Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support -- click here to help us keep going

Analysis News

WATCH: A new look at the massacre of Deir Yassin

On the night of April 9, 1948, over 100 men, women, children and elderly Palestinians were killed in Deir Yassin during an operation by Israeli underground militias. In contrast to the Palestinian narrative, which claims that the massacre was motivated by hatred and vengeance, the Isralei narrative describes another of the necessary battles of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. But recent, other voices in Israel are coming out — voices that raise many questions about the historical truth behind the story of Deir Yassin. Recently, ‘Zochrot’ organized a tour to the village that included meetings with village residents and relatives of the Israeli combatants.

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • COMMENTS

    1. Dima

      Hey 972mag, how long are you willing to tolerate such racist slurs by “The Trespasser” on your website?

      »Well, since “non-Whites” invested about 0.001% in modern science and culture, I would not call it “racism”«

      »Since you won’t be able to prove that entire modern civilization was not created by Whites (including Ashkenazi Jews), G-d is unlikely to curse me for telling the truth.«

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        “Hey 972mag, how long are you willing to tolerate such racist slurs … ”

        I love the smell of selective outrage in the morning.

        :)

        Reply to Comment
    2. XYZ

      Interesting how incidents like this (for arguments sake, let’s say for the sake of argument it was a bloodthirsty massacre by the ETZEL and LEHI) have ocurred many, many times in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Algeria and other places in the Middle East with Muslims butchering their brother Muslims and it isn’t even worthy of comment. In fact these things are happening today in Syria, yet I don’t see this Zochrot people caring about it.
      In fact, closer to home, Palestinian suicide bombers went into synagogue couryards and killed dozens of women and children and those who perpertrated these things are higly honored people in Palestinian socity and their regime names parks and streets after them. So I have to ask myself that, if indeed Deir Yassin was indeed an act of the same sort (something I am not necessarily admitting), why, as a Jew and an Israeli am I suppposed to feel extra shame about it, if Arabs don’t feel a parallel shame about the atrocities their people commit? Are we Jews supposed to be better than them or something?

      Reply to Comment
      • andrew r

        I think the question you really want to ask is, why should you feel remorse about the massacres perpetrated by Israelis when it results in them getting the very Jewish state they want. People who do evil deeds to get what they want tend to rationalize the victims as deserving it, as you’re doing here.

        Reply to Comment
        • andrew r

          P.S. By your logic it’s not a big deal when Americans are killed by terrorists because 650,000 of them were killed by each other during the US civil war. And when the Madrid bombings happened, I’m sure no one brought up the Spanish civil war. You write these things about Arabs because you happen to have a vested interest in killing those who possess land you want.

          Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            “P.S. By your logic … ”

            You are a sad case Andrew. You have NO logic …

            American civil war happened in 1861. You cannot undo the past.

            Spanish civil war happened happened 1936. You cannot undo the past.

            Syrian civil war is happening NOW!

            Ergo we should not ignore it now and INSTEAD, JUST talk about much lesser evils that are happening in Israel NOW and evils that are not only evils perpetrated by Jews but evils that are perpetrated by Arabs in the context of a war that the Arabs started against Jews 100 years ago and still insist on perpetrating TODAY.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            If you want intelligent discussion on Syria, try here
            http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=2831
            http://www.thenorthstar.info/?p=5090

            “All throughout this time many leftist sources in the West argued that assisting the rebels would ‘militarise’ the situation, to the eventual gain of the imperialist powers, and that the best recourse lay in the ‘third way’, offering ‘support’ for the ongoing strikes and protests but opposing any military move that might make use of Western assistance. (‘Support’ here did not mean physical assistance through arms, logistics or equipment, but general solidarity — benign wishful thinking to boost the protestors’ cause. But this kind of support is not much use against tank shells; instead, it is a strange kind of solidarity that, in practice, is near indistinguishable from actual indifference.)”

            “American civil war happened in 1861. You cannot undo the past.”

            I’m hearing this from someone who thinks Jews have been in exile for 2000 years. Partition didn’t work in Palestine but it seems to take hold in the brains of Zionists.

            Reply to Comment
          • Shmuel

            SHMUEL:“American civil war happened in 1861. You cannot undo the past.”
            ANDREW:”I’m hearing this from someone who thinks Jews have been in exile for 2000 years. Partition didn’t work in Palestine but it seems to take hold in the brains of Zionists.”

            And your point is …… drum roll …… drum roll …. drum rollllllll ….. ?

            You might be surprised to know that THIS Zionist, me, moi, I does not think that what happened to us 2000 years ago can be undone. And not even what happened to us between 1940 and 1944 in Europe, that cannot be undone either.

            I tell you though what we CAN make sure though, Andrew my dearest, we can make sure that it won’t ever happen to us ever again. Kapish?

            Reply to Comment
    3. rsgengland

      Ilan Pappe managed to whisper it, that it is now accepted 93 Arabs died in Deir Yassin.
      Deir Yassin was a village on the approach road to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv and was part of the Arab attempts to Starve Jewish Jerusalem by preventing food and other supplies from reaching the city, by ambushing the food convoys as they passed.
      This week over 1000 trucks of goods arrived in Gaza.
      In 1948 the Arabs attempted to prevent any supplies getting through to Jerusalem.
      When talking of Deir Yassin, never forget the Hadassah massacre that occured 4 days later.
      The Arabs massacred 78 Jewish doctors, Jewish nurses, Jewish patients and Jewish workers on the way to the hospital on the 13th April 1948.
      A lot of Anti-Israelis try to ignore this event as it does not quite fit their agenda.

      Reply to Comment
      • War is destruction well distributed. In 46-49 no one held a monopoly of destruction as agent or target. Perhaps the point of Deir Yassin is that death was on both sides. Admitting that, perhaps you can approach the state of Arab Israeli citizens a bit differently. It is not a matter of declaring good guy and bad guy, but moving towards a constitution which fulfills the promise of your Declaration of Independence. At Independence, that promise was untenable; now, I submit, objectively it is tenable. Instead of counting corpses, make the Declaration real.

        Reply to Comment
      • Richard Lightbown

        Deir Yassin was not on the approach road to Jerusalem. That road was over the hill out of sight of the village. So that excuse does not wash.

        1000 trucks for 1.6 million people for a week. Equals 2.2 kilos per person for everything including food, fuel, raw materials, building materials, spare parts…Is that how much you live on? (Cos I doubt it. But you could try to do it for a week if you think that the population of Gaza is not really suffering.)

        By the way how many truckloads of goods LEFT Gaza this week? Please don’t forget to answer.

        And your point about Hadassah is? Are you trying to say that Deir Yassin was not a war crime because a Jewish medical team was wiped out 4 days after Deir Yassin? Weren’t they both acts of barbarity or should we just forget all about it because there some sort of parity?

        Me, I don’t think retribution is the way forward. I think truth and reconciliation will bear sweeter fruit. Because I think there has been enough hatred and it’s time to call a halt.

        Reply to Comment
        • The Trespasser

          >Deir Yassin was not on the approach road to Jerusalem. That road was over the hill out of sight of the village. So that excuse does not wash.

          Idiotic. Just idiotic. By your logic only if a settlement of any kind is located within immediate vicinity of a strategic object, it could be used in warfare.

          >1000 trucks for 1.6 million people for a week. Equals 2.2 kilos per person for everything including food, fuel, raw materials, building materials, spare parts…Is that how much you live on?

          Well, he/she haven’t elected a terrorist organization for government, you know.

          By the way, you’ve conveniently forgotten about the tunnels to Egypt.

          >Cos I doubt it. But you could try to do it for a week if you think that the population of Gaza is not really suffering.

          Hamas is still in power. Apparently, Gazans are suffering not that much.

          >By the way how many truckloads of goods LEFT Gaza this week? Please don’t forget to answer.

          None should left. Entities ruled by terrorist organizations should not have right to trade internationally.

          Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            Trep: Haven’t read your post. Don’t intend to, but I disagree with every word of it.

            Reply to Comment
          • TheTrespasser

            Even if you’d read it, you would not understand, and even if you would understand – it would not matter at all, so spare me.

            p.s. Idiots normally could not quite accept the fact that they are just that – idiots.

            Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            I shall neither read nor comment on this post.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            ” .. if it’s on land we want ….”

            Another stupid selective argument by Andrew. Let us look at the issue of land in the land that was called Palestine at that time, in a sober factual way:

            1. Both Jews and Arabs lived in Palestine and both peoples had legitimate reasons to get land.

            2. Both Jews and Arabs wanted all the land.

            3. The Jews, most Jews anyway, recognised that they could not get all the land unless they would be willing to fight a long bloody war against all the Arab people. So most Jews were willing to recognise that they would have to compromise on land. Hence, the Yishuv, under the leadership of Ben Gurion, accepted UN resolution 181, the two state solution.

            4. The Arabs on the other hand felt supremely confident that with the help of neighbouring Arab countries, their superior numbers and established armies of Arab neighbours, they would defeat the Jews. Therefore they were not willing to compromise, they rejected UN resolution 181 and continued to claim all the land.

            Consequently, all bets were off as far as the Jews were concerned. They were forced into a war they did not want by the Arabs, so the Jews too felt entitled to grab additional land, particularily since additional lands ensured more secure and defendible borders.

            And the same truth applies today. So you so called progressives can go and stick your heads where the sun does not shine for all we care. We too have to look after our own welfare and interests, it isn’t just the right of the Arabs to do so. We too have rights.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “Idiotic. Just idiotic. By your logic only if a settlement of any kind is located within immediate vicinity of a strategic object, it could be used in warfare.”

            We know Zionist logic: There’s no distinction between civilian and military target if it’s on land we want. And Deir Yassin honored its side of the agreement not to join the irregulars, showing that making deals with racist invaders isn’t such a wise move.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Is your so called progressive logic superior? The Arabs rejected UN resolution 181, the two state solution. They rioted and launched murderous attacks on the Jewish population of Palestine in 1947. Here look …

            http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/43745920

            Deir Yassin was located on a strategic location which controlled access to West Jerusalem in which thousands of Jews were under siege and were starving. And you expected the Jews to ignore Deir Yassin and allow the Jews of West Jerusalem to starve to death?

            And you dare to call Zionists racists? I tell you what Andrew, so called progressives like you, are the ones who are the racists.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Apparently, the leaders of a certain Jerusalem neighborhood, Givat Shaul, didn’t share your sentiments when they made the non-belligerency agreement with Deir Yassin, which was on 20 Jan. ’48. Two neighboring villages made a pact and the armed Zionist groups broke it in bloody fashion.

            Otherwise, the partition plan was not a compromise, and even if it had been implemented it would not have given the Zionists any additional land over what they acquired during the Ottoman and British periods. It would have been a “Jewish” state in name only. There would have been conflict over the increasingly scarce land as the Zionist govt. takes in more immigrants.

            And of course, Zionist immigration to Palestine was nowhere near the level it was before the British occupation. So you’re being cheeky with this nonsense about them wishing to avoid a long bloody war with all the Arab people. They only wanted to avoid fighting that war by themselves. The Zionist movement would not have succeeded on the level it did before 1948 without military occupation and it was simply incubating until it was feasible to do exactly what they came there to do, make it a demographic-majority area through expulsion.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Awwwww shucks Andrew, you are too sharp for me. You got me with your “leaders of Givat Shaul” argument.

            Nah, just toying with you. The fact is that Jerusalem was under siege, it’s Jewish residents were starving. The siege had to be broken. Deir Yassin helped maintain the siege otherwise why were the Jewish residents of Jerusalem starving? Which bit of that is difficult for you to grasp ….. hmmmmm ….. Andrew?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Looks like I have to resort to cnp Benny Morris again:

            ‘Birth… Revisited’ p. 97

            “In the Jerusalem District, there was widespread and persistent opposition by many villages to taking part in the hostilities; immediate self-interest won out over nationalism. Roving bands of Arab irregulars, sometimes led by ‘Abd al Qadir al Husseini, were fairly regularly turned away, the villagers often refusing to put them up or give them supplies, let alone join in attacks. Al Maliha’s mukhtar, Sheikh ‘Abd al Fatah, had ordered the village militia to fire on any stranger who approached, ‘Jew, Arab, or Englishman’.176 In early January 1948, the inhabitants of Qaluniya chased away an armed band and prevented it from ‘doing anything’.177 Deir Yassin’s inhabitants had a firefight with a
            roving band of irregulars who wanted to use their village as a base to attack west Jerusalem. One villager was killed and the village ‘women burst into cries and screams’.178 Just before 28 January, ‘Abd al Qadir, at the head of a band of 400 armed men, encamped near Deir Yassin. Apparently they tried to recruit villagers. The village elders ‘were opposed’, and the band moved off to Beit Jala.179 Deir Yassin’s mukhtar was summoned by AHC representatives in Jerusalem to be questioned about the village’s relations with the Jews. The mukhtar said that ‘the village and the Jews lived in peace’.180 A fortnight later, on 13 February, an armed band entered Deir Yassin bent on attacking nearby Giv‘at Shaul. ‘The villagers opposed this and the gang’s reaction was to slaughter all the village’s sheep . . .’181 A month later, on 16 March, an AHC delegation composed of two men and (unusually) a woman visited the village and asked that it host a group of Iraqi and Syrian irregulars ‘to guard the site’. The villagers refused and the delegation left empty handed.182 Deir Yassin’s notables registered a similar refusal on 4 April.183 ”

            So if you learned how to read in the past ten minutes, you might gather from the above that Deir Yassin bent over backwards to avoid any conflict with the Yishuv.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Yes Andrew, you are just too sharp for me.

            I mean any “thinking person” would realise that Jerusalem’s besieged Jewish population need not have starved because they had at least one Arab village, Deir Yassin, that was friendly and allowed relief supplies to be delivered to Jerusalem, right Andrew?

            Only in your feverish “progressive” imagination, just joshing. Talking about reading, have you read this?

            http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre

            “the Jewish community at Motza and Jewish traffic on the road to Tel Aviv came under fire from the village. On April 8, Deir Yassin youth took part in the defence of the Arab village of al-Qastal, which the Jews had invaded days earlier: the names of several Deir Yassin residents appeared on a list of wounded compiled by the British Palestine police.[18]”

            How can you explain that Andrew? Hmmmmmm .. ?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            How do I explain that? You’re unceremoniously changing the case against Deir Yassin. First it took part in the siege on Jerusalem, now it deserved to be attacked because a number of villagers took part in defense of another village.

            Either way, Etzel and Lehi wanted to occupy a random village. They didn’t choose Deir Yassin because it had anything to do with the siege.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            No Andrew, I did not change the subject.

            There was the siege of Jerusalem. There was your claim that Deir Yassin’s villagers were peaceful, did not contribute to the siege and that they were just innocent victims.

            But now you are the one who is trying to change the subject after I confronted you with facts that disprove your contentions.

            Go read again what I wrote above.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Fine, I’ll address the “facts”. This is from the book you indirectly cited through wikipedia:

            “On 2 April a lengthy exchange of shooting took place between Deir
            Yassin and the Jewish neighbourhoods of western Jerusalem. In the
            following days the adjacent Jewish community Motza and Jewish traffic
            on the road to Tel Aviv came under fire from the village.”

            This bit supposedly proves that Deir Yassin suddenly turned violent after months of chasing away armed contingents. Does it sound off to you that the villagers would take it on themselves to fire at Yishuv targets when as late as 4 April notables were refusing to quarter soldiers?

            So it’s possible, but still not certain, that Deir Yassin villagers broke the agreement at the 11th hour. What’s not open to debate is that the village spent the whole of Jan-March bending over backwards to stay out of the conflict.

            Either way, Gelber rules out any actions of the villagers as reason for the attack; David Shealtiel, the Jerusalem area commander of the Haganah, was reluctant to agree on the attack and wanted Irgun and Lechi to occupy a village that would be useful to Operation Nachshon.

            http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/05-12-14gelber-palestine-1948-appendix-II-what-happened-in-deir-yassin-english.pdf

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            Great that you at least admit the possibility that there was shooting from Deir Yassin on the Yishuv. I guess even you cannot ignore irrefutable evidence such as the British police records, eh? But you cheekily ask how do I reconcile that to the claims that prior to that the village elders refused to cooperate with the Arab militias.

            The answer of course is simple. There was more than one faction in the village. There were some who sought to stay out of trouble and others, nationalists, who sided with the war mongers.

            So guess what, the village hotheads were the ones who caused trouble. They fired shots at Jewish convoys on the road and at neighbouring Jewish villages. By doing so, they contributed to the ongoing siege of Jerusalem and in effect invited a response from the Yishuv.

            You want a contemporary example as to how this happens even today? Look at the Gaza cease fire. I am fairly sure that Hamas does not want a confrontation with Israel, at least not right now. Yet there are more militant factions in Gaza who just won’t relent. They periodically fire rockets at Israel in spite of Hamas. That seems to be normal behaviour now for Palestinian Arabs as it was then. No single front and no, discipline.

            So back in 1948, while 100,000 Jewish residents were besieged and starving, the Yishuv could not ignore the threat presented from Deir Yassin even if some of the elders may not have been complicit in the siege. End of story.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            As far as evidence goes, I’m not impressed by two sentences phrased in passive voice. Of course, the firing attributed to Deir Yassin could have come from irregulars camped in the area for all we know. Not to mention there’s no details on who started the supposed exchange of fire between the village and West Jerusalem. And your invoking the pattern with Gaza doesn’t hold water. Deir Yassin only had 600 people and it’s a stretch to believe that after following the elders the whole time, some hotheads would do an about-face and make the village a target.

            In Gelber’s appendix, the sentences dealing with the firing from the village have no footnotes. The CID report is first mentioned regarding the villagers who joined the battle at Qastel. And that could not have been a factor in attacking the village since it wasn’t known until after the fact.

            Besides, you only set a low burden of proof that Deir Yassin was a threat because at the end of the day no attack on an Arab target can be unjustifiable. Not if you wanted a Jewish state in Palestine.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            You know what, Andrew? I could not care less whether you are impressed or unimpressed.

            Look at you: you go on about questioning whether there were hot heads in the village who fired on Jewish convoys, from the village. Then you come up with this gem in which you contradict yourself:

            ” The CID report is first mentioned regarding the villagers who joined the battle at Qastel. And that could not have been a factor in attacking the village since it wasn’t known until after the fact.”

            It wasn’t known after the fact? Who cares? That was not the reason why Deir Yassin was attacked. It was attacked because shots were fired from the village of Deir Yassin, on Convoys by hot heads. And the police records clearly demonstrate that Deir Yassin did have hot heads who did the firing.

            “Logic”, Andrew? That is what you talked about in your first post here? Quit while you are behind. it is not exactly your strong point is it?

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            Then cite the police records. Because Yoav Gelber doesn’t.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            P.S. If some of the villagers joined the irregulars at the 11th hour before the attack, that doesn’t contradict my earlier argument. Clearly it was going to happen regardless.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “P.S. If some of the villagers joined the irregulars at the 11th hour before the attack, that doesn’t contradict my earlier argument. Clearly it was going to happen regardless.”

            You have lost the plot Andrew. Either that or more likely, you decided to obfuscate. Since you know that your arguments are flimsy.

            You questioned the authenticity of the British police records which showed that some of the wounded fighters in the battle for Quastel, (which took place before the battle for Deir Yassin), were from Deir Yassin. That shows that there WERE hot heads in Deir Yassin. And that in turn authenticates the claims that those hot heads acted as snipers on passing Jewish traffic on the roads below Deir Yassin well before the attack on the village of Deir Yassin by the Yishuv which was a retaliation for the breaking of the truce by the hot heads of Deir Yassin.

            As usual, you are attempting to invert reality and you are trying to make it appear as if the Jews were the ones to break the truce.

            Reply to Comment
          • andrew r

            “You questioned the authenticity of the British police records which showed that some of the wounded fighters in the battle for Quastel…”

            No, I question if the reports mention shooting from Deir Yassin, period.

            Deir Yassin villagers either fired from the village or they didn’t. Your half-baked theory about “hotheads” notwithstanding. Gelber cited a report to show villagers went to Qastel, but if it didn’t mention sniper fire, that proves nothing more than villagers went to Qastel. If they had stayed in the village that day, Irgun still would have decided to break the agreement. Though it was actually a Haganah commander who broke it by signing off on the attack.

            Reply to Comment
          • Arieh

            “Your half-baked theory about “hotheads” notwithstanding. ”

            No Andrew, it isn’t MY half baked THEORY. I gave you a link which mentioned shooting from Deir Yassin on cars travelling from Tel Aviv.

            So here are the facts:

            1. Jerusalem was under siege and it’s Jewish population was starving.

            2. Deir Yassin was on high ground overlooking the road to Jerusalem.

            3. It is an indisputable proven fact that some of Deir Yassin’s residents were active militants.

            So you can dispute the reported shootings from Deir Yassin all you like. But surely you are not going to claim that the Jews of Jerusalem chose to starve even though the village of Deir Yassin did not impede food supplies from coming through? Or are you claiming that the siege of Jerusalem was just a myth made up by Zionists? LOL, I would not put it past you to make such claims. You are really gone … far gone.

            :)

            There is nothing more that I can say to convince you because you believe ONLY your own pre-conceptions. And knowing that, I don’t even want to say anything more to you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Why are you going to look up the police records? Ok then, from now on, you too better cite primary records whenever you quote any statement by any author whom you quote.

            In the meanwhile you can read this:

            “On 2 April a lengthy exchange of shooting took place between Deir Yassin and the Jewish neighbourhoods of western Jerusalem. In the following days the adjacent Jewish community Motza and Jewish traffic on the road to Tel Aviv came under fire from the village. On 8 April, the day before the assault, Deir Yassin youth joined the Arab counterattack on al-Qastel in which Abd al-Qadir al-Husayni was killed. The names of a few Deir Yassin residents appeared in a CID list of Arab wounded who had been evacuated from al-Qastel to hospitals in Jerusalem. Participation of the village’s youth in the battle for al-Qastel was later cited by Deir Yassin refugees themselves (though erroneously), as the reason for the attack.4″

            4 CID daily summary, 9 April 1948, PRO, CO 537/3857; A report of an Arab
            deserter, 29 May 1949, PA.

            http://www.ee.bgu.ac.il/~censor/katz-directory/05-12-14gelber-palestine-1948-appendix-II-what-happened-in-deir-yassin-english.pdf

            Reply to Comment
        • rsgengland

          The point about Hadassah is that it happened 4 days after Deir Yassin, but the those with an agenda leave it out, to one sidedly blacken Israels name. And it was a real massacre.
          The town may not have been directly over the Jerusalem road, but it was close enough to be used by both the local Arab population, and Arab irregulars from other parts of the Middle East, as a staging post for attacks on the food convoys.
          How you make a figure of 2.2 kgs of goods per person from over 1000+ trucks of goods in a week rather baffles me.
          And I did not talk about, or find it relevant, how many trucks left Gaza.
          On UK TV last week there was a program on the weirdest property boom in the world, in Gaza.
          Every picture I have seen of Gaza recently shows a reasonably well fed populace, not suffering in any way from the ravages of disease and hunger.
          Also the Brothers control the Gaza/Egypt border, which seems to be opened for political purposes only.

          Reply to Comment
          • Richard Lightbown

            “And it was a real massacre”. Agreed: so was Deir Yassin, and it was not the only one perpetrated against Palestinians in 1947/8. What is your point?

            “those with an agenda” Is mentioning that 1000+ trucks enter Gaza while considering it irrelevant that goods are not allowed out not an indication of an agenda?

            I have assumed 25 tonnes per truck. You do the maths.

            Curious that your glancing at pictures contradicts reports by WHO, OCHA, UNRWA et al.

            Gisha has already explained who controls Rafah crossing: http://www.gisha.org/userfiles/File/publications/Rafah_Report_Eng.pdf

            Reply to Comment
        • Joel

          No Richard.

          The two massacres are not on par.

          Most of the Arabs killed at Deir Yassin were killed during, not after the fight to control the village. Arabs hid in their homes, hand grenades were thrown into homes indiscriminately and Arabs died. Were some Arabs lined up and shot. Yes, probably a few were. No rapes, no mutilations as per medically trained witnesses.

          Oh Oh. and four Jewish attackers were killed and others wounded by Arab defenders.

          How many Arab attackers died at the Hadassah hospital staffers?
          Zero.

          Reply to Comment
    4. Gretchen Leppke

      Tell me, how am I supposed to read the rest of the article when it is on Facebook or Twitter and I do not have NOR WILL get either of them Some of us still like email and do not spend all our time worrying about pasting up facebook and twitter,

      Reply to Comment
    5. Shmuel

      How does one reconcile the above with admissions by Arabs about how they were told to exaggerate what happened in Deir Yassin? Here read what THEY say what happened and watch the BBC video in which the startling admissions were made ….

      http://www.2nd-thoughts.org/deir_yassin.html

      I hope no one will dispute the credibility of:

      “Dr. Hazem Nusseibeh was a representative of Jordan at the Mixed Armistice Commission and he was Minister of Foreign Affairs.He was also the Permanent Ambassador of Jordan to the UN and has authored several books, including The Ideas of Arab Nationalism, Palestine and the United Nations and A History of Modern Jordan.”

      Reply to Comment
    6. Joel

      Watch the sequesl.’ A New Look at the Hadassah Hospital Convoy Massacre’.

      Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments

    LEAVE A COMMENT

    Name (Required)
    Mail (Required)
    Website
    Free text

© 2010 - 2014 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website empowered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel