Monday, August 17, 2009
Equivalence Shmiquivalence
The 1948 incident at Deir Yassin has constantly been cited by critics of Israel as an example of "moral equivalence". Some have even gone as far as to call it a massacre. I'm sorry, folks, but this is something that I simply cannot allow. First of all, as bad as Deir Yassin was for the Arabs, it was nothing compared to the Arab massacres (real massacres) of Jews at Hebron, Kfar, Etzion, Safad, etc., etc.. It especially paled in comparison to the Arab retaliation for it. Yes, me-buckos, I'm referring to the PLANNED Arab attack on a civilian convoy of doctors, nurses, medical school staff, and patients. All 77 of these folks were flat-out murdered.....................................................................................A secondary problem with the way that people have pointed to this tragedy is the cursory way in which it's been treated. Point number one - Arab snipers were clearly shooting from civilian areas. Point number two - The Irgun forces (who nobody is arguing here were choir boys) allowed for an escape corridor that allowed for at least 200 Arab civilians to escape (not exactly what one would call a "let's massacre 'em" strategy). Point number three - Jewish officials not only apologized for the loss of civilian life, they actually went the whole nine yards and banned these paramilitary groups. Point number four - Arab fighters literally went as far as to dress like women to fool the Jewish attackers (undoubtedly a main reason why so many women perished that day). Point number five - The New York Times, which immediately covered the story, never once used the term, massacre. Point number six - ALL allegations of rape by Jews of Arab women have been totally proven false. And on and on....................................................................................Now, clearly, there were in fact some yahoos involved in this event. There may even have been some murders as well. But in no way, shape, or form can an argument for moral equivalence be made here. I mean, simply the way that the Jews responded to the event (apologizing, disbanding the militias, etc.) - isn't that alone a gigantic distinction; the Arabs purposefully targeting Jewish civilians, their celebrating wildly when they die, etc.?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Yeah, I guess you're right, there aren't two sides to this mess.
Israel has made countless mistakes, miscalculations. But the sad fact is that the Arabs were offered a state in 1937 (The Peel Commission, a deal that would have made Israel a country slightly larger than Luxembourg), 1948, and 2000. And from 1948-1967, Jordan controlled the West Bank and Egypt, Gaza. Not once during those 19 years were the Palestinian Arabs offered a state. Worse yet, the world didn't even give a shit. It's only when the Jews do bad things that people apparently care.
"the Arabs were offered a state "
Showing you have no idea, or at the least a blinding bias concerning the issues and the region.
They aren't "Arabs"
I know of only one other nation to build a wall through farm lands as`Israel has.
Becoming like ones enemy, or captor is a REAL danger and Israel has been on a hard run down that road for a number of decades.
You don't have to agree, but you don't have to be lopsided either.
Palestinians aren't Arabs? You want to read something illuminating, try Mark Twain's travelogue through Western Palestine. He describes it as a land which is virtually empty. The "Arabs" only came to that area because the Jews built it up and offered the "Arabs" jobs. The deal that was offered to the "Arab" population in 1937 was incredibly generous. But it was rejected because it didn't call for an the total elimination of Jews from the region. Have you ever heard of Black September? That was the bloody time of King Hussein's massacre and ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians. Nobody ever cared about that. Arab on Arab violence is just so non-anti-Semetic.
Palestinians aren't Arabs
Damn you're incurious
According to Wikipedia, "Palestinians, also referred to as Palestinian-Arabs".... There's also a web-site, Palestinian-Arabs.com.
Well there you gp, I mean if someone named a web site.
Do you even know who "Arabs" are?
Palestinian people
Calling them "Arabs" is theft of identity
Denying thier prior presence in Palestine, including "Israel" is kust plain wrong and a denial of historical fact.
"Recent genetic evidence has demonstrated that Palestinians as an ethnic group represent modern "descendants of a core population that lived in the area since prehistoric times,"[12][13] largely predating the Arabian Muslim conquest that resulted in their acculturation and the establishment of Arabic as the lingua franca, eventually becoming the sole vernacular of the locals, most of whom would over time also convert to Islam from various prior faiths."
The web-site, Palestinian-Arabs.com, is a pro-Palestinian web-site sponsored and written by Palestinians. I think that you really need to tell them that they're NOT Arabs. The last actual country in Palestine, prior to the Brits ruling it, prior to the Turks ruling it, and prior to the Romans ruling it, was Israel. Jews, in other words.
No I think you need to tell non Arab Palestinians they are Arabs.
Read my links before you twit out on me.
You really aren't as smart as you think you are.
Palestinians are a distinct group, they are not blanket label Arabs and they are as indigenous to Levant. The`Jewish people were never alone in the Palestine they moved into - never.
Mr. Clemens and I are old associates.
The region surely seemed "vacant" from the perspective of an American from his era, but it wasn't - Palestine has been continuously occupied for over 9000 years, and that predates the presence of the Jewish Levites.
Akko is one of the places the Israelites did not drive out the Canaanites who were there before them.
Your statements are purely Zionist.
I was just going to commend you on you're civility. So, you're saying that Israel, prior to the diaspora, was actually occupied Palestine Book One? Yes, there were no doubt some "Palestinians" early on. But there were hundreds of thousands of others who migrated during the Turkish and British occupations. And Mr. Twain was talking about EASTERN Palestine (a land that was essentially swamp land prior to the Jews making it grow). The only human life he saw was an occasional Beduin.
The Peel Commission was in many ways a shitty deal for the Jews. But they took it. They took it because 1) they wanted peace and 2) they (as opposed to the Arabs) recognized that both groups had ancient ties to the land. They were willing to share it. The Arabs? The only thing they wanted to do was kill some more dirty Jews.
You've split this into another topic thread AGAIN.
Not very civil.
I've had enough of dealing with you and your narrow mindedness in "conversation".
So long Will, I won't be back.
I guess I just don't understand the transgression here. Starting a new thread? That's the unpardonable sin? Interesting.
Post a Comment