10 comments for ”Nakba: Why did Israeli historians whitewash an artillery attack?“

    
  1. Morris is such a weird fella, after becoming a born-again Zionist he must be torn about his earlier work.

  2. 
  3. I’m probably too young, but I don’t remember Morris ever not being a racist, colonialist SOB. Was there really a time when he was left-wing? AFAIK his only sin in the eyes of the right was that he was being honest about expelling the Palestinians, right? His position is “Damn right we expelled them, and we should have expelled even more!”, isn’t it?

  4. 
  5. “Survival of the Fittest ?”
    An interview with Benny Morris by Ari Shavit from Haaretz.
    Disturbing peronality. Disgusting, rather …
    http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html

  6. 
  7. the armies invaded israel in 1948, but a civil war began much earlier that killed over 1,000 israelis.

    it is comical to see what is truly irrelevant events constantly hang over israel’s neck. deir yassin or whatever? seriously?

    the arabs chose war and they loss. massacres happen in civil wars. israel’s war was relatively bloodless compared to say…syria, iraq, lebanon, etc.

    and dont even get me started on the millions killed in post-WWII european conflicts.

    talk about a bloodbath.

    but the world has moved on.

  8. 
  9. Abban, comical???
    I tried to laugh about 10,000+60,000 deaths, no luck, my sense of humor must be different.

  10. 
  11. what are you laughing about?

  12. 
  13. Abban, there are rich resources available to web-literate, you can look up the meaning of “comical” (it is connected to “laugh”), and “irrelevant” etc.

    The other concept you may familiarize yourself is “choice”. It has temporal implications. I guess I should use simpler language. You cannot choose something to happen (like start of a war) AFTER that happened. So dates are important when we try to figure out who chose a war.

    Middle school graduates should have necessary background to follow our discussion, but we all know a large gap with what kids should learn and what they do learn.

  14. 
  15. English translation of Fogelman’s article:
    http://www.haaretz.com/weekend/magazine/port-in-a-storm-1.365729

  16. 
  17. I think this article, and the facts, support the mainstream Zionist narrative of the events in 1948 over the revisionist Naqba version. Two thirds of the Arabs that left Haifa, left before the shelling. Obviously, they didn’t leave because of it because it hadn’t happened yet. Of those that left after the shelling, some left because of it and others left because of the fear they would be considered traitors by the Arabs if they stayed. It does not address at all how some Arabs managed to stay as in Wadi Nisnas. The fact they did seems to me to be prima facie evidence that there was not a policy of expulsion in Haifa as Morris has argued – not that I worry that the facts will disturb those who are ideologically invested in everything being the Zionists’ fault.

  18. 
  19. Gil, the facts are absolutely against the mainstream Zionist narrative unless the mainstream Zionist narrative portrays the Haganah and the Irgun as militias that use terrorist tactics. Before the indiscriminate shelling by the Haganah, there were legitimate reasons for the Arabs to flee Haifa. Included in those reasons are the Irgun’s terrorism and the Balad al-Shaykh massacre perpetrated by the Haganah’s Palmach.



Leave a comment