Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Discussions on the Holocaust and 20th Century War Crimes. Note that Holocaust denial is not allowed. Hosted by David Thompson.
NickA
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 11 Mar 2020 17:01
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by NickA » 14 Jan 2022 05:29

sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
22 Nov 2021 19:13
I have not and would not bring up any political "jewish terrorism" issue
The Wikipedia may use that term - I'd never do so either.
sandeepmukherjee196 wrote:
22 Nov 2021 19:13
post the formation of the state of Israel.
People often fail to recognise just what a cynical and brutal colonialisation this was - the first Polish settlers got off the boat with clubs and guns in Jun 1882 and were discovered to have been killing locals in December of that year. The Rohovot settlement (Rothschild) put one of them on trial (though he was allowed to flee the country).
The settlers own passionately Zionist historians say the same, the settlers were beating and robbing and killing their way across Palestine from the time they arrived:
Morris, Righteous Victims, p.47-48 wrote:Ahad Ha'Am in 1891 warned that the new settlers must behave "cautiously ... [and] act with love and respect" toward Arabs. But the settlers, he wrote, finding themselves in a land "with limitless freedom," as the Turkish authorities were extremely lax, began to exhibit "a tendency to despotism as happens always when a slave turns into a master."[45. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p. 165] Two years later he wrote: "The attitude of the colonists to their tenants and their families is exactly the same as towards their animals:" The settlers appear to have commonly referred to their laborers as "mules," an analogy drawn from the Talmudic comparison between asses and Canaanite slaves.[46 Shapira, Anita. (Heb.) "Land and Power". Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1992. p.90-91]
Attitudes translated into deeds.
Ahad Ha'Am wrote, with perhaps a measure of exaggeration (Morris claims!), that the Zionist colonists "behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, trespass without justification, beat them shamefully without sufficient cause and then boast about it."[47. Ro'i, Ya'akov, in Hebrew, "The Relations between Rehovot and Its Arab Neighbours (1890-1914)" In HaTziyonut, edited by David Karpi, 1980, p.165). See also Be'eri, quoting Hissin, p.74] Rehovot - exceptionally among the colonies - repeatedly issued rulings forbidding the beating of Arabs. In 1898 a settler was fined 39 grush (there were 100 grush to the Turkish pound [TL], which was worth just under £1), about seven days' pay for a laborer, for beating an Arab who, on the instruction of another settler, drove a cart through his vineyard. The following year a settler was fined TL 4 for "cruelly beating" an Arab. Three-quarters of the fine went to the victim; the settler was also ordered to pay hospital costs [48. Ro'i, 1980, 174-76, 199.] Arabs came so to respect the Rehovot judicial committee that they brought before it complaints against Jewish settlers and at least one dispute among themselves.[48. Ro'i, 1980, p.165].
However, none of the above is really recognisable as Zionism terrorism - which really started in 1907:
Hirst, The gun and the Olive Branch. p.149/150, Chapter:MILITARIZATION BEGINS wrote: ... The 'conquest of labour', as the expression itself implies, could not be accomplished without violence.... By 1903, the more perceptive older immigrants had come to the conclusion that 'these Russian Jewish labourers together with the principle of exclusive Jewish Hebrew labour', constituted 'a major factor in arousing the hostility of the Palestinian Arabs'." The process of militarization foreseen by Herzl gradually got under way. In 1907 an organization calling itself Hashomer ('The Guardian') came into being with the task of replacing Arab with Jewish guards on the ground that Jewish property must be protected by Jews.

... The Hashomer constituted the first nucleus of a military force. In 1909 a secret defence organization was created. Yitzhak Ben Zvi, a future President of Israel, was among the founders. His description of the organization's first meeting, which took place in his rooms, is full of forebodings about the future.... "In blood and fire Judea fell, in blood and fire it shall rise again".'33

... The militarization had been preceded by a discussion between two young pioneers in the colony of Sejera. One of them, David, wished to establish a Jewish 'self-defence' organization. The other, Shlomo, opposed this. They had returned, he argued, to the Promised Land in order to lead a peaceful life. If they stirred up the Arabs, there would be no shalom, no peace, ever. David persisted. This was a world in which force and force alone won respect. Shlomo left for Paris. David - David Bengurion - remained.35

Arab attitudes were hardening too. It was a slow and halting process. For the Palestinian leaders had a less developed ideological propensity towards the use of force than their Zionist counterparts. It was alien to their whole outlook as the representatives of a subject people. When, in 1890, the Palestinian elite, in the shape of a group of Jerusalem 'notables', took their first formal initiative in the struggle that was beginning, they did the only lawful thing they could. They protested to their imperial masters, the Sublime Porte in Constantinople. They were thereby exhibiting a deferential instinct which remained with them in gradually diminishing strength, through the remaining years of Ottoman rule, thirty years of the British Mandate, and twenty-five years of their post-1948 Diaspora. They protested at the appointment of a Turkish governor who manifestly favoured the Zionists. The next year, they submitted another petition, which contained two demands: the ending of Jewish immigration and of land purchases. Then, in 1898, Yusuf Zia al-Khalidi made his direct approach to the Zionists. Appeals of this kind had little effect. The Zionists only pretended to listen. The Turks listened - but only fitfully. The Porte would periodically impose restrictions on immigration, only to lift them again under European pressure, or to allow venal officials on the spot to turn a blind eye to the continued defiance of them.

sandeepmukherjee196
Financial supporter
Posts: 1494
Joined: 07 Aug 2014 05:34

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by sandeepmukherjee196 » 14 Jan 2022 18:48

Thanks for this very informative post.
Just goes to show just like there are no villainous or untermensch races, there are no victim races either. It's always about individuals.

Cheers
Sandeep

pugsville
Member
Posts: 932
Joined: 17 Aug 2011 04:40

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by pugsville » 14 Jan 2022 22:42

mikegriffith1 wrote:
12 Oct 2021 10:45
I'll just say this: For every one alleged or real Israeli war crime, there are three or four Arab war crimes against Israelis. As for Deir Yassin, I recommend reading the Jewish Virtual Library's article on the subject:

https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/th ... eir-yassin
Why would anyone turn to propaganda site for information?
mikegriffith1 wrote:
12 Oct 2021 10:45
I think it is also worth remembering that the Palestinians and the Arab nations rejected the 1947 UN partition plan, which would have given the Palestinians control over roughly half of the land of the current state of Israel, including the majority of the most fertile areas. The Palestinians were so confident that their Arab brothers could wipe out the Jews that they rejected the partition plan and welcomed the Arab armies to destroy the Jews. But, much to the Palestinians' shock, the Jews, though heavily outnumbered, defeated the invading Arab armies. The Palestinians were lucky that the Jews did not expel every last one of them for welcoming the Arab invasion and for openly anticipating the destruction of the Jews and the theft of their homes and belongings.
The Jewish forces were never outnumbered (let alone heavily) they always had greater numbers of troops.

The Partition plan gave the most fertile areas (and the most developed) to the Jewish Perpetration. The Partition plan was manifestly unfair. All teh burden of partition was placed of the Arab Palestinians, virtually none of the Jewish population was to to be under Arab rule were vast numbers of the Arab population would be under Jewish rule. The Plan was absolute maximalist solution for the Jewish population, Literal draw the line on the map that includes that most territory that still has a Jewish majority.

No population anywhere on the planet woudl willingly accepted giving half the country to recent immigrants,

The Jewish invasion of the Arab partition been on conquest and ethnic cleansing happened before any Arab Invasion. Deir Yassin happened before any Arab invasion.

The Arab invasion was undertaken for a range of reasons, many of them hostile to any idea of Arab Palestinian independence. Jordanian forces (the best equipped) had strict orders enter to enter the proposed Jewish partition. And they DId not,. They were engaged in conquest of and suppression of the proposed Arab Palestinian state. The Jordanians and the Israelis were competing about who would get which parts of the proposed ARb partition state.

NickA
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 11 Mar 2020 17:01
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by NickA » 15 Jan 2022 12:51

Linkagain wrote:
14 Jan 2022 01:10
The Arab elites did take notice of Jewish Settlements..... 1919 Faisal-Wrizmann agreement in which an Arab Leader did not oppose Jewish Settlment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2 ... _Agreement
That "agreement" was kept secret until 1936 for a very good reason - Faisal had been tricked and bribed and blackmailed into signing something he could never have understood and over which he was immediately cheated.

First of all, Faisal was only any kind of "Arab leader" because he was manipulated by us - and then immediately betrayed by the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq_and_Syria#Early_life wrote:Faisal was born in Mecca ... grew up in Istanbul ... 1913 elected as representative for the city of Jeddah for the Ottoman parliament ... December 1914 Faisal visited Damascus and met with representatives of the Arab secret societies al-Fatat and Al-'Ahd. After visiting Constantinople Faisal returned to Mecca via Damascus where he again met with the Arab secret societies
Faisal helped defeat the Ottoman Empire with Lawrence of Arabia for promises of Arab independence. Only to be further manipulated by the captors of Jerusalem, the British.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq_and_Syria#Participation_in_peace_conference wrote:In 1919 led the Arab delegation to the Paris Peace Conference and, with the support of the knowledgeable and influential Gertrude Bell, argued for the establishment of independent Arab emirates for the predominantly Arab areas previously held by the Ottoman Empire.
But while all knowledgeable Brits in the Middle East wanted peace for the peoples there (under our benign influence of course) the war-weary London government had promised new colonisers a new colony (with other lies and false promises - protect the Suez Canal I hear?) London forced Faisal to sign an immensely dangerous piece of paper:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq_and_Syria#Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement wrote:The agreement was presented to Faisal in his room at the Carlton Hotel [luxury hotel in London] on 3 January in English, which Faisal could not read, and its contents were explained to Faisal by Lawrence as the sole translator.[4] Faisal signed the document in the same meeting, without consulting his advisors awaiting him in a separate room, but added a caveat in Arabic next to his signature,[3] such that Faisal considered the agreement was conditional on Palestine being within the area of Arab independence.[a] The Zionist Organization submitted the Agreement to the Paris Peace Conference without the caveat.[6] Yoav Gelber described the document as "of propaganda value only", since it quickly became clear that Faisal's conditions would not be met.[7]
2 months later Faisal was rewarded for his treachery and put on the throne in Damascus by the Western Powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement#Failure_of_the_Agreement wrote:On 7 March 1920, Faisal was proclaimed King of Arab Kingdom of Syria (Greater Syria).
2 months after that, Faisal made clear that he'd specified that Palestine next door needed to be under a native government, not one of immigrants.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq_and_Syria#Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement wrote:... Following the decisions taken by the San Remo conference in April 1920, on 13 May 1920, Lord Allenby forwarded to the British War Cabinet, a letter from Faisal which stated his opposition to the Balfour proposal to establish a homeland for the Jews in Palestine.[14][15]
Another 2 months and he was deposed by the French.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal_I_of_Iraq_and_Syria#King_of_Syria_and_Iraq wrote:... In April 1920, the San Remo conference gave France the mandate for Syria, which led to the Franco-Syrian War. In the Battle of Maysalun on 24 July 1920, the French were victorious and Faisal was expelled from Syria.
Lastly, to fully put this shocking betrayal and non-agreement to bed, we see this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faisal%E2%80%93Weizmann_Agreement#Disclosure_of_the_agreement wrote:The agreement was first disclosed to the public in 1936.[3] It was noted by UNSCOP that "To many observers at the time, conclusion of the Feisal-Weizmann Agreement promised well for the future co-operation of Arab and Jew in Palestine",[56] and further referring to the 1937 report of the Palestine Royal Commission which noted that "Not once since 1919 had any Arab leader said that co-operation with the Jews was even possible" despite expressed hopes to the contrary by British and Zionist representatives.[57]
This story is hardly secret or controversial and it beggars belief that anyone suggests this agreement signified any kind of "Arab" acceptance of a vast new colonisation. The racist occupation of the best piece of the entire Middle East (directly comparable to California) had been growing in threat and violence since 1882 under the crumbling Ottomans - the British were honorable people, they wouldn't allow something so terrible as this, would they?

NickA
Member
Posts: 50
Joined: 11 Mar 2020 17:01
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by NickA » 16 Jan 2022 19:36

pugsville wrote:
14 Jan 2022 22:42
Why would anyone turn to propaganda site for information?
Good question - I thought denialism was forbidden in here?

Mitchell Baird keeps/kept an expensively produced blog (but with zero "editorial oversight" from anyone). Here it is on Deir Yassin - a pogrom and massacre at least 2.5 bigger than Kishinev, likely 6 or 8 times bigger.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/deir_yassin.html wrote:... Surprisingly, after the "massacre", the Irgun escorted a representative of the Red Cross through the town and held a press conference. The New York Times' subsequent description of the battle was essentially the same as Begin's. The Times said more than 200 Arabs were killed, 40 captured and 70 women and children were released. No hint of a massacre appeared in the report. "Paradoxically, the Jews say about 250 out of 400 village inhabitants [were killed], while Arab survivors say only 110 of 1,000."7 A study by Bir Zeit University, based on discussions with each family from the village, arrived at a figure of 107 Arab civilians dead and 12 wounded, in addition to 13 "fighters," evidence that the number of dead was smaller than claimed and that the village did have troops based there.8 Other Arab sources have subsequently suggested the number may have been even lower.9

After the remaining Arabs feigned surrender and then fired on the Jewish troops, some Jews killed Arab soldiers and civilians indiscriminately. None of the sources specify how many women and children were killed (the Times report said it was about half the victims; their original casualty figure came from the Irgun source), but there were some among the casualties. Any intentional murder of children or women is completely unjustified. At least some of the women who were killed, however, became targets because of men who tried to disguise themselves as women. The Irgun commander reported, for example, that the attackers "found men dressed as women and therefore they began to shoot at women who did not hasten to go down to the place designated for gathering the prisoners."12 Another story was told by a member of the Haganah who overheard a group of Arabs from Deir Yassin who said "the Jews found out that Arab warriors had disguised themselves as women. The Jews searched the women too. One of the people being checked realized he had been caught, took out a pistol and shot the Jewish commander. His friends, crazed with anger, shot in all directions and killed the Arabs in the area."13
Mitchell Baird treats these terrrorists as "soldiers" when its obvious that this had nothing to do with defense - it was everything to do with land-grabbing. Deir Yassin was far outside the borders of Israel and was carried out some 9 weeks before any feeble Arab army moved. A totally unjustified attack on completely innocent (indeed, friendly) people. "Feigned surrender?" From people attacked in the middle of the night? How is that not pure propaganda?
pugsville wrote:
14 Jan 2022 22:42
The Jewish forces were never outnumbered (let alone heavily) they always had greater numbers of troops.
Lets not hear of "Jewish forces" - I have a reputation to protect. I'm not sure about numbers but no Arab army stood any chance. They'd not fought in WW2 and had no conception of tactics or matters military. Never done any shooting practise.
pugsville wrote:
14 Jan 2022 22:42
No population anywhere on the planet woudl willingly accepted giving half the country to recent immigrants,
Of course not. Americans wouldn't accept partition even when carried out by their own fellows, let alone by gun-slinging immigrants.
pugsville wrote:
14 Jan 2022 22:42
The Jewish invasion of the Arab partition been on conquest and ethnic cleansing happened before any Arab Invasion. Deir Yassin happened before any Arab invasion.
Absolutely. The last an especially important point - Deir Yassin was far outside the borders that Israel had asked for and had (not actually) been granted. This was naked aggression, land-grabbing and ethnic cleansing.
pugsville wrote:
14 Jan 2022 22:42
The Arab invasion was undertaken for a range of reasons, many of them hostile to any idea of Arab Palestinian independence. Jordanian forces (the best equipped) had strict orders enter to enter the proposed Jewish partition. And they DId not,.
As you say. King Abdullah of Jordan had agreed to partition almost exactly along the Green Line back in 1937 with David Ben-Gurion. Golda Meir confirmed the plan in March 1948. Jordan - a puppet state of ours - avoided a Palestinian state emerging adjacent to them. Abdullah paid for this treachery with his life, stabbed while visiting the grave of his father in Jerusalem c.1951.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 6669
Joined: 29 Dec 2006 20:11
Location: Poland

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by wm » 16 Jan 2022 22:05

Feigning surrender is a war crime, and one of the most serious.

Von Schadewald
Member
Posts: 2022
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 23:17
Location: Israel

Re: Israeli war crimes during the ME conflict

Post by Von Schadewald » 25 Jan 2022 12:17

Is there a case of a train full of Arab passengers allegedly all massacred by Israelis, pre-1950?


Return to “Holocaust & 20th Century War Crimes”