+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

After indicting Hamas, Netanyahu declares war on all Palestinians

From arrests to home invasions to airstrikes, the repercussions of Bibi’s finger pointing are being felt throughout the West Bank and Gaza.

Reports surfaced yesterday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is considering “expelling” Hamas leaders from the West Bank, ostensibly as punishment for the alleged kidnapping of three Jewish teenagers.

The scheme harkens to December 1992, when then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin famously banished 415 Palestinians to what was considered a no-man’s-land just over the Lebanese border. Literally dumped on a hilltop and stateless, these accused members of Hamas and Islamic Jihad set up camp in the harsh winter — and waited.

A Hamas supporter in Gaza City, March 23, 2014. (Basel Yazouri/Activestills.org)

A Hamas supporter in Gaza City, March 23, 2014. (Basel Yazouri/Activestills.org)

Their plight — in an age of faxes, not smartphones — went “viral,” though, becoming front page material and earning Israel yet another Security Council rebuke. And though the sheer length of their exile eventually dimmed interest in the story, those who returned as part of a U.S.-brokered deal were hailed as heroes.

Among them was Ismail Haniyeh.

This time, Haniyeh is already sequestered in Gaza, where he and nearly two million other Palestinians live in what the UN’s former humanitarian coordinator John Holmes called an “open-air prison.” That description, of course, has been rejected by Israeli leaders, but a report today cites their plans to expel Hamas members from the West Bank to Gaza — a fact that, as Yousef Munayyer pointed out, makes plain that Israel already views the strip as a “prison colony.”

Read: Israel’s crackdown moves beyond Hamas militants

In any case, Netanyahu’s threats are as yet a red herring. In an exclusive interview with The Jerusalem Post published today, former Mossad Division Head Rami Igra called Netanyahu’s chest-beating over Hamas “premature,” adding that the prime minister’s accusatory rhetoric was “more political than based on fact.” Igra’s comments come a day after Netanyahu, quoted in The New York Times, said he knew “for a fact” that Hamas carried out the alleged kidnappings.

Israeli soldiers enter the city of Halhul, near Hebron, in a search for the three kidnapped teenagers. (photo: Activestills)

Israeli soldiers enter the city of Halhul, near Hebron, in a search for the three kidnapped teenagers. (photo: Activestills)

Never mind that all of this is playing out against the backdrop of Iraq’s unraveling — prompted, of course, by a war based on another unsubstantiated “fact.” What matters now is that Netanyahu has used his Hamas indictment to effectively declare war on all Palestinians, and the repercussions are being felt throughout the West Bank and Gaza. Dozens have been abducted by Israel’s occupying military, home invasions are ongoing, and Gaza has endured two consecutive nights of airstrikes.

Meanwhile, neither the yeshiva students nor the victims of Netanyahu’s virulent politics are any safer. Among the latter is the Israeli public, which seems to have forgotten that their three compatriots went missing in the so-called “Area C” — the 62 percent of the West Bank over which the Palestinian Authority has no authority whatsoever. The lesson, it seems clear, is that military occupation — these days at full, fanatical tilt — can no sooner bring security than protect three Jewish teenagers.

Read more on the West Bank kidnapping:
Matar: Israel’s crackdown moves beyond Hamas militants
Sheizaf: Reward activism and diplomacy, not violence
Derfner: The kidnapping is indefensible – but Israel helped provoke it
Zonszein: Israelis aren’t the only ones facing national tragedy

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Bar

      Yeah, the air strikes on Gaza are a response to rockets being fired into Israel. Let’s not pretend it’s part of the kidnapping issue.

      What’s interesting is how much complaining about how aggressive the Israelis are being you and other writers are doing, but really all you are proving is how benign the situation is virtually all of the rest of the time and that your constant complaints about the brutal occupation are entirely false.

      Let’s see, since Israel has began this fanatical, inhuman war on the Palestinians the day after the kids were kidnapped, one Palestinian has died, during a fight with Israeli forces, and 200 Palestinians have been arrested.

      This is it? I think the police in Chicago are more brutal.

      Reply to Comment
      • Weiss

        That’s because you are a SADIST, and are incapable of empathy…

        Reply to Comment
        • Bar

          Me? A sadist?

          I abhor the violence in Chicago.

          As for Israel, I’m one of the few people on this site, whether writer or commenter, who supports a two state solution that respects the needs and traditions of both sides.

          Reply to Comment
        • shachalnur

          The word is sociopath.

          Or Hass Bar.

          Reply to Comment
    2. Reza Lustig

      Your use of the term “benign” is interesting. By your logic, the Red Terror was “benign,” as the body count never exceeded (by Victor Serge’s count) that of a single WWI battle, and was dwarfed by the hell the Belgians had inflicted on the Congolese. To make it even more “benign,” the Russian government was dealing with “terrorists” (i.e. the Whites) who were known to engage in anti-semitic pogroms in areas they controlled. So they “had it coming.”

      Also, I am very sure that most Chicagoans who were on the receiving end of police repression back in the Occupy protests would be ashamed to know that someone, somewhere, is using their suffering to justify “benign” police repression. Scale doesn’t matter; a system that can wrongfully jail 200 people can happily do the same to 20000 later on, if it is for “security purposes.”

      Reply to Comment
      • Bar

        What’s more interesting is that day in and day out this site, Mondoweiss, Electronic Intifada, various other NGOs, UN bodies and countless university groups are busy – and keeping others busy – about the horrendous, brutal, impossible occupation of the Palestinians. As they do this, spilling endless digital ink, they deflect attention from multiple other crises around the world (including, need I mention, many that involve Muslim states and groups) and permit god knows how many poor victims of terror and violence to rot. And then when the situation escalates to a “war on the Palestinians” all the Palestinian propagandist can pull together is a couple of hundred arrests in a “crackdown.”

        Yup. Benign.

        And please, don’t lecture me about Chicago or real victims. While you’re busy attacking Israel, half of the Middle East is burning.

        Reply to Comment
        • Felix Reichert

          Just like those evil Anti-Apartheid activists back in the 80s, when they were also trying to deflect attention from many more horrendous situations and conflicts in other countries, like North Korea, the Iran-Iraq war, the Ugandan Bush war, civil war in Sri Lanka, the Sudanese civil war, the Kurdish rebellion, etc.

          How incredibly irresponsible of them! Pressuring a benign state like Apartheid South Africa. What were they thinking? Those Boer-hating racists!

          Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            Dude, stop deflecting from other countries around the world. Here is an expert of experts, the man who ended South African apartheid, unequivocally stating what we all know: the accusation is a lie.

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/south-africas-de-klerk-israel-not-an-apartheid-state/

            Now, since you care so much about apartheid, there are a few countries that you need to worry about today. So get to it, hypocrite.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            So the majority of Israeli jews, that according to a representative poll, think that Israel is at least in part an apartheid society, are all either liars, dumb, or self-hating jews?

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            What poll shows this? Are you speaking about the poll which Ha’aretz misrepresented and then apologized over (and backtracked on their claim)?

            Reply to Comment
        • Reza Lustig

          As yes, the “Not as bad as” logical fallacy.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Not_as_bad_as

          So, does doing something wrong get automatically forgiven if someone somewhere else does/has done it on a grander scale? Should we posthumously forgive General Suharto for murdering about a million suspected “communists” and waging genocidal war on East Timor because Pol Pot was “worse?” Were the people who protested the murder campaign we and right-wing South American dictators called the “Operation Condor” wasting their time when they should have been more worried about North Korea? Should we just shut our mouths when we know what our governments do is wrong, and just remind ourselves that it’s “not as bad as” XXX?

          And I very much suspect that you know what the Israeli government is doing is indefensible and cynical; why else would you use such a tired old canard as “not as bad as?”

          Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            What are you blabbing about? Pol Pot? In the country next door to Israel over the course of the last 3 years there are more dead and maimed than in 100 years of Arab-Israeli conflict. Not as bad as, indeed.

            It is a sickness that you ignore the tragedies in Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Sudan, Yemen, Eritrea and Ukraine while continuing to focus on Israel. And how evil is Israel? 200 arrests!!! Oh my god!!!

            A sickness. I’d tell you to go see a doctor, but you share this sickness with countless others.

            Reply to Comment
          • Reza Lustig

            You’ve missed my point again. Probably intentionally.

            What is going on in Syria neither justifies use of a kidnapping as a pretext for police repression, nor does it absolve everyone else who is more “benign.” Just like it says at the top of the article I linked to: “To be good, it is not enough to be better than the worst.”

            Believe me, in terms of mainstream reporting on the Middle East, Syria has been front and center (rightfully) for quite some time, and most people (including a majority of Palestinians, believe it or not) know that Assad is a murderer and a tyrant. It’s still morally bankrupt to claim innocence for something you have done by accusing someone else of doing something worse. Scale doesn’t matter.

            And if you really care about the Syrian people as you claim to (and are not just cynically citing their suffering as a feeble justification for Israeli abuses), then why not DO something about it instead of wasting time trolling on this website?

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            Trolling? My comments are always substantive and to the point. They piss you off apparently.

            As for Syria, why are you turning the tables on me? I’m not the one being hypocritical about Israel while ignoring the rest of the Middle East. I am paying close attention to the rest of the Middle East and their authoritarian, brutal regimes are teaching me how important it is for Israel to be effective from a security standpoint.

            Reply to Comment
          • Reza Lustig

            Your comments about Syria are a non-sequitur; this is an article about Israel. You want to talk about Syria or Ukraine, go to a website devoted to them and comment there.

            And I’m still waiting for a substantive defense of Israel using the kidnapping as an excuse for a mass arrest of civilians. One that doesn’t involve “but look at what’s going on in XXX.” I don’t think I’ll ever get one, though.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            There’s nothing to defend. “Mass arrests?” Big deal. They’ve arrested a couple of hundred people and that’s somehow bad? Wat intelligence do you have that the Israelis don’t? They may believe that these people have information pertinent to this kidnapping/murder and they are well within their rights to arrest anyone and everyone they think might have information about anything useful to this search.

            And seriously, the bitching and moaning about a couple of hundred arrests is a joke.

            http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting-protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

            Reply to Comment
          • Reza Lustig

            Well, apparently the number of arrests has now risen to 388. Damn near double what it was when you posted that comment. Just so I know, what’s your “number?” How high does the arrest quota have to reach before you consider it “excessive,” or before you start to doubt if the Shin Bet really know what they’re doing?

            “Wat intelligence do you have that the Israelis don’t?”

            How does “good” intelligence lead you to bring in almost 400 people in conjunction with a single kidnapping? This seems more like a really messed up “Round up the Usual Suspects” ploy; more for PR/intimidation than to actually solve a crime.

            Reply to Comment
          • Reza Lustig

            Also, there is a world of difference between the police spontaneously cracking down and picking up people who were all at the same demonstration, and the cops going door to door and picking up everybody who so much as looks at them funny over a matter of days.

            Once again, you do victims of police repression a disservice by using their suffering to relativize the suffering of other victims of police repression.

            Reply to Comment
          • bar

            They’re not picking up people randomly. They are picking up Hamas operatives. They are trying to learn whatever they can about the boys AND they’re doing their utmost to destroy the infrastructure that permitted them to be kidnapped in the first place.

            Also, it doesn’t matter how much you want to disconnect the types of normal policework and arrests made by local police forces from this action, but the fact is that if the Brooklyn police can arrest 700 people in an afternoon, all the moaning you do about the now 400 Hamas operative arrests doesn’t change the fact that it’s not such a large number.

            Reply to Comment
          • Naftali Greenwood

            No, Reza. It’s not the singling out of one alleged abuser to the exclusion of all others. It’s the mantle of false analogies, wild exaggeration, and prejudicial axioms that envelops the anti-Israel rant. It’s the antisemitic fellow-travelers whom this crowd welcomes as its allies. It’s the encouragement given to those who would turn a thriving Western-style democracy into another Syria on false grounds, and who propose that as “justice.” It’s not about Israel; it’s about you.

            Reply to Comment
    3. Tzutzik

      “Those Boer-hating racists!”

      Fuck you, you self righteous little prig, Felix. You are the only racist around here for comparing us to what happened in South Africa.

      Here, swallow the following facts and choke on it, you little hater:

      1. Linda Machola Miss Israel Universe 2012. Half Arab half Russian Christian.

      2. Dr Aziz Darawashe, Director of Emergency Medicine, Hadassah Medical Center Ein Kerem, Arab Muslim.

      3. Dr Masad Barhoum, Director General of Western Galilee hospital, Arab.

      4. Linda Makhoul, chosen by Israeli viewers as 2013 winner of the voice, Arab.

      5. Naim Aradi, Israel’s ambassador to Norway, Druze.

      6. Yiytish Aynow, Miss Israel 2013, Israeli of African descent.

      7. IDF Major General, Yusef Mishleb, Druze.

      8. Professor Ashrab Brik, of Ben Gurion University, winner of Israel’s 2011 outstanding young chemist award, Arab.

      9. Jamal Zahalka, received his BA MA and PHD from Hebrew University. Three term member of Israel’s Knesset (Parliament). Leader of Balad political party. Has described himself as victim of Israeli Apartheid. He has no sense of irony …

      10. Waylaid Badir, Israeli football star. Captain of Hapoel Tel Aviv, Arab.

      11. Mira Awad, actress singer songwriter, represented Israel at the 2009 Eurovision Song Contest. Arab.

      12. Rana Raslan former Miss Israel, Arab.

      13. Majali Wahabi, former deputy speaker of Knesset. Acting president of Israel in 2007. Druze

      14. Reda Mansour, Israeli historian, poet, and one time ambassador to Ecuador, Druze.

      15. Salmi Joubran, Israeli Supreme Court Justice. Arab.

      You want me to go on Felix? Have you choked on your apartheid comparison of us already, you parrot?

      Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        The Apartheid analogy doesn’t come from Israels treatment of Israeli Arabs.

        It comes from Israels treatment of the Palestinians in the West Bank, which it excerts full control over.

        The situation of the Israeli Arabs can be more accurately compared to the situation of Black people in the southern parts of the US during the civil war (1865) and the beginning of the civil rights movement.

        “Segregation” is the key word here.

        Equal rights on paper (well, in Israel not even that, actually), but definitely not in reality.

        You already knew this, of course. So fuck you right back, thank you very much.

        Reply to Comment
        • Felix Reichert

          “…in the southern parts of the US DURING the civil war (1865) and the beginning of the civil rights movement.”

          was of course meant to say:

          “…in the southern parts of the US BETWEEN the civil war (1865) and the beginning of the civil rights movement.”

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “The situation of the Israeli Arabs can be more accurately compared to the situation of Black people in the southern parts of the US during the civil war”

            Wow Felix you are out doing even yourself.

            The black people were rounded up by slave traders, brought to the USA against their will and kept as slaves by the Southern whites.

            How is that the same as the situation in the West Bank? Israel ended up controlling the West Bank after Jordan who controlled the West Bank previously, attacked Israel in 1967.

            Since then, Israel has been trying to negotiate peace deal after peace deal unsuccessfully. In each deal which it offered, Israel was willing to give up most of the West Bank in exchange for peace but the Arabs ignored or rejected each offer. Rejected with violence …

            So please be so kind and justify your stupid analogy Felix. Surely you cannot be this ignorant? I think you are just strident.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “was of course meant to say:

            “…in the southern parts of the US BETWEEN the civil war (1865) and the beginning of the civil rights movement.”

            Even then the analogy does not apply.

            In that period, Black Americans were granted Anerican citizenship. Yet they had no equal rights.

            The West Bank Arabs were never, nor will they ever be Israeli citizens. According to every plan, Israeli, Arab and plans by the international community, they will be citizens of a new Arab Palestine. In the meanwhile, the Arab population are under a military rule pending a peace deal. Their situation is akin to the situations that the German and Japanese populations were after WW2.

            Reply to Comment
        • Elisabeth

          Felix, the majority the people commenting here are fascist to the core and have no decency or empathy.
          I always feel dirtied after visiting this comment site.

          I don’t know what the people of 972mag are thinking… really.
          Read the articles and leave the comments for what they are, until some comment policy is established here.

          Reply to Comment
          • IlonJ

            “I always feel dirtied after visiting this comment site”

            Yes, I can understand that Elisabeth. The lies of the likes of JB and the distorted views of people like Felix can be embarrassing for strident people like you.

            Us “fascists” catch you out all too often and make you look stupid.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Again, you’re obviously intentionally misunderstanding me. Let me explain it to you very, very slowly, and as clearly and simply as I can. So you might have a chance of understanding what I mean.

            It’s actually not that complicated, but since you seem to have some kind of cognitive deficiancy, I’ll try very hard to explain it you in the most simple terms:

            1. The Apartheid analogy comes from Israel’s treatment of Westbank Palestinians (Arab people under Israeli rule WITHOUT Israeli citizenship).

            2. The situation of Israeli Arabs IS NOT comparable to Apartheid (Arab people under Israeli control WITH Israeli citizenship). It is, however, very comparable to US-style Segregation.

            This does not mean that the history of Black people in the US and that of Arab people in Israel is the same.
            It does mean that THE CURRENT SITUATION of Israeli Arabs is very similar to that of black people in the southern parts of the US in the 1940s or 1950s.

            There were black lawyers, politicians and even doctors in the American South during that time. Doesn’t mean that Segregation didn’t exist.

            3. So which analogy do you mean, when youz ask me to justify it?

            Do you mean the “Israeli Arab situation is similar to US-style Segregation” anaolgy, or do you mean the “West Bank Palestinian situation is similar to South African Apartheid” analogy?

            If you clear that up, I’ll gladly answer.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            FELIX:”So which analogy do you mean, when youz ask me to justify it?”

            Excuse me? You mean you gave more than one analogy? Are you playing a percentage game? If one analogy does not work then you resort to the other? To reach your STUPID predetermined conclusion that Israel is guilty of apartheid practices?

            I’ll tell you what my strident friend. Take your best shot. Give me your FAVORITE analogy and I will debunk it for you.

            Else please shut the fuck up!

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            In any case, Felix, I already shot down two of your analogies. Shot them down in flames!

            Your first one, the one which you yourself said oops to, I shot it down.

            The second one in which you compared the treatment of citizens (in America) to the the treatment of non citizens under military rule (in the West Bank), I shot that down too. Like I said, you attempted the trick of comparing apples to oranges. A more apt analogy is comparing the treatment of West Bank Arabs to the treatment of Germans and Japanese after WW2. They too were not treated like American citizens. Why should Israel treat West Bank Arabs the same as Israeli citizens? Particularly since they still insist on resorting to terror tactics rather than sign a peace deal which the Germans and Japanese did sign. In fact, they surrendered unconditionally but were still subjected to military rule for quite a while afterwards. There went your second analogy, Felix.

            Got a third one? Keep trying the scatter gun approach till you think you can prove what you already decided without any justification?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Do you mean the “Israeli Arab situation is similar to US-style Segregation” anaolgy”

            So now it isn’t Apartheid, it is segregation that you want to talk about. Earlier you talked about apartheid.

            Ok, I’ll take that on too. Again your analogy does not apply.

            It does not apply because Black Americans did not make war on white Americans. They did not claim that all of America belongs to them and they did not blow themselves up in order to murder white Americans to prove their point.

            Even though many Israeli Arabs, not all, side with West Bank Arabs, even so, Israeli Arabs are not segregated by law. A certain amount of self segregation does exist. There tend to be separate Arab communities and separate Jewish communities. But even this is not universal. Just a tendency. A tendency favored by both Israeli Arabs and Israeli Jews. But there are places in Israel where there are mixed Arab and Jewish communities. And certainly no segregation exists in work places, in hospitals, on public transports, in universities, in shops etc.

            Have you even visited us in Israel, Felix? Or are you just parrotting other people’s propaganda? Come and visit us. I promise to be your personal guide. Come and learn about us. The good, the bad and the indifferent. We have it all here like you in the USA. Not everything is good. But not everything is bad either. Unless of course you talk or read shit written by people who hate us. Come and inform yourself first hand.

            Reply to Comment
    4. Johnboy

      Here is an interesting point to ponder: Article 49 of Geneva Convention IV absolutely prohibits the forcible transfer of the occupied OUT of an occupied territory, regardless of motive.

      Which means that if Israel insists that it still has the authority to grab a Palestinian in the West Bank and dump them in the Gaza Strip then it is tacitly admitting that the 2005 “disengagement” did not end its role as the occupying power.

      That is axiomatic, because if Gaza is no longer an occupied territory then scooping up a West Bank Palestinian and dumping them in the Gaza Strip is a very serious violation of international law.

      A war crime, in fact…

      Reply to Comment
    5. Tzutzik

      “A war crime, in fact…”

      Here is a REAL war crime which punks like you never want to talk about JB:

      You claim that UN Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into two states was binding. Yet your Palestinians rejected it the day after the vote and rioted.

      Furthermore, in May 1948, seven Arab armies invaded Palestine and made war. Can you imagine? Actual W-A-R. Yet never once were you willing to call THAT a war crime JB. So I guess, you will just have to get yourself over this little incident too whatever it is I don’t even know what you are talking about. Nor do I want to know because you guys are getting positively booooooooooring with your one sided accusations against Israel only. Never against Arabs. Why? Because according to you guys, sun shines out of Arab bums.

      Reply to Comment
      • Felix Reichert

        Nope, you’re wrong.

        These Arab armies in 1948 didn’t “make war”. That would suggest some kind of peace before they invaded.

        In fact the British Mandate was involved in a bloody civil war at the time, in which the Arab armies finally intervened, promoted by the proclamation of the state of Israel.

        Reply to Comment
        • Bar

          No, they attacked when the Mandate ended. It so happens that the Mandate’s end coincided with Israel’s Declaration of Independence, but that didn’t trigger the war. Otherwise, how is it possible that they attacked immediately? Obviously, they were prepared for the attack.

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Yea right JB.

            In 1947, 600,000 Jewish Palestinians attacked the entire Arab world after the UN granted them the state that they clamored for. And the poor innocent Arab lambs just defended themselves from the eeeeeeeeevvvviiiiil Zionists.

            No further comment. Let the jury decide.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “In 1947, 600,000 Jewish Palestinians attacked the entire Arab world after the UN granted them the state that they clamored for. ”

            Well, gosh, that’s a mighty big straw man you’ve erected there.

            You put that up all by yourself, did you? Niiiiiiiice.

            Must have, since *I* certainly never suggested that Israel attacked “the Arab world”, merely that the Haganah was already invading the territory that lay outside that allocated to the “Jewish state” in the partition plan.

            The Haganah invaded, and the surrounding Arab forces intervened (not particularly successfully, but then again they were always outnumbered) in the face of that invasion.

            Now, T, do you dispute that the Haganah was invading the “Arab state” even before Ben Gurion stood up and declared independence?

            T, do you dispute that those Seven Arab Armies(tm) intervened INSIDE the territory of that “Arab state” because, you know, that’s where the Haganah was?

            Heck, does anyone actually have any evidence of **any** Arab Invasion(tm) by those Seven Arab Armies(tm) into **any** territory that had been allocated to the “Jewish state” in the Partition Plan?

            A few kibbutz were raided, perhaps?

            A feint by the Syrian Invasion Force of 5,000 soldiers (yes, you read that correctly, Syria launched a War of Extermination(tm) using no more than 5,000 soldiers), maybe?

            OK, but where was that “invasion”?

            Answer: certainly not anywhere that was allocated to the “Jewish state”, and that’s a fact.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “merely that the Haganah was already invading the territory that lay outside that allocated to the “Jewish state” in the partition plan.”

            Yea, after the Arabs started the war.

            A bit like Russia, Britain and the USA invaded Germany and Japan in order to subdue them after Germany and Japan started the war.

            A bit like the USA invaded Afghanistan after they launched 9/11 from Afghanistan. Right JB?

            Would you describe Italy joining the war on the side of Germany as self defense? No? So why do you describe the invasion of seven Arab armies of Palestine in 1948 as self defense?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “A bit like Russia, Britain and the USA invaded Germany and Japan in order to subdue them after Germany and Japan started the war.”

            Thank you, T, I can now see that you and I are in total agreement.

            Britain (and France, of course) went to war with Germany because of that German invasion of Poland.

            You – clearly – do not have a problem with that, even though Britain/France had not been attacked.

            Apparently both you and I now consider that there is nothing wrong with intervening against an invasion under the banner of “collective self-defence”.

            Good.

            Sooooo, what to make of this…
            T: “Furthermore, in May 1948, seven Arab armies invaded Palestine and made war. Can you imagine? Actual W-A-R. Yet never once were you willing to call THAT a war crime JB.”

            Hmmm, odd. Very odd.

            Apparently Tzutzik thinks that it is a war crime to intervene in an invasion (when Arabs do it), even as he thinks that it isn’t a war crime to intervene in an invasion (when Europeans do it).

            Odd, that…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Apparently JB invokes the wrong analogy.

            According to JB himself, in past threads, the UN partitioning of Palestine was binding.

            The Jews of Palestine accepted the partition. The Arabs of Palestine didn’t.

            The Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jews of Palestine. The Jews of Palestine fought back and defeated the Arabs of Palestine.

            Seven Arab armies then intervened in the civil war on the side of the Arabs of Palestine and they too were defeated.

            A bit like Italy intervened on the side of Germany after the Germans invaded Poland and Britain intervened on the side of Poland.

            Thanks for likening the seven Arab armies to Italy who also intervened on the side of the aggressor, Germany.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “According to JB himself, in past threads, the UN partitioning of Palestine was binding.”

            Let’s hold that thought, shall we i.e. the Partition Plan was binding.

            T: “The Jews of Palestine accepted the partition. The Arabs of Palestine didn’t.”

            Note that if the partition plan was binding (and T is basing his entire argument on that) then the “acceptance” nor “rejection” of it makes no difference i.e. regardless of whether you agree or disagree, on a certain date there would be TWO successor states, one *here* and the other *there*.

            That is axiomatic, otherwise it isn’t “binding”.

            So keep holding that thought…..

            T: “The Arabs of Palestine attacked the Jews of Palestine. The Jews of Palestine fought back and defeated the Arabs of Palestine.”

            Note again that such fighting can not alter the binding nature of that partition plan i.e. on a certain date there will be TWO successor state, one *here* and the other *there*.

            Remember, hold that thought…..

            T: “Seven Arab armies then intervened in the civil war on the side of the Arabs of Palestine and they too were defeated.”

            Annnnnnd, there you have it.

            That’s the exact moment when T’s argument falls to the ground.

            Remember: the partition plan was binding.

            Which meant that there was an exact moment when the Mandate was replaced by TWO successor states, one *here* and the other *there*.

            And at that exact moment if there were any armed forces of *one* state engaged in armed conflict inside the territory of the *other* state then the intervention of outside parties is – from that exact moment – perfectly legal.

            It appears to have escaped Tzutzik’s notice, but those Seven Arab Armies(tm) didn’t intervene until the **exact** moment the Mandate ended.

            Q: At **that** exact moment were they committing a war crime by intervening?
            A: No, they weren’t.

            Q: Why not?
            A: Because that **that** exact moment the principle of “collective self-defence” against an outside aggressor came into play.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Poor JB, he has so many “hold those thought” moments that he confuses himself with them.

            It is simple really. The Palestinian Arabs started a war. That is a war crime.

            The seven Arab armies joined that war on the side of the aggressors. That is a war crime too.

            Il Duce, Mussolini would attest to that. You know who he was JB? He was the fascist leader of Italy who got strung up by his feet after the end of the war because he too joined the German Nazi aggressors at the beginning of WW2 under the pretext that he had a treaty with them.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “It is simple really. The Palestinian Arabs started a war. That is a war crime.”

            Again, you appear not to comprehend that UNTIL the Mandate for Palestine ended then the conflict between the Jews of Palestine and the Arabs of Palestine was an entirely internal conflict i.e. it was not a conflict of an INTERNATIONAL nature.

            As such you can not accuse the two sides of an INTERNAL conflict of committing a war crime merely because they are in conflict with each other.

            Note, of course, that I dispute that the Arabs of Palestine started “a war”.

            They rioted, sure, they did.
            They committed acts of violence, no doubt about it.

            But where were their “armed forces”, Tzutzik?

            The Jews of Palestine certainly had an “armed forces”, which was called the Haganah.

            No question of that, and no question that they set about the Arab popln of Mandatory Palestine with a great deal of gusto.

            Remind me again: what Arab Army was ever fielded by the Arabs of Palestine, and where did they meet the Haganah in pitch battle?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            No JB, I comprehend everything. You are the only one who does not comprehend and instead you choose to spin.

            In your bizarre world, the Palestinian Arabs have the right to attack Palestinian Jews, murder them and not call it a war crime. But if Jews counter attack and invade the territories from which the Palestinian Arabs attacked the Palestinian Jews that gives seven external Arab armies the right to make war on the Jews of Palestine?

            And your reasoning is … Wait for it …. drum roll …. wait for it … because the Palestinian Arabs didn’t have an army. Boo hooo, I think I am going to cry into my beer for them …

            Helllllooooooo ….

            Then:

            1. The Palestinian Arabs should not have attacked the Palestinian Jews. No one forced them to …

            2. It ain’t even true. The Palestinian Arabs had a militia and they outnumbered the Jews of Palestine two to one …

            You are true to form with other Arab apologists. In your world, the Arabs start trouble and violence and that’s ok according to your lot. The trouble according to you lot always starts with Israel’s response. You live in a bizarre upside down parallel one sided world in which the Arabs are always right and we are always wrong because of our response to Arab provocations. Nothing new under the sun.

            That is why we ignore your continuous whinings.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “In your bizarre world, the Palestinian Arabs have the right to attack Palestinian Jews, murder them and not call it a war crime.”

            Again, Tzutzik appears to be incapable of comprehending the difference between “jus ad bellum” (i.e. the legal concept of Just War) and “jus in bello” (i.e. the laws governing what is – and is not – permissible during wartime).

            That incoherence is the reason why Tzutzik keeps moving the goalposts i.e. why he insists in one post that Going To War is an illegal act, while in other posts (such as this one) he declares that the actions taken DURING that conflict is where the illegality lies.

            Please, Make Up Your Mind.

            That the Palestinian Arabs rioted in response to UNGAR181 is not evidence of “a war”, much less a war that was “started by the Arabs”.

            That some of the Palestinian Arabs attacked Jewish targets is, again, not evidence of “a war”, it is merely evidence of “terrorism”.

            You really do need “warfare” to get yer’ war on, and in the months prior to May 1948 (i.e. before the intervention of those Seven Arab Armies(tm) what “warfare” there was can only be described as quite monumentally one-sided.

            Obviously so, since only one side possessed an “armed forces” worthy of the name.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            See my responses to JB below towards the end of the thread.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Bar: “It so happens that the Mandate’s end coincided with Israel’s Declaration of Independence,”

            It also coincided (actually, it was preceded by) an invasion of the territory allocated by the Partition Plan to the “Arab state”.

            You know, Plan Dalet, which was already in full swing before Ben Gurion stood up and declared independence.

            But, heh, let’s not let facts get in the way….

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            “It also coincided (actually, it was preceded by) an invasion of the territory allocated by the Partition Plan to the “Arab state”.”

            Um, the war was launched by the Arabs the day after partition. Alongside the local fighters, there were Arab fighters from outside Mandatory Palestine who joined them. There were over 1000 Jews killed in the first three months of this Arab-launched war, and the Jews suffered severe losses of territory, not just lives.

            Then the Jews turned it around. Nothing to do with Plan Dalet or any such BS that you read somewhere (if you read Benny Morris, for example, he states that Plan Dalet was not a critical part of what transpired).

            “But, heh, let’s not let facts get in the way…”

            Why not? My facts are quite accurate. Arabs launched the first war – the one your call a “civil war” and then they launched a second war – the one I call Israel War of Independence. They lost both wars.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            No point in duplicating our responses here. See below.

            Reply to Comment
          • Felix Reichert

            Yes, they were prepared for the attack. Tens of thousands of Arab refugees were streaming across their borders, and they wanted to put a stop to that. They warned the jewish settlers and terrorist groups to not declare a Jewish state, or else they would attack.

            That warning was very clear, but it was ignored.

            Reply to Comment
          • Bar

            I see. So in the years that followed, as the Arab and Muslim states were emptying of Jewish refugees, hundreds of thousands of whom moved to Israel, you’re of the opinion that Israel should have attacked every one of those states.

            Interesting viewpoint.

            Reply to Comment
    6. Johnboy

      T: “Here is a REAL war crime which punks like you never want to talk about JB:”

      Followed by this…..

      T: “You claim that UN Resolution 181 to partition Palestine into two states was binding. Yet your Palestinians rejected it the day after the vote and rioted.”

      That’s actually not a war crime.

      T: “Furthermore, in May 1948, seven Arab armies invaded Palestine and made war.”

      Ahem. The UN Charter clearly says that there is such a thing as a “collective self-defence”.

      This is an indisputable fact: the Haganah was knee-deep into an invasion of the territory that had been allocated to the “Arab state” in the Partition Plan when those Seven Arab Armies intervened.

      Fancy that. An actual I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N.

      Q: Was that “Arab state” entitled to ask for outside intervention in the face of an I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N by a foreign army?
      A: Why, yes. Yes, it is.

      T: “Yet never once were you willing to call THAT a war crime JB”

      Maybe that’s because it wasn’t a war crime to intervene against an I-N-V-A-S-I-O-N of territory by a foreign army.

      That’s “collect self-defence”, and it is perfectly legal.

      Fancy that, heh?

      T: “So I guess, you will just have to get yourself over this little incident too whatever it is I don’t even know what you are talking about.”

      Well, you got one thing right: you have no idea what I’m talking about.

      Because it is quite obvious that you have no idea of the difference between “jus ad bellum” (which is what you are rabbling on about) and “jus in bello” (which is what I was talking about).

      Perhaps look those two phrases up, because you might just learn something.

      Reply to Comment
      • Tzutzik

        Here is a quote of how the Jewish leaders of Palestine reacted to UN resolution 181:

        “It is now our primary task to establish relations of peace and harmony with our Arab neighbors – Chaim Weizmann[72]”

        Here is the reaction of the Arab leaders:

        “On 16 February 1948, UN Palestine Commission to the security council reported that: “Powerful Arab interests, both inside and outside Palestine, are defying the resolution of the General Assembly and are engaged in a deliberate effort to alter by force the settlement envisaged therein.”[83] The Arabs were against the establishment of an international regime in Jerusalem too.”

        Reply to Comment
        • Johnboy

          Riiiiiight…. so, where’s the war crime in either of those quotes, Tzutzik?

          Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “Riiiiiight…. so, where’s the war crime in either of those quotes, Tzutzik?”

            God you are stupid JB.

            Those quotes just make you look to be the liar that you are. The lie that the Jews of Palestine started the war in 1847/48 and that the Arabs defended themselves from the eeevvviiiil war mongering Jews.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “Those quotes just make you look to be the liar that you are. The lie that the Jews of Palestine started the war in 1847/48 and that the Arabs defended themselves from the eeevvviiiil war mongering Jews.”

            This is a fact: Plan Dalet was launched by the Haganah before Ben Gurion ever stood up and declared the state of Israel.

            This is also a fact: Plan Dalet involved the invasion *by* the Haganah *into* the territory that had been allocated to the “Arab state”.

            This is also a fact: those Seven Arab Armies(tm) intervened against **that** invasion **by** those forces.

            Now, can you prove that any of those facts are false, or are you just going to keep pretending that quoting what people **say** is a quicker path to the truth than looking at what people **do**?

            Because – and this may shock you, so you better sit down – people very often **say** one thing even while they are **doing** the opposite.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Plan Dalet was a plan like D-Day.

            The fact is that neither D-Day nor plan Dalet would have been invoked had the Germans and your cherished Palestinian Arabs not STARTED their respective wars.

            Get it, JB? S-T-A-R-T-E-D!

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “The fact is that neither D-Day nor plan Dalet would have been invoked had the Germans and your cherished Palestinian Arabs not STARTED their respective wars.”

            Well over half of all the Palestinians refugees had been put to flight BEFORE Ben Gurion stood up and declared independence.

            That’s a fact i.e. the Haganah was so busy with its ethnic cleansing that the job was ALREADY more than half-finished by the time those Seven Arab Armies(tm) intervened.

            Yet, of course, it was the Jews who were defending themselves, even though it is obvious that it was the Palestinian who were defenceless.

            Odd, that, heh?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            S-T-A-R-T-E-D. The Arabs started the war JB. Which bit of that don’t you get?

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            “even though it is obvious that it was the Palestinian who were defenceless.”

            The Arabs started a war. They were defeated and they became defenseless.

            Just like the Germans and the Japanese started a war, they were defeated and became defenseless.

            Again, JB, which bit of S-S-T-A-R-T-E-D don’t you understand?

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            Tzutzik appears to have completely lost sight of the argument.

            Which is odd indeed, since he started the argument.

            He did so when he said this: “Furthermore, in May 1948, seven Arab armies invaded Palestine and made war. Can you imagine? Actual W-A-R. Yet never once were you willing to call THAT a war crime JB.”

            Apparently T has lost sight of that statement now that he is admitting that it was the forces of the “Jewish state” that were invading the territory of the “Arab state” in May 1948, not vice versa.

            T may quibble about the reasons **why** this was happening, but he does not dispute that this was, indeed, what was happening i.e. what was going down in May 1948 was an invasion of the “Arab state” by the armed forces of the “Jewish state”.

            Thank you, T, for that.

            Now, back to his original claim that the intervention by those Seven Arab Armies(tm) was a “war crime”.

            Q: Was that a “war crime”?
            A: No, it wasn’t.

            Q: What was it then?
            A: “Collective self-defence” in the face of an invasion by a foreign army into territory that did not belong to it.

            Q: And that’s legal, is it?
            A: Oh, yeah, that’s perfectly legit.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Which bit of S-T-A-R-T-I-N-G a war is not a war crime JB? The Arabs of Palestine started the war against the Jews of Palestine. That was a war crime!

            Seven Arab armies subsequently invaded Palestine and fought on the side of the Arab aggressors in Palestine. That too was a war crime!

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “Which bit of S-T-A-R-T-I-N-G a war is not a war crime JB?”

            T appears to be changing his argument from moment to moment.

            It has escaped his notice that his original argument was that the intervention of those Seven Arab Armies(tm) was the war crime.

            Which it clearly was not, since the Haganah was already engaging in an armed conflict against the territorial integrity of the “Arab state” at the time that those Seven Arab Armies(tm) intervened.

            You admit as much, Tzutzik.

            Q: Was that intervention by those Seven Arab Armies into an already existing war an example of “S-T-A-R-T-I-N-G a war”?
            A: No, not under the principle of “collective self-defence” against an act of aggression.

            Sorry, but you are wrong.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            You obviously have learning difficulties, JB. So here I go again:

            Your Palestinian Arabs refused to accept the UN resolution to partition Palestine. They rioted and made war on against the Jews of Palestine that was a war crime. The jews of Palestine then fought back.

            Seven Arab nations then joined the war of aggression of the Palestinian Arabs and supported that war of aggression. That is a war crime too.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “Your Palestinian Arabs refused to accept the UN resolution to partition Palestine.”

            That is not a war crime.

            T: ” They rioted and made war on against the Jews of Palestine that was a war crime.”

            No, sorry, that statement is quite untrue.

            UNTIL the day the Mandate for Palestine ended then the conflict between the Jews of Mandatory Palestine and the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine was an internal conflict.

            As such the fighting between those two groups could not be a war crime under international humanitarian law since – axiomatically – such law governs wars of an *international* nature.

            T: “The jews of Palestine then fought back.”

            Oh, sure, that they did: the Arabs of Palestine rioted, and the Jews of Palestine then mobilized their armed forces (the Arabs of Palestine had not “armed forces” worthy of the name) in order to indulge their predilection for ethnic cleansing.

            T: “Seven Arab nations then joined the war of aggression of the Palestinian Arabs and supported that war of aggression.”

            Again, so sorry, you can’t support that argument.

            The moment that the Mandate for Palestine ended then this became an INTERNATIONAL conflict, and so it was governed by INTERNATIONAL humanitarian law.

            At that precise moment (i.e. the moment when the Mandate ended and this became an INTERNATIONAL conflict)the question of who was the aggressor and who was the defender was quite “indisputable” i.e. the Haganah were knee-deep in the invasion of the territory of the “Arab state”, not vice versa.

            Under those circumstances i.e. when the territory of the “Arab state” was being invaded by a foreign army then, again, so sorry, the principle of “collective self-defence” ensures that those Seven Arab Armies(tm) can not be accused of committing a war crime by their intervention.

            Honestly, Tzutzik, you do have some very funny ideas.

            Must come from a very serious dearth of thinking…..

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            Crap, JB. Lotsa crap, spin and mumbo Jumbo.

            FACT: Your Palestinian Arabs rejected UN Resolution 181. They rioted and murdered Jews. The Jews fought back and proved to be the stronger side. Boo hoo …

            Only in your perverted bizarre world is starting an illegitimate war not considered to be a war crime JB. And your Palestinian Arabs started an illegitimate war which contravened UN resolution 181.

            As for your claim that the seven Arab armies entered the war just to defend Palestinian Arabs from Palestinian Jews who by that time were giving them a hiding that is just a lie. But as I said before, even if it were true, they started a war against the Jews of Palestine, YES started, because up until that time the Jews of Palestine did not fight against the seven Arab armies. And yes, the seven Arab armies supported the side which started the war. So, like Italy in WW2 who entered the war on the side of the aggressor, the seven Arab armies too committed a war crime. It was their luck that none of their leaders suffered the same consequences as Il Duce who was shot and strung up upside down from his feet for his troubles at the end of the war.

            Now: about your lie that the seven Arab armies entered the war just to defend Palestinian Arabs, if that would have been true then how come:

            1. Those Arab regimes threatened to invade Palestine even before UN resolution 181 was passed?

            2. And how come they threatened to massacre the Jews of Palestine if UN resolution 181 would be passed?

            3. Two of those armies ended up controlling Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the war in 1949. So how come they didn’t establish a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank after the war ended? I’ll tell you how come: they had territorial ambitions of their own. They wanted to steal land. Helping Palestinian Arabs wasn’t their REAL agenda.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “FACT: Your Palestinian Arabs rejected UN Resolution 181.”

            That is not a war crime.

            T: “They rioted and murdered Jews.”

            Again, that is not a war crime.

            T: “The Jews fought back and proved to be the stronger side.”

            Again, not a war crime.

            T: “1. Those Arab regimes threatened to invade Palestine even before UN resolution 181 was passed?”

            And? So? Therefore?

            The “invasion” that you claimed they threatened to launch was… never launched.

            Ho-hum.

            T: “2. And how come they threatened to massacre the Jews of Palestine if UN resolution 181 would be passed?”

            Yet UNGAR181 was passed, and those Seven Arab Armies(tm)…. made not the slightest attempt to “massacre the Jews of Palestine”.

            Ho-hum.

            T: “3. Two of those armies ended up controlling Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the war in 1949.”

            Indeed they did. Wars are funny that way, but pointing out who “ended up controlling territory” doesn’t tell you anything about “who started it”.

            Case in point: Israel, June, 1967.

            T: “So how come they didn’t establish a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank after the war ended?”

            Ahem. That wasn’t the question facing those Seven Arab Armies(tm) in May, 1948.

            In May, 1948 what they were seeing was an Israeli army attempting to conquer this territory, and they made an attempt (a pretty poor attempt, but that’s also another story) to prevent that conquest.

            Jordan certainly didn’t do that to “create a Palestinian Arab State” in the West Bank, because it had no interest in seeing such a state.

            Egypt, likewise, wasn’t all that interested in setting up a rump-state in Gaza.

            But, honestly, that wasn’t the issue that they were faced with i.e. what they saw in May 1948 was that the “Jewish state” was intent on conquest, and they stepped in to attempt to put a stop to that conquest.

            Quite right to, because if they hadn’t intervened then there is no doubt – none whatsoever – that the Haganah would have kept steamrolling over all that territory until there was not One Single Goy remaining anywhere between the River and the Sea.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            T: “FACT: Your Palestinian Arabs rejected UN Resolution 181.”

            JB:”That is not a war crime.”

            I didn’t say THAT was.

            T: “They rioted and murdered Jews.”

            JB:”Again, that is not a war crime.”

            Yes it is. When one people rise up and murder another people unjustifiably and indiscriminately in an organised way, it IS a war crime!

            T: “The Jews fought back and proved to be the stronger side.”

            JB:”Again, not a war crime.”

            LOL, where did I say it was? Typical JB red herring.

            T: “1. Those Arab regimes threatened to invade Palestine even before UN resolution 181 was passed?”

            jB:”And? So? Therefore?”

            It shows that their invasion was planned irrespective of what the Jews of Palestine did.

            JB:”The “invasion” that you claimed they threatened to launch was… never launched.”

            But it was.

            JB:”Ho-hum”

            Ho hum from me too.

            T: “2. And how come they threatened to massacre the Jews of Palestine if UN resolution 181 would be passed?”

            JB:”Yet UNGAR181 was passed, and those Seven Arab Armies(tm)…. made not the slightest attempt to “massacre the Jews of Palestine”.”

            They did. But they did not succeed because the Jews stood up to them.

            JB:”Ho-hum.”

            Ditto

            T: “3. Two of those armies ended up controlling Gaza and the West Bank at the end of the war in 1949.”

            JB:”Indeed they did. Wars are funny that way, but pointing out who “ended up controlling territory” doesn’t tell you anything about “who started it”.

            It does. It says a lot about their original motives.

            Ho hum.

            JB:”Case in point: Israel, June, 1967.”

            BS.

            T: “So how come they didn’t establish a Palestinian Arab state in Gaza and the West Bank after the war ended?”

            JB:”Ahem. That wasn’t the question facing those Seven Arab Armies(tm) in May, 1948.”

            Ahem, again, it shows that their original motive was not to help Palestinian Arabs but to help themselves.

            JB:”In May, 1948 what they were seeing was an Israeli army attempting to conquer this territory, and they made an attempt (a pretty poor attempt, but that’s also another story) to prevent that conquest.

            Jordan certainly didn’t do that to “create a Palestinian Arab State” in the West Bank, because it had no interest in seeing such a state.”

            So Jordan didn’t enter the war to help Palestinian Arabs.

            JB:”Egypt, likewise, wasn’t all that interested in setting up a rump-state in Gaza.”

            And Egypt didn’t enter the war to help Palestinian Arabs either.

            JB:”But, honestly, that wasn’t the issue that they were faced with i.e. what they saw in May 1948 was that the “Jewish state” was intent on conquest, and they stepped in to attempt to put a stop to that conquest.”

            And replace it with their own conquest.

            Ho hum.

            JB:”Quite right to, because if they hadn’t intervened then there is no doubt – none whatsoever – that the Haganah would have kept steamrolling over all that territory until there was not One Single Goy remaining anywhere between the River and the Sea.”

            No doubt? Prove it. How do you know where the Jews of Palestine would have stopped? And why is the invasion by foreign Arab armies to conquer territories for themselves, more right than Jews conquering territories after we win a war in self defence?

            Are you saying that the usurping of territories by foreign Arab armies such as Egypt and Jordan more justified than Jewish Palestinians winning additional lands in Palestine after winning a war in self defence? By what perverse logic can you justify that?

            But we digressed thanks to your persistent insistence JB to inject red herrings.

            Back to topic:

            1. The Palestinian Arabs committed a war crime because they started an illegitimate war against the Jews of Palestine.

            2. The seven Arab armies too committed a war crime because they too started a war against the Jews of Palestine who did not attack them. And your contention that those Arab armies intervened to help Palestinian Arabs is both irrelevant and untrue.

            Reply to Comment
          • Tzutzik

            JB:”It’s a funny ol’ thing: if you start with a pre-conceived notion (e.g. the Arabs started an illegimate war) then you inevitably reach your pre-determined outcome (e.g. the Arabs committed a war crime).”

            Yep, it IS a funny thing. I wonder what on earth gave me the idea that the Arabs were planning a war crime against the Jews of Palestine? Could it have been this, JB?

            This is what the Arab League’s first secretary-general said:

            “this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine’s Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving”

            Oh and what a surprise, first the Arabs of Palestine launched an attack and a little later seven Arab armies joined the fray and attacked the Jews of Palestine.

            But wait, I wasn’t the only one who was saying this. Nor were the Arabs the only ones who boasted about what they would do to the Jews, but even the UN report said that the Arabs in general were violently resisting the implementation of the UN resolution (see my earlier quote in a previous post).

            They, the UN did not say “one Arab” they did not say “a few Arabs”, JB, they said THE Arabs. In other words, the Arabs collectively, you know, the whole Ummah, lock stock and barrel, JB. That is more than just terrorism. Which by the way is a war crime too. But let’s not quibble about that …

            So please take up your complaints with the UN, not with me, JB. I mean I wasn’t even alive then. But unlike you, I read history. I don’t spin history like you do, JB dear …

            And I know that if an entire people plot to violently attack another people and claim to want to exterminate them. Then actually attack those people as promised, that IS a war crime. Even if their plan is foiled by those who are attacked.

            Reply to Comment
          • Johnboy

            T: “Only in your perverted bizarre world is starting an illegitimate war not considered to be a war crime JB.”

            It’s a funny ol’ thing: if you start with a pre-conceived notion (e.g. the Arabs started an illegimate war) then you inevitably reach your pre-determined outcome (e.g. the Arabs committed a war crime).

            Of course, if your initial premise is wrong then your conclusions will be incorrect.

            The Arabs of Palestine rioted in response to the passage of UNGAR181.

            Sure, they did.

            But such rioting is not a “war”, let alone an “illegitimate war”.

            The Arabs of Palestine committed acts of terrorism against Jewish targets following the passage of UNGAR181.

            Again, sure, they did (though, of course, the acts of terrorism were not a one-way street even before UNGAR181 came up for a vote).

            But, again, acts of terrorism is not “a war”, which rather requires “warfare”.

            The Arabs of Palestine didn’t engage the Haganah in “warfare”, precisely because they didn’t have an “armed forces” worthy of the name (though, of course, the Jews of Palestine certainly did).

            Nothing – absolutely nothing – you have submitted amounts to the Arabs of Palestine starting “a war”, and certainly not “a war” that would fit into any concept of “an international conflict”.

            Just War Theory simply didn’t apply, any more that it applies to any *internal* conflict.

            The conflict didn’t become “an international conflict” until Israel declared itself to be an independent country, at which point (axiomatically) any Haganah offensives outside the territory of the state of Israel became – by definition – an international conflict.

            And once that happened then those Seven Arab Armies(tm) were perfectly entitled to intervene where-ever they say the Haganah conducting military offensives outside Israeli territory.

            Which, as it turned out, was pretty much everywhere between The River And The Sea.

            Reply to Comment
          • JG

            Starting a war is not a war crime. Are you total drunken right now, dude? What an utterly nonsense raged hasbarists start to write if they lose an argument. We just call it: Everyday

            Reply to Comment
          • IlonJ

            Stay out of it you fool!

            Yes, JG I am speaking to you.

            Reply to Comment
    7. Tzutzik

      JB:”It’s a funny ol’ thing: if you start with a pre-conceived notion (e.g. the Arabs started an illegimate war) then you inevitably reach your pre-determined outcome (e.g. the Arabs committed a war crime).”

      Yep, it IS a funny thing. I wonder what on earth gave me the idea that the Arabs were planning a war crime against the Jews of Palestine? Could it have been this, JB?

      This is what the Arab League’s first secretary-general said:

      “this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine’s Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving”

      Oh and what a surprise, first the Arabs of Palestine launched an attack and a little later seven Arab armies joined the fray and attacked the Jews of Palestine.

      But wait, I wasn’t the only one who was saying this. Nor were the Arabs the only ones who boasted about what they would do to the Jews, but even the UN report said that the Arabs in general were violently resisting the implementation of the UN resolution (see my earlier quote in a previous post).

      They, the UN did not say “one Arab” they did not say “a few Arabs”, JB, they said THE Arabs. In other words, the Arabs collectively, you know, the whole Ummah, lock stock and barrel, JB. That is more than just terrorism. Which by the way is a war crime too. But let’s not quibble about that …

      So please take up your complaints with the UN, not with me, JB. I mean I wasn’t even alive then. But unlike you, I read history. I don’t spin history like you do, JB dear ….

      And I know that if an entire people plot to violently attack another people and claim to want to exterminate them. Then actually attack those people as promised, that IS a war crime. Even if their plan is foiled by those who are attacked.

      Reply to Comment
    8. Tzutzik

      Oh bother …

      Posts are not being positioned where they are supposed to be positioned. So here is my response, AGAIN to JB’s last post …

      JB:”It’s a funny ol’ thing: if you start with a pre-conceived notion (e.g. the Arabs started an illegimate war) then you inevitably reach your pre-determined outcome (e.g. the Arabs committed a war crime).”

      Yep, it IS a funny thing. I wonder what on earth gave me the idea that the Arabs were planning a war crime against the Jews of Palestine? Could it have been this, JB?

      This is what the Arab League’s first secretary-general said:

      “this will be a war of extermination and momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Tartar massacre[10] or the Crusader wars. I believe that the number of volunteers from outside Palestine will be larger than Palestine’s Arab population, for I know that volunteers will be arriving”

      Oh and what a surprise, first the Arabs of Palestine launched an attack and a little later seven Arab armies joined the fray and attacked the Jews of Palestine.

      But wait, I wasn’t the only one who was saying this. Nor were the Arabs the only ones who boasted about what they would do to the Jews, but even the UN report said that the Arabs in general were violently resisting the implementation of the UN resolution (see my earlier quote in a previous post).

      They, the UN did not say “one Arab” they did not say “a few Arabs”, JB, they said THE Arabs. In other words, the Arabs collectively, you know, the whole Ummah, lock stock and barrel, JB. That is more than just terrorism. Which by the way is a war crime too. But let’s not quibble about that …

      So please take up your complaints with the UN, not with me, JB. I mean I wasn’t even alive then. But unlike you, I read history. I don’t spin history like you do, JB dear …

      And I know that if an entire people plot to violently attack another people and claim to want to exterminate them. Then actually attack those people as promised, that IS a war crime. Even if their plan is foiled by those who are attacked.

      Reply to Comment
    9. Click here to load previous comments

The stories that matter.
The missing context.
All in one weekly email.

Subscribe to +972's newsletter