The attack on Deir Yasin is probably one of the most controversial events in the weeks before Israel proclaimed independence. While I would dispute your reading of the event, so much is lost in myth that it is hard to separate truth from fantasy. I will not go point by point.
I will say this though: while it is true that of the approximately 100 Arab deaths, there were a number of civilian casualties, but the Irgun commander denied that non-combatants were targeted. Much akin to the present situation n Gaza, combatants and non-combatants were intermingled, though in the case of Deir Yasin, I do not believe there was any desire to use civilians as human shields. It seems to me to be the result of house to house fighting in a populated village.
However, the atrocity stories of rape and mutilation were, according to Arab survivors of Deir Yasin, fabrications of the Arab Higher Committee designed to induce surrounding Arab states to join the fight against the Jews. It seems, however, that the atrocity stories had the unintended effect of inducing Arabs to leave their villages for larger Arab population centers that were seen as safer. While this was not the only cause of the Arab refugee problem, fear generated by stories of Deir Yasin was certainly a significant element.
For the PLO, recognition of Israel was always provisional. Arafat's own speeches in Arabic from that period attest to that. His refusal to change the PLO Covenant attest to that. Most importantly, his actions attest to that.
That's what I meant by saying, "the villagers were supposed to be expelled and Jewish militants had specific orders not to attack women, children, or prisoners. But in the fog of battle, things went another way." This would mean to whatever extent atrocities were committed, they were, according to the official narrative, acts of individual as opposed to group terrorism. As for rape and mutilation being a fabrication, I certainly would not put it past the Arab Higher Committee, and I just double-checked my source on that and it was the New Historian scholar Benny Morris, who has been criticized for failing to research in the original languages and for reversing some of his positions. Thanks for raising these points. I'll take a deeper look.
The definition of a terror group or an act of terror: it's normally defined as an act of violence targeting civilians or military and civilians indiscriminately for political or religious ends. As far as I know, none of the Jewish undergrounds that you mentioned targeted civilians and according to this definition, should not be labelled terror organization but militias or insurgents. I believe there are exceptions - such as the terror bombing at the Jaffa Gate - but as a rule these three groups held to that policy. AFAIK.
While I think it is correct to say that the PLO recognized the existence of the state of Israeli in 1993, they have never recognized the right of Israel to exist, a not insignificant difference. They never amended the PLO covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel, still pays out for terror attacks against Israelis, and has not condemned terror attacks, including the Oct. 7 massacre.
Two Jewish groups, Irgun and Lehi, carried out the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948 in which Zionist militants killed at least 107 Palestinian Arabs, including women and children. Prisoners were paraded through West Jerusalem where people spat on them, stoned them, and they were eventually murdered. There were also allegations of mutilation and rape. The leader of the Irgun forces was Menachem Begin, who of course later became Israel's 6th prime minister.
What's worse, the villagers had signed a non-aggression pact, but Irgun and Lehi chose to attack anyway, not because it posed a threat but because it was an easier target than Ein Karen, which the Haganah commander in Jerusalem, David Shaltiel, had suggested they attack instead.
That said, the villagers were supposed to be expelled and Jewish militants had specific orders not to attack women, children, or prisoners. But in the fog of battle, things went another way. So there are examples of literal terrorism, but was terrorism the general rule or an exception? To answer this, I would have to look at all recorded attacks and assess each one, and I have not done that, but my understanding from the historical records and history books that I have read is that this was not the general practice.
As for PLO recognition, in 1993, the PLO specifically recognized Israel's "legitimate and political rights." Perhaps you are right and the distinction between this and recognizing Israel's right to exist is a significant one. Practically speaking, it doesn't seem like one. If you don't think I have a right to live, but you respect my rights, that's good enough for me.
The tankies are so uneducated that I just feel sick. I would however say the Democratic leadership from Biden to Hakeem Jeffries are spot on with the message condemning Hamas with no ifs and buts.
Great piece, David. A sidenote about Hamas: During the First Intifada, when the secular, nationalist PLO was responsible for attacks on Israel from Gaza, Israel actually funded a nascent Hamas. The idea was that, as a religious and charitable organization, they would provide a peaceful counterbalance to the violent nationalism of Fatah. That didn't pan out, obviously.
Thanks, Graham. Yeah, I've read a little about that. Honestly, the amount of information I did not include could fill 20 books. I just saw so much misinformation and disinformation about Hamas this week I felt it was worth doing a very basic explainer.
The comment by the Council on Foreign Relations falls far short of the amount of money Hamas has received. The real figure is in the many Billions, from numerous Arab and Western (including the US) countries.
The money is given as humanitarian aid but Hamas has stolen it from the suffering people of Gaza and used it for violence against the Jews of Israel.
The attack on Deir Yasin is probably one of the most controversial events in the weeks before Israel proclaimed independence. While I would dispute your reading of the event, so much is lost in myth that it is hard to separate truth from fantasy. I will not go point by point.
I will say this though: while it is true that of the approximately 100 Arab deaths, there were a number of civilian casualties, but the Irgun commander denied that non-combatants were targeted. Much akin to the present situation n Gaza, combatants and non-combatants were intermingled, though in the case of Deir Yasin, I do not believe there was any desire to use civilians as human shields. It seems to me to be the result of house to house fighting in a populated village.
However, the atrocity stories of rape and mutilation were, according to Arab survivors of Deir Yasin, fabrications of the Arab Higher Committee designed to induce surrounding Arab states to join the fight against the Jews. It seems, however, that the atrocity stories had the unintended effect of inducing Arabs to leave their villages for larger Arab population centers that were seen as safer. While this was not the only cause of the Arab refugee problem, fear generated by stories of Deir Yasin was certainly a significant element.
For the PLO, recognition of Israel was always provisional. Arafat's own speeches in Arabic from that period attest to that. His refusal to change the PLO Covenant attest to that. Most importantly, his actions attest to that.
That's what I meant by saying, "the villagers were supposed to be expelled and Jewish militants had specific orders not to attack women, children, or prisoners. But in the fog of battle, things went another way." This would mean to whatever extent atrocities were committed, they were, according to the official narrative, acts of individual as opposed to group terrorism. As for rape and mutilation being a fabrication, I certainly would not put it past the Arab Higher Committee, and I just double-checked my source on that and it was the New Historian scholar Benny Morris, who has been criticized for failing to research in the original languages and for reversing some of his positions. Thanks for raising these points. I'll take a deeper look.
Interesting article. A few points for discussion:
The definition of a terror group or an act of terror: it's normally defined as an act of violence targeting civilians or military and civilians indiscriminately for political or religious ends. As far as I know, none of the Jewish undergrounds that you mentioned targeted civilians and according to this definition, should not be labelled terror organization but militias or insurgents. I believe there are exceptions - such as the terror bombing at the Jaffa Gate - but as a rule these three groups held to that policy. AFAIK.
While I think it is correct to say that the PLO recognized the existence of the state of Israeli in 1993, they have never recognized the right of Israel to exist, a not insignificant difference. They never amended the PLO covenant that calls for the destruction of Israel, still pays out for terror attacks against Israelis, and has not condemned terror attacks, including the Oct. 7 massacre.
Two Jewish groups, Irgun and Lehi, carried out the Deir Yassin massacre in April 1948 in which Zionist militants killed at least 107 Palestinian Arabs, including women and children. Prisoners were paraded through West Jerusalem where people spat on them, stoned them, and they were eventually murdered. There were also allegations of mutilation and rape. The leader of the Irgun forces was Menachem Begin, who of course later became Israel's 6th prime minister.
What's worse, the villagers had signed a non-aggression pact, but Irgun and Lehi chose to attack anyway, not because it posed a threat but because it was an easier target than Ein Karen, which the Haganah commander in Jerusalem, David Shaltiel, had suggested they attack instead.
That said, the villagers were supposed to be expelled and Jewish militants had specific orders not to attack women, children, or prisoners. But in the fog of battle, things went another way. So there are examples of literal terrorism, but was terrorism the general rule or an exception? To answer this, I would have to look at all recorded attacks and assess each one, and I have not done that, but my understanding from the historical records and history books that I have read is that this was not the general practice.
As for PLO recognition, in 1993, the PLO specifically recognized Israel's "legitimate and political rights." Perhaps you are right and the distinction between this and recognizing Israel's right to exist is a significant one. Practically speaking, it doesn't seem like one. If you don't think I have a right to live, but you respect my rights, that's good enough for me.
The tankies are so uneducated that I just feel sick. I would however say the Democratic leadership from Biden to Hakeem Jeffries are spot on with the message condemning Hamas with no ifs and buts.
Great piece, David. A sidenote about Hamas: During the First Intifada, when the secular, nationalist PLO was responsible for attacks on Israel from Gaza, Israel actually funded a nascent Hamas. The idea was that, as a religious and charitable organization, they would provide a peaceful counterbalance to the violent nationalism of Fatah. That didn't pan out, obviously.
Thanks, Graham. Yeah, I've read a little about that. Honestly, the amount of information I did not include could fill 20 books. I just saw so much misinformation and disinformation about Hamas this week I felt it was worth doing a very basic explainer.
The comment by the Council on Foreign Relations falls far short of the amount of money Hamas has received. The real figure is in the many Billions, from numerous Arab and Western (including the US) countries.
The money is given as humanitarian aid but Hamas has stolen it from the suffering people of Gaza and used it for violence against the Jews of Israel.
And most remarkable of all, they've gone on Russian TV to explicitly tell the world that this is what they're doing.