Do you support the war in Iraq?

Do you support the war in Iraq?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 166 65.1%
  • No.

    Votes: 84 32.9%
  • Undecided/Don't Know/Don't care.

    Votes: 5 2.0%

  • Total voters
    255
How many of you have lost relatives on irak?

What would you think if someone or some other first world potency decides that the US cannot govern themselves or a deadly regime has installed, and failed to guarantee the social security for more than 40 million citizens? and the list goes on.

You judge Irak, and jews, and latins and everyone else. But who judges you? God?. Satan?

I think we all have to sit back and think for just a minute. get in the shoes of the people that hurt.

I dont favor suffering nor war. But i support deffending yourself from a threat. im pro gun, and im jewish, and i live in a 3 world country. there´s something for all of you judges.

Go on, have fun. but remember, we all live in this s***hole of a world (cuz weve made it so).
 
Orders to US military personnel in Iraq

RECENT ORDERS TO TROOPS IN IRAQ.

To: All Commands
Subject: Inappropriate T-Shirts
Ref: ComMidEastFor Inst 16134//24 K
1. All commanders promulgate upon receipt.
2. The following T-shirts are no longer to be worn on or off base by any military or civilian personnel serving in the Middle East:

"Eat Pork Or Die" [both English and Arabic versions]
"Shrine Busters" [Various. Show burning minarets or bomb/artillery shells impacting Islamic shrines. Some with unit logos.]

"Napalm, Sticks Like Crazy" [Both English and Arabic versions]
"Goat - it isn't just for breakfast any more." [Both English and Arabic versions]
"The road to Paradise begins with me." [Mostly Arabic versions but some in English. Some show sniper scope cross-hairs]

"Guns don't kill people. I kill people." [Both Arabic and English versions]
"Pork. The other white meat.' [Arabic version]
"Infidel" [English, Arabic and other coalition force languages.]
3. The above T-shirts are to be removed from Post Exchanges upon receipt of this directive.
4. The following signs are to be removed upon receipt of this message:
"Islamic Religious Services Will Be Held at the Firing Range At 0800 Daily."
"Do we really need 'smart bombs' to drop on these dumb b*st*rds?"
5. All commands are instructed to implement sensitivity training upon receipt.

God, I love the ingenuity of the lads.
 
You know, it probably would have been easier to just issue a directive that nothing refrencing Islam in a funny way may be worn. Someone is just gonna come up with new slogans.

As for butch, I agree with you on most points. Except rebuilding. If you take on the responsibility to attack a country, you need to take on the rebuilding as well. Why attack Saddam, but to make our lives and theirs better. How is it better for them, to have their country obliterated, than to not have a dictator in place.

Leaving a country like that just leaves the biggest militia to take power. The Iraqi citizens really did not put Saddam in power, they mostly didn't want him in power, and they really wouldn't have a say in who took power next.
 
I don't care if another dictator took Saddams place or not. If the people don't want to rise up and take advantage of the vacuum to create a government they like, then tough beans. Those people may just need dictatorship, given the way the act.

The point is that the next ruling clique would understand that if they wanted to remain in power, and alive, they would need to rule in such a way as to not become a threat to us. As long as they clearly understand that concept then the world would have just another dictator, as there are so many of now.

I see no value to the US in social engineering other countries, and trying to modify their behavior and their culture while we are at it.
 
Well, here's the kicker.

If we had a really horrid administration, say Hillary as POTUS and Teddy Kennedy as her Veep, and they trampled on our rights willy-nilly, and some other country took the opportunity to invade the United States and effect "regime change"...

...we would, for the most part, try to kill the foreign invaders any way we could, because this is our country, and nobody has the right to waltz in here and try to run our business, however good their intentions. I know that I would pick up a rifle and start popping invaders at every opportunity, even if that meant defending a horrid president. Because, by golly, the President may be horrid, but dealing with him/her would still be our business, not that of a foreign power. Whether I support or oppose the administration, nobody comes into my country with force of arms, deposes our government, and then tells us how to run our lives...no matter how good their intentions, and no matter how horrid my own government. We take our own trash out, thank you very much.

Most people would cast their political differences aside, and beat the crap out of the third party that interrupted our own national domestic dispute.

Now, the Iraqis are a proud people, and they feel every bit as strongly about their national identity as we Americans do. They've lived under good and bad rulers, in peace and war, and things have been going in their ways for thousands of years. The ones that are collaborating with us are doing so because they figure they have an opportunity for gain under the temporary managers of their country, but for the most part the Iraqis deeply resent a foreign power telling them how they should run their lives.

The notion that a bunch of fresh-faced Americans with no understanding of Arab culture can just come into a country, depose a government, paint some schools, and then have the locals rejoice and say, "Why didn't we try this 'democracy' thing a long time ago?' is simply preposterous.

We poured hundreds of billions of dollars and sixty thousand AMerican lives into Vietnam, because another generation of folks thought that cutting one's losses and pulling out meant losing face. In the end, Vietnam soaked up every single dollar we spent on it, we ended up with sixty thousand names on a black stone wall in D.C., and Vietnam still turned communist.

You cannot realign attitudes and local customs with guns or money. Iraq will soak up every dollar we spend on it, the place will turn back to the way the locals want it the second we pull out, and the number of names on the future Iraq memorial will only be determined by the length of time before people realize that "if we pull out, it was all for nothing" is a piss-poor excuse for throwing more young lives into the fire. Then it becomes a self-perpetuating excuse for an indefinite occupation of Iraq, because the number of those whose lives would have been "wasted for nothing" only grows every month.

If you loathe wasting the lives of our young people in uniform, then the time to think about that is before you send them to war. Send them into clear and defined wars, with mission goals and victory conditions established before the first shot is fired..and send them only when absolutely necessary.

Half-baked nation-building attempts in countries that don't want our assistance are not a prudent expenditure of our tax dollars and soldiers' and Marines' lives...not in my book.
 
Show that you are decent folk and guess what the world will completely support a Palestinian state

Actually, with the exception of Israel and the United States, I believe the majority of world opinion does support a Palestinian state. Even in the United States, and even with a Republican President, Dubya's rhetoric, anyway, supports a Palestinian state.

The United States government unconditionally supports Israel - no matter what they do... and, as the most powerful nation in the world, that essentially shields the Israelis from external influence.

The Israelis attack not only the Palestinians, they also attack and obstruct foreign journalists, human rights workers, aid workers, international observers, physicians, religious missionaries and assorted peaceniks. How many countries do you think such things could happen in?

Also taken from the US State Department's human rights report:
In May 2003, then-Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Silvan Shalom said, "Most human rights offices in the West Bank and Gaza Strip provide shelter for Palestinian terrorists."
...now, what goal do you think the Israeli government might have for declaring any human rights observers as terrorists (and, clearly legitimate military targets)?
 
Since a lot of people are making ascertions about what Iraqis think, how many of you have talked to Iraqis that were under his rule? I have and the results are this. Mostly all of them, even many of the regime cronies, were deathly afraid of Saddam and his henchmen. Nearly all I spoke with had some friend or family member raped or killed BEFORE THEIR EYES. They didn't hear about it, but saw it. Iraqis wish us to leave. Do you blame them. But 98% (at least those I've talked to) are glad that fool and his two knucklehead sons are done for. They are excited about the future of their country, as long as they have a voice in it.
 
I didn't think it was a good idea to go into Iraq, but I think
it's worse that not enough troops were sent in to handle
post battle situations. If yer going to jump in the fire, use
both feet. That country and all around em have been
battling after one thing or another for hundreds, maybe
thousands of yrs. They know what war is all about.

What they respect is power. No I didn't like us going in,
but by God I support all the troops over there trying to
handle business and I want em home soonest !
 
I am watching this thread and find many of the opinions here amusing.

One thing I will mention... the only people who do not want a Palestinian state are the Arab countries bordering Israel and the former Palestinian leadership (Arafat). Why? Well do some research if you really care--either that or stop pontificating.

One last thing. I do not blame Iraqis for wanting the US out. What I do blame them for are the mass bombings and civilian slayings. These are the work of Islamic terrorists... not to be confused with rebels.
 
Derius

"Wow, did they teach you that level of sarcasm at the liberal arts academy?

Are you denying the fact that Sadaam was a sadist, who tortured, maimed, and brutally murdered 1000's, if not more of HIS OWN PEOPLE, etc, etc, blah blah blah blah..."

Actually, Derius, that was in response to pinheads like yourself, who not only chose to ignore my original question, but also saw fit to create inferences about the question that didn't exist, then followed up by re-writing the question, then providing the only acceptable answer to that question. I realize we all can't be gifted, but I thought the question was pretty straightforward. As I stated numerous times, it was not my intention to push an agenda, or tell anyone why they are wrong, I was only interested in getting opinions on a specific issue.

I know there are a lot of angry males out there who seek an outlet for their hostility, but the internet should not be one of them.
 
the only people who do not want a Palestinian state are the Arab countries bordering Israel and the former Palestinian leadership (Arafat).

So, the Israelis have been trying to establish a Palestinian state for the last century (approximately the length of the modern influx and seizure of these lands) then, yes?

If they have been trying so hard to do that, why is the distribution of new Israeli settlements (1996-2002 in figure below) what it is - scattered randomly across the country, essentially locking up the maximum possible land with the available people, and organized by the government in these locations?

If they were trying so hard to establish a Palestinian state, why did their Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, orchestrate a massacre of Palestinian refugees at Sabra and Shatila? An incident which was dubbed "genocide" by the United Nations? An incident for which an internal Israeli commission, formed after international outcry found:
the Minister of Defense [Ariel Sharon] bears personal responsibility
. The United States government, by the way, remained mute during this international outcry - not a peep.

Israeli Settlements established between 1996-2002:
fmep_israel_settlements_map1.gif
 
All Nations have the right to defend themselves against threat.

I have some questions though, regarding the issue of Saddam being a tyrant, yes he is a wicked fool who killed over a thousand or more of his own people, but could'nt he and his fellow fools have been removed as surgically as the reports made the attact seem? I mean without the death of soo many women and children? If it was unavoidable, should'nt the way forward be to ensure that this does not re-occur and that the seeds of hate that have been sewn whether intentional or unintentional be uprooted by allowing those freed to clearly see that they have been freed and not that their tormentor has been replaced with a new one.

This type of seed was sewn and left unchecked before and we have all suffered the loss of family members and friends to an enemy that has no defined look, who might very well exist within our circle of friends. Should we not seek to know our enemy and to understand how he operates so that we can effectively attack and subdue him. Is it not the point of aggressive excursions to subdue? If this has not been done and the real enemy has shifted and now been regrouped then the action has failed, has'nt it?

That said I am glad Saddam has been removed, but the soldiers (US) and the young ones of the occupied country do not need to die unless their death brings forth a successful mission, the subduing of a great enemy and the freeing of a Nation. I ask again, could'nt Saddam have been taken out in a more surgical manner, or is there really more to it than what we have access to? I dont know.
 
[EDIT]I don't mean to thread jack by posting this... I will move it to a new thread if need be.[/EDIT]

Well, since I lack the initiative to describe the situation myself, I will refer you to this article. I read it recently and it sums up the situation pertaining to Palestinians quite well. It is long, but well worth it--no, required--if anyone is at all interested about what is really going on over there. Please read the whole thing before replying, “Yeah but... umm… Israel sucks!”

And yes, my clothes are flame retardant.


<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>v<o>


The Big Arab Lie
By David Meir-Levi
FrontPageMagazine.com | May 18, 2005


The Arab version of the tragic fate of Arab refugees who fled from British Mandatory Palestine before and during the 1948 war, and from Israel immediately after the war, has so thoroughly dominated the thinking of even well-educated historians, commentators, journalists and politicians, that it is almost a given that the creation of the State of Israel caused the flight of almost a million hapless, helpless and hopeless Arab refugees. Israel caused the problem and thus Israel must solve the problem.

This assertion, although viscerally engaging and all but canonized by the anti-Israel left (including the Arab-dominated UN) which makes it the core of its narratives of the Middle East conflict, is unequivocally and utterly false.


Origins of the Problem

The details of the process whereby the approximately 725,000 Arab residents of British Mandatory Palestine in Cis-Jordan achieved refugee status and endured brutal oppression and unmitigated suffering at the hands of their host Arab countries are described in Part II below (“the Eight Stages of Creation”). The bottom line itself is very straightforward and simple:

The State of Israel was created in a peaceful and legal process by the United Nations. The UN partition plan (resolution #181, November 29, 1947) created two states: the State of Israel for the Jews, and the State of Palestine for the Arabs.

The Arab refugees were people who fled because of the war that the Arab states started. The rulers of eight Arab countries whose populations vastly outnumbered the Jews initiated the war with simultaneous invasions of the newly created State of Israel on three fronts. Nascent Israel begged for peace and offered friendship and cooperation to its neighbors. The Arabs rejected this offer and answered it with a war of annihilation against the Jews, which fortunately failed. To this day, the Arab states and the Palestinians refer to the failure of their aggression and the survival of Israel as the Nakhba – the catastrophe.

Had there been no Arab aggression, no war, no invasion by Arab armies whose intent was avowedly genocidal, not only would there have been no Arab refugees, but there would have been a state of Palestine in the West Bank and Gaza since 1948.

Israel offered to return land it had acquired in defending itself against the Arab aggression in exchange for a formal peace. It made this offer during the Rhodes Armistice talks and Lausanne conference in 1949. The Arab rulers refused. Had Israel’s offer been accepted, there could have been prompt and just resolution to all the problems that have afflicted the region since. The only problem that wouldn’t have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Arabs was their desire to obliterate the state of Israel. After their victory, Israel passed a law that allowed Arab refugees to re-settle in Israel provided they would sign a form in which they renounced violence, swore allegiance to the state of Israel, and became peaceful productive citizens. During the decades of this law’s tenure, more than 150,000 Arab refugees have taken advantage of it to resume productive lives in Israel.

It should be completely obvious to any reasonable and fair-minded observer of this history, therefore, that it was not the creation of the State of Israel that caused the Arab refugee problem, nor was it Israel that obstructed its solution.

On the contrary, the Arab refugee problem was the direct result of the aggression of the Arab states, and their refusal after failing to obliterate Israel to sign a formal peace, or to take care of the refugees who remained outside Israel’s borders.
 
A Summary of The Salient Facts


The protracted Arab refugee crisis is an artificial crisis maintained for 57 years by Arab rulers in order to exploit their own people’s suffering -- to create a “poster child” for Palestinian victim-hood; a staging ground for anti-Israel propaganda; a training center for Arab terrorists; and a trump card for the anti-Israel jihad (per Sakher Habash) if/when all else (war, terrorism, international diplomacy) fails.

“Haq el-Auda,” the “law of return,” for Palestinian Arabs to their own homes and farms and orchards that have been part of Israel for the past 57 years is a sham.

Sixty years ago there were nearly a million Jews in the Arab states of the Middle East: honest hard-working citizenry contributing to the culture and economy of their countries of domicile. Today, there are almost no Jews in the Arab countries of the Middle East, and racist apartheid laws prohibit even Jewish tourists from entering Arab countries.

In Israel, on the other hand, the Arabs who did not flee numbered about 170,000 in 1949; and now number more than 1,400,000. They have 12 representatives in the Israel Parliament, judges sitting on the Israeli supreme court bench, and Ph.D’s and tenured professors teaching in Israeli colleges and universities. They are a population that enjoys more freedom, education, and economic opportunity than do any comparable Arab populations anywhere in the Arab world.

The Arab rulers caused the Arab refugee problem in 1948 by their war of aggression against the infant state of Israel, a legal creation of the United Nations; the Arab rulers have since maintained the Arab refugee population and denied it any possibility of normal life in Arab countries in order to use the suffering they themselves have caused it as a weapon in their unending war against Israel.

During all these decades the refugee camps and their Arab exploiters have been funded by billions of dollars from the United Nations, the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union.



* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



The Eight Stages of the Creation of Arab Refugee Problem


There were eight stages to the flight of Arabs from what would soon become Israel:


One. As early as the Fall of 1947, months before the UN partition plan of 11/29/47, it was clear that there would be a war no matter what course of action the UN took. In anticipation of this war, many of the well-to-do Arabs (the Effendi) of Western Galilee, from Haifa to Acco and villages in between, closed down their houses and went to Beirut or Damascus, where with their wealth and connections they could wait out the war in safety. They thought that they would be out of the way of danger, and when the war was over (no one imagined that Israel would win) they would come back to their homes.


Current estimates by objective observers (Conan Cruise O’Brien, in his book “The Siege”, being perhaps the most objective) is that about 70,000 fled.


Two. These refugees caused a sudden absence of political and social leadership among the Arabs of Galilee, and thus as the hostilities developed in the Winter of 1947, many of the Arab peasantry (Felahin) fled as well, following their leaders' example. They lacked the money and connections to make a comfortable trip out of the way of danger, as their Effendi had done. So many of them simply walked with whatever they could carry, to Lebanon or Syria. Their main motivation for leaving was that since their leadership had fled, things must be pretty bad, so they had better leave too. They too were sure, based upon documentation from Arab press at the time, that when the war was over and the Jews were all dead or driven from Israel, they would come back to their homes.

There are no solid numbers for this exodus, but estimates range around 100,000 people. There were so many exiting that the Arab states had a special conference in Beirut to decide how to handle all the Arabs that were pouring across the borders. They set up special camps...later to be known as refugee camps.

Note: Well!! These Arabs were fleeing of their own free will. No one, neither Israel nor Arab states, were encouraging, frightening, or ordering them to do so. The war had not yet even begun.


Three. After 11/29/47, warfare between the Israeli Haganah (not yet called the IDF because the local British Mandatory forces were stalwartly pro-Arab and routinely arrested Haganah soldiers and took their arms...so the Israeli army was still an underground army) and para-military Arab volunteers numbering in the tens of thousands (trained and armed in Syria and Lebanon, with the aid of both ex-NAZI and British officers) began in earnest.

The Arab press and public speeches made it clear that this was to be a war of annihilation...like the great Mongol hordes killing all in their path. The Jews would be either dead or out. Israel was fighting not a war of independence, but a war of survival.

In order to defend some areas where Jews were completely surrounded by Arabs (like the Jews of Jaffa, Jewish villages or kibbutzim in parts of Galilee and the central hill country, and in Jerusalem), the Haganah adopted scare-tactics that were intended to strike terror into the Arab population of those areas, so that they would retreat to safer ground, and thus make it possible for the Hagana to defend those Jews who would otherwise be inaccessible and thus vulnerable to genocidal Arab intentions.

Many Arabs in parts of western Galilee, Jaffa, and parts of western Jerusalem, fled because of these tactics (rumors that a huge Jewish army from the West was about to land on the coast, hand-grenades thrown on front porches of homes, jeeps driving by and firing machine guns into the walls or fences of houses, rumors circulated by Arabic-speaking Jews that the Haganah was far bigger than it really was, and was on the verge of surfacing with a massive Jewish army, etc.).

Here it is important to note that Jews were responsible in this part of the Arab flight. But it was not because they wanted to ethnically cleanse the country, or to wipe out the Arabs. It was because they knew that Jews undefended in Arab enclaves would be slaughtered (as in fact was the case of Jews in the Gush Etzion villages and in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, and as had happened in Hebron in 1929). It was the exigency of their fighting a war of survival against a bigger and better armed enemy that drove them to the tactics described above.
 
It is also important to note here the following two facts:

a. Had the Arab leadership accepted the UN partition plan, there would have been a state of Palestine since 11/29/47, for the Arabs, alongside of Israel.

b. Had the Arab armies not invaded, there would have been no refugee problem.


In light of these two facts, it is clear that the total onus of culpability for the start of the refugee problem rests squarely and solely upon the Arab states that invaded, in clear disregard for the UN resolution 181 and international law.


Four. Arab leadership from among the para-military forces and the forces of Syria were vociferous in their announcements that they wanted Arabs to leave so that the armies would have a clear field in which to perpetrate their genocide of the Jews (see appendix below). When the war was over (Arab newspaper articles suggested about 4-6 weeks before all the Jews were driven out or killed), the Arab residents could come back and have both their own lands and those of the Jews.

We cannot know how many Arabs fled because of these announcements; but since a number of Arab spokespersons after the war admitted to having done this, and wrung their hands publicly in painful repentance of having created the refugee problem, it is clear that the Arab leadership's own message to many Arabs in the area was a major factor in the Arab flight.

It is also important to point out at this time that there were a number of cases where Jewish leaders got out in public and pleaded with Arabs not to leave. The mayor of Haifa is the best example of this. At the risk of his own life, he drove through the Arab section of Haifa with a loudspeaker on his jeep, and in Arabic called out to the residents of his city to disregard the Arab propaganda.

Nonetheless, tens of thousands fled. The incredulous British officers who witnessed this (don't forget, the British had not yet left) documented it in a variety of sources (some mentioned in the appendix below). Those Arabs who stayed were unharmed and became citizens of Israel.

The British also documented for the world a similar phenomenon in Tiberius (a town in which the Arab population vastly outnumbered the Jewish), where the Arabs quite literally chose to leave even though they were under no direct threat from the Jews, and asked the British to assist them. Tens of thousands left under British guard, while the Jews, both civilian and Hagana, looked on.

In a slightly different twist, the Arabs of Safed (Tzefat) fled before the Haganah attack, even though the Arab forces in Safed outnumbered the Jews about 10 to one.

Wherever Arabs chose to stay, they were unharmed and later became citizens of Israel.

There have been a number of essays written by later historians contesting the truth of the assertion that Arab leaders told their people to flee. But Conan Cruise O’Brien’s “The Siege” and Mitchell Bard's "Idiot's Guide to the Mid-East conflict" and "Myths and Facts" offer irrefutable proof of just such pronouncements.


Five. Deir Yassin: The events that took place at Deir Yassin are still hotly disputed. But by their own admission, Arab leadership today acknowledges that the lies created by the Arabs then about the fictitious "massacre" were concocted in order to shame the Arab armies into fighting against the Jews, and to frighten the Arabs and encourage them to flee.

The village sits near Jerusalem, overlooking the road from Tel Aviv. Jewish Jerusalem was under siege, and its lifeline was this one road to Tel Aviv. A contingent of Iraqi troops had entered Deir Yassin on 3/13/48. Some sources suggest that they were asked to leave. Apparently they did not, since their armed bodies were numerous among the dead after the battle. It was obvious that they were going to try to cut off that road. Doing so would spell the end of Jewish Jerusalem. So on 4/9/48, a contingent of the Irgun (a para-military splinter group) entered the village. This operation was completely legitimate in the context of rules of engagement, since the Iraqi presence made the village a legal military objective.

Their intent, to capture the village and drive out the Iraqis, was completely clear from the onset, because they entered with a jeep and loudspeaker telling the civilian population to flee the village (unfortunately, this jeep slid into a ditch, so some of the villagers may not have heard the message; but many did, because they fled before the Irgun got into the village), and rather than surround the village and bar escape, they left several routes open for the civilians to flee, which hundreds of villagers used. However, the Iraqis had disguised themselves as women (easy to hide weapons beneath the flowing robes of the burqa) and had hidden themselves among women and children in the village. So, when the Irgun fighters entered, they encountered fire from women!

When the Irgun fighters fired back, they killed many innocent women because the Iraqis were hiding behind them. After suffering more than 40% casualties to their forces, the Irgun succeeded in killing or capturing the Iraqis. Then, while they were in a group, still dressed as women, having surrendered and agreed to be taken prisoner, some of the Iraqis opened fire again with weapons

Concealed beneath their women's clothing. Irgun fighters were caught off guard, more were killed, and others opened fire into the group. Iraqis who had indeed surrendered were killed along with those who had only pretended to surrender and had then opened fire.

When the Hagana arrived they found the dead women and other civilians and thus incorrectly accused the Irgun of murder and massacre. But the Red Cross, which was called in to assist the wounded and civilians, found no evidence of a massacre. In fact, even the most recent review of the evidence (7/1999), by Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah, indicates that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire. The total Arab dead, including the Iraqi soldiers, according to the Beir Zayyit calculation, was 107.

So where did the idea of a massacre come from? The same Arab sources that confess to having urged the Arabs to flee have also acknowledged that Arab spokespersons at the time galacticly exaggerated the Deir Yassin fight, making up stories of gang rape, brutalizing of pregnant women, killing unborn children cut from their mothers' wombs by blood-thirsty Jews, and massive murders with bodies thrown into a nearby quarry. These same Arab sources admit that their purpose in these exaggerations and lies was to shame the Arab nations into entering the conflict with greater alacrity, so that the Jews would be destroyed by the overwhelming numbers of Arab invaders.

The plan backfired. The Arab armies invaded, but only with a fraction of their total military capacity. But as a result of these exaggerations and lies, Arab civilians panicked upon hearing these stories, and fled by the tens of thousands. This is documented on television by a 1993 (revised 2001) PBS program (50 Years of War) in which Deir Yassin survivors were interviewed in 1991. They unabashedly proclaimed that they begged Dr. Hussein Khalidi, director of Voice of Palestine (the Palestinian radio station in East Jerusalem) to edit out the lies and fabrications of atrocities that never happened. He told them: “We must capitalize on this great opportunity!”

Note well!! The flight of Arabs had begun many months before Deir Yassin. So Deir Yassin cannot account for those hundreds of thousands of Arabs who sought refuge prior to 4/9/48. Moreover, while current Arab propaganda asserts that Deir Yassin was one of many examples of Jewish massacre and slaughter, there is not one other documented example of any such behavior by the Jews. Deir Yassin was not an example; it was the exception.
 
In sum, it was not what happened at Deir Yassin that caused the flight of tens of thousands of Arabs; it was the lies invented by the Arab High Command and Dr. Hussein Khalidi of the “Voice of Palestine” radio news channel that caused the panic. One can hardly blame Israel for that.

Moreover, we have from an unimpeachable source, Yassir Arafat himself (his authorized biography, by Alan Hart, "Arafat: Terrorist or Peace Maker") that the Deir Yassin lies were spread "like a red flag in front of a bull" by the Egyptians. Then, having terrorized them with these stories, the Egyptians proceeded to disarm the Arabs of the area and herd them into detention camps in Gaza (today's Gaza refugee camps). Why did the Egyptians do this? According to Arafat, it was to get the Arabs out of the area because the Egyptians wanted a free hand to wage their war. Egypt had every intention of conquering the Negev and southern part of the coastal plain. They wanted no interference from the locals.

So the lies about Deir Yassin were spread in order to shame the Arab armies and cause panic among Arab civilians.

Bottom line, Deir Yassin was not a massacre; nothing even vaguely akin to what the Jews are accused of ever happened. The lies were made up by Arabs, and spread by Arabs. The further flight of refugees after 4/9/48 was caused not by the Deir Yassin battle, but by the Arab lies about the Deir Yassin battle. And this from Yassir himself, and from Beir Zayyit University.

We don't know how many Arabs fled as a result of the “Voice of Palestine” exaggerations. Several hundred thousand is a good estimate. Most of them ended up in the Egyptian detention camps in Gaza.


Six. There were two more incidents (in addition to the actions noted above in #3) of Arab refugees being forced to flee by Israeli army actions: Lydda and Ramle.

Both villages sat astride the road from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. As the siege on Jerusalem tightened, the Israeli forces knew that in order to save the Jews of west Jerusalem from defeat and possible annihilation, they had to keep that road open. So one night they entered both villages and forcibly drove out the Arab residents. They rousted them from bed and sent them walking across the fields to the area that was under Jordanian control (some kilometers away).


Note...none were killed. There was no massacre. But they were driven out. However, they were driven out because their villages sat astride the road to Jerusalem, and the only way to guarantee the survival of 150,000 Jews in Jerusalem was to control this one road.


Seven. By 5/15/48, the British had evacuated their forces from all of British Mandatory Palestine, and the Jews had a free hand in using their Haganah, which now became the IDF. And the Arab countries had a free hand in attacking. And attack they did. Armies from 8 Arab nations poured into the area from Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt (volunteers and soldiers from Saudi

Arabia, Yemen and Morocco came too - hence Cool. They outnumbered the Hagana (now IDF) about 5 to one. For the next month or so the Israelis were fighting a terribly difficult defensive war, just barely able to keep the invaders out. There were about 63,000 IDF volunteers, but weapons for only 22,000.

In June of '48 the UN imposed a cease-fire. By July when the Arabs re-initiated hostilities, the Israelis had been able to use the cease-fire to import arms and planes from Russia and Germany via Czechoslovakia. Now better armed, the IDF numbered 65,000 and the odds were reduced to about 2-1. Good odds for the determined Jewish fighters.

When the fighting resumed in July, the IDF went on the offensive and succeeded in driving the Arab armies out of both the Jewish areas and large parts of the areas that the UN had intended to be the Palestinian state (western Galilee, and southern coastal plain north of Gaza). When this offensive began, more Arabs fled. As noted above, the Arabs that stayed were not harmed, and became citizens of Israel.

Contrary to revisionist and mendacious Arab propaganda, there was never any intent to massacre Arabs. Many civilians died in the cross fire, and the overwhelming majority of Arabs who fled did so needlessly, at their own initiative, or because of the Arab leadership that lied and intimidated them. Some Arabs were driven out by the IDF, but as part of a defensive measure. Not as part of any plan to ethnically cleanse the land or massacre/genocide the Arabs. These accusations are all new revisionism aimed at exonerating the Arabs from their heinous and brutal role in creating the Arab Refugee problem, and at transferring the guilt to Israel.


Perhaps the most revealing considerations in the conclusion that Israel NEVER set out to put into action a plan to genocide the Arabs of Palestine or to drive them from their homes are:

The complete absence of any coverage in any world press, including Arab press and western press openly hostile to Israel, about any such actions of which Israel is today accused. The complete absence of these accusations from any Arab spokespersons during this time, even at the very height of the flight (post-Deir Yassin), and for many years thereafter. The fate of the Arabs who stayed. They became Israeli citizens and enjoy more freedom, democracy, political representation, high standard of living, education, and economic opportunities, than any Arabs anywhere in the Arab world today.

Finally, after the 2/49 cease-fire, when the war was over, there was still a continued flight by tens of thousands of Arabs. The Jews did absolutely nothing to encourage or force this flight.



The above are the 7 stages of causation. The next stage recounts on-going Arab obduracy in the maintenance of the refugee problem and refusal to seek any solution.


Eight. As noted above, the Arabs caused the problem by starting the war, and by encouraging Arabs to leave during the war. Even worse, although Israel offered on several occasions to repatriate refugees, the Arab states refused.

During the Rhodes armistice talks in 2/1949, Israel offered to return to the Arabs the lands that the Jews had conquered that were meant to be part of the Palestinian state, in exchange for a peace treaty. This would have allowed hundreds of thousands of refugees to return to their homes. The Arabs said no, because, as they themselves admitted, they were momentarily going to mount a new offensive. They had lost round one. There would be more and more rounds, until the Arabs won. Their new offensive was the 9000 terrorist attacks mostly from Egypt that the Arabs perpetrated against Israel from 1949-1956 (part of the cause of the '56 war).

At the Lausanne conference in 8-9/49, Israel offered to repatriate 100,000 refugees even without a peace treaty. The Arab states said NO, because that would involve a tacit recognition of the state of Israel.

Thus, despite Israel's offers of repatriation, the Arabs insisted on maintaining the refugees in their squalor and suffering. Arab spokespersons in Syria and Egypt were quoted in their newspapers as saying: we will maintain the refugees in their camps until the flag of Palestine flies over all of the land. They will go back home only as victors, on the graves and corpses of the Jews.

Moreover, as some Arabs were candid enough to announce in public, the refugee problem would serve as "a festering sore on the backside of Europe", as moral leverage to be used against Israel in order to win the emotional support of the West against Israel.
 
Conclusion


The Arab refugee problem was created by the belligerent Arab states that defied the UN, invaded Israel, encouraged the Arabs to flee, and then purposefully kept them in a state of wretched poverty for Machiavellian propaganda purposes. Israel’s role was a relatively minor one, in legitimate military contexts, which it tried to reverse after the war.

The problem was maintained intentionally by the Arab states through their refusal to abide by the UN resolutions and the Geneva convention, refusal to integrate any refugees into under-populated Arab countries (except for Jordan), refusal to enter into peace negotiations with Israel, and refusal to countenance ANY steps toward resolution by Israel or others.

By maintaining the problem, the Arab leaders sought to gain pseudo-moral leverage against Europe and Israel, to keep a “festering human sore” in the forefront of their propaganda war against Israel, and to use the issue as a political weapon against Israel.

Israel indicated its willingness on several occasions to include repatriation and/or reparations for Arab refugees, in context of peace treaty; but its offers were rejected by the Arab leadership.

Egypt, in its 1979 treaty with Israel, refused to deal with refugee issue in Gaza strip, and ceded all of Gaza strip to Israel. The PLO refused to negotiate with Israel, so refugee status of Gaza Palestinians was maintained.

Jordan had integrated thousands of Palestinians into its economy, and did not see any need or responsibility to deal with the disposition of those on the West Bank in the context of its 1994 peace treaty with Israel.

The abuses, exaggerations, lies, and distortions perpetrated by Arab governments, UNWRA and the refugee spokespersons made it impossible, even back in 1949, to identify a bona fide refugee populace.

The Palestinian population of the West Bank, under Israeli rule from 1967 to 1992, experienced the highest standard of living of any Arab country with the exception of the oil states. The same is true of Arab Israelis. The Arab population of West Bank and Gaza has tripled since 6/67: no genocide, no ethnic cleansing.

The Palestinian population under the Palestinian National Authority (PNA) from 1994 to the present has declined precipitously, the standard of living eroded, GDP is one-tenth of what it was under Israeli control; all due to mis-appropriation of approximately $5.2 billion by the PNA into personal wealth and weapons stock-piling, and due to Arafat’s terror war against which Israel must exercise defensive controls and deterrents.

Justice for Jewish and Arab refugees could have been part of a peace settlement, if the Arab states had been willing. Today the same is true, if the Palestinian National Authority would stop the terror war and fulfill the obligations to which it committed at Oslo.
 
Wraith,

Whether OTHER Arab nations precipitated the problem or not does not relieve Israel of the responsibility for the Palestinians in their borders. Blaming other Arab states is like involving Canada in the illegal Mexican immigration problem we have.

This is a problem between only two groups of people who all live inside a single border. It is not Palestines fault that members of other nations attacked Israel, so I don't follow the logic that Palestine needs to live with the consequenses.
 
Back
Top