Jews; and that, to buy time to confiscate ever more Arab lands, Jews on numerous occasions rejected genuine peace initiatives from their Arab neighbors.
      I write about what the first prime minister of Israel called “cruel Zionism.”
      I write about it because I was part of it.”
      – Naeim Giladi, a Jew from Iraq
      http://www.inminds.co.uk/jews-of-iraq.html

      ” The WOJAC figure who came up with the idea of “Jewish refugees” was Yaakov Meron, head of the Justice Ministry’s Arab legal affairs department. Meron propounded the most radical thesis ever devised concerning the history of Jews in Arab lands. He claimed Jews were expelled from Arab countries under policies enacted in concert with Palestinian leaders – and he termed these policies “ethnic cleansing.” Vehemently opposing the dramatic Zionist narrative, Meron claimed that Zionism had relied on romantic, borrowed phrases (“Magic Carpet,” “Operation Ezra and Nehemiah”) in the description of Mizrahi immigration waves to conceal the “fact” that Jewish migration was the result of “Arab expulsion policy.” In a bid to complete the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews, WOJAC publicists claimed that the Mizrahi immigrants lived in refugee camps in Israel during the 1950s (i.e., ma’abarot or transit camps), just like the Palestinian refugees.

      The organization’s claims infuriated many Mizrahi Israelis who defined themselves as Zionists. As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”

      Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

      In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”

      The opposition was so vociferous that Ora Schweitzer, chair of WOJAC’s political department, asked the organization’s secretariat to end its campaign. She reported that members of Strasburg’s Jewish community were so offended that they threatened to boycott organization meetings should the topic of “Sephardi Jews as refugees” ever come up again. Such remonstration precisely predicted the failure of the current organization, Justice for Jews from Arab Countries to inspire enthusiasm for its efforts. ”
      https://www.haaretz.com/1.5361803

      I was five years old in 1950 when my family reluctantly moved from Baghdad to Ramat Gan. We were Arab Jews, we spoke Arabic, our roots went back to the Babylonian exile two and a half millennia ago and my parents did not have the slightest sympathy with Zionism. We were not persecuted but opted to leave because we felt insecure. So, unlike the Palestinians who were driven out of their homes, we were not refugees in the proper sense of the word. But we were truly victims of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
      – Avi Shlaim

  17. Jackdaw on July 22, 2019, 1:59 am

    @back talk

    “Not to mention the systematic Jewish terror campaign in the late 30s.”

    “Do you actually want to legitimize a crime, because others committed it, too?”

    Self defense is not a crime.

    The Arabs drew first blood, and the Jews showed restraint, ‘havlagah’, for almost two decades. But the Great Arab Revolt had degenerated into, in Colin Shindler’s words, ‘internecine Arab violence and nihilist attacks on Jews’.

    From 29 October to 11 November, 21 attacks were made against British police and Jews, 5 with bombs, resulting in 11 murders, many of the dead being Jews.

    In response to this mindless killing of Jews by Arabs, and in particular, the killing of rabbi Eliezer Gerstein while he was en route to pray at the Western Wall, in July, 1938, the Jewish policy of self-restraint ended, and a program of aggressive, tit-for-tat violent retribution began. i.e. ‘Black Sunday’.

    The Arabs reaction to Black Sunday was to ‘doubled-down’ on terror violence and they commited the Tiberius Massacre.

    That’s the massacre where the nursery school babies were stabbed and burned (alive?) with gasoline.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_Tiberias_massacre

    • Talkback on July 22, 2019, 10:56 am

      @Zionist infantile

      Jackdaw: “Self defense is not a crime.”

      Since when is Jewish terrorism, expulsion of the Palestinaians or the violence of Jewish settler colonialism eitgher commited by Zionists or on their behalf in any part of Palestine “self defense”? Did Israel in 1948 exist before Palestine during mandate times?

      Jackdaw: “The Arabs drew first blood, …”

      This is rich. Everything was running splendid for the Zionists at first. Great Britain occupied Palestine and volently implemented a mandate that enabled jewish settler colonialism. Everything on behalf of the Zionists who let Great Britain do the bloody job for them besides the Jews under Jabotinsky who created a Jewish legion to fight against the Ottoman Empire for the very same reason. But that’s irrelevant, because “Arab drew first blood”.

      Now when Britain suddenly changed their policy in 1930 and stopped Jewish immigration Palestine was suddenly facing Jewish terrorism which was ideologically based on Revisionist Zionism founded by the very same Jabotinsky. But that’s irrelevant, because “Arab drew first blood”.

      Who cares that Great Britain reported that every Arab riot was a reaction to Zionist provocations. Not to mention as a reaction to their intended goal to take over Palestine. No, they Zioinsts are the victims of the reaction to their settler colonialism which was violently implemented on their behalf. But that’s irrelevant, because “Arab drew first blood”.

      And who remembers that Ben Gurion proposed to the UN in 1947 to put Palestine under a Jewish mandate and delay its independence until Jews are a majority? When asked what if he would do against Arab restistinng this plan he simply claimed that he would resort to violence if the UN accepted his proposal. Is anybody surprised that Jews resorted to violence to implement the plan that the UN actually rcommended in 1947? But that’s irrelevant, because “Arabs drew first blood”.

      When the partition plan was put on ice in March 1948, because of the violence in Palestine and the Security Council in April 1948 asked both parties to abstain from procaming statehood the Zionists started their Operations under Plan Daleth beyond the recommended borders of the partition plan which they allegedly accepted. Jewish terrorism, massacres and expulsion became sanctioned and systematic, Any sort of violence including rape was used against anyone who stood in the way of creating a Jewish state and acquire its territory through war. But that’s irrelevant, because “Arabs drew first blood”.

      When the US proposed a truce at the end of April 1948 and the Arabs accepted if not only they, but also the Jews followed the Security Council resolution and don’t declare statehood the Jews rejected, because by then they know that they could go to war full scale.

      ” […] U.S. officials there faced the Jewish Agency’s rejection of a truce as well as a trusteeship arrangement to replace what the State Department and the White House conceded to be the failure of the partition plan.

      In evaluating the situation, Robert McClintock, a special assistant to Dean Rusk, then director of the Office of UN Affairs, deliberated over the implications of these developments. It may well be, he speculated, that Washington would soon be confronted with a situation created by Jewish military forces, including the Haganah, the Stern Gang and Irgun, in which it would have to determine whether a

      ‘Jewish armed attack on Arab communities in Palestine is legitimate or whether it constitutes such a threat to international peace and security as to call for coercive measures by the Security Council.’15

      Washington would face what McClintock called an “anomalous situation,” in which

      ‘the Jews will be the actual aggressors against the Arabs. However, the Jews will claim that they are merely defending the boundaries of a state which were traced by the UN and approved, at least in principle, by two-thirds of the UN membership.'”
      http://mepc.org/journal/middle-east-policy-archives/us-policy-israel/palestine-1948?print

      But that’s irrelevant, because “Arabs drew first blood”.

      Which means that Paletstinians are not allowed to defend their territory against Jewish settler colonialism. In no part of Palestine. That’s of course totally different when Jews shoot Palestinian childrens in the head and call this “self defense” while protecting the illegal settlements and the illegal presence of settlers (which means that they are criminals, except their children) and denying the Palestinans their right to self determination for more than half a century which is terrorism in itself.

      But that’s irrelevant, because “Arabs drew first blood”.

  18. Ossinev on July 22, 2019, 1:05 pm

    @jackanory
    “Self defense is not a crime”

    Would that be the Zio definition of “self defence” or the real world definition:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense

    In your warped Zio polluted mind no doubt the gang rapers in Cyprus were simply exercising “self defence” because they were in their poor innocent eternally victimised minds being teased by their “aggressive victim” who was effectively a “terrorist”.

    And of course the unarmed families who resist the 3.00 am incursions into their homes in the Occupied Territories are not defending themselves against braindead IDF thugs. They are committing acts of “terrorism”.

    Putrid.

    • Talkback on July 22, 2019, 3:15 pm

      There are strange living beings existing inside the Zionist nebulae that even think that attacking occupation forces is “terrorism”. But I can’t tell if they learned this from Goebels or someone else.

Leave a Reply