There are certain topics that Crikey readers just love to argue about: climate change, Wilfred Burchett and, of course, the Israel-Palestine conflict.
We understand — these are important issues of our time, and ones about which most people hold passionate opinions, but there’s only so much debate our Comments, Corrections, Clarifications and Cock-ups section can handle while still leaving room for fawning First Dog fans, accusations of our clear right/left bias, and JamesK.
With some controvertial pieces by Guy Rundle lately — and subsequent responses from the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council’s Bren Carlill — the Israel/Palestine issue has seen both sides hit our inbox with all guns blazing. So we’re setting up another of our patented Crikey Cage Matches, so you can slug it out here.
Despite the name (borne solely from our fondness for alliteration), we want a good, clean fight with productive, robust debate, and no slander, name-calling, racism, eye-gouges or groin shots.
Now, as Big John McCarthy would say: “Let’s get it on!”
10 Comments
Michael Brull writes: Re. “Carlill vs Rundle: Ahmadinejad, Palestine and Israel” (yesterday, item 19). Vulgar apologists for Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians often come up with the same arguments, over and over again. This is not necessarily because they are asked, or trained to do so. It is because the facts are against them. There is an overwhelming corpus of human rights reports, scholarly literature and so on, documenting Israel’s oppression of the Palestinians, its racist discrimination against the Palestinians within the Green line and so on.
How can defenders of the Holy State deal with such unpleasant issues? Plainly, an honest look into the evidence would work against them. So instead, there are a few tried and tested counter-ploys chauvinist Zionists engage in, to avoid discussion of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians.
The first and perhaps best known is the cry of anti-Semitism. Even the most left-wing of Israel’s self-described “supporters” thinks those who subject Israel to criticism too searching are anti-Semitic. Even Jews can apparently be anti-Semitic if they stray outside the margins of established chauvinist Zionist dogma. Well, plainly anti-Semites do not deserve rational discussion. Thus, people can disregard the issues raised by the alleged anti-Semites, and discussion revolves around whether or not the people in question are actually anti-Semitic.
The next ploy is no more sophisticated, and is also based around diverting the issues. This is the “but what about x?” ploy. If someone mentions Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, the vulgar Zionist swings into action: “But what about Iran’s oppression of x? What about Zimbabwe’s human rights record? What about Tibet? And Sudan?” In a sense, this a little bit more senseless. Any issue can be discussed in isolation, and it makes most sense to explain any issue by itself. Suppose, for example, that I write an article deploring Australia’s treatment of Aborigines.
Suppose I say the Howard government’s treatment of Aborigines in the Northern Territory intervention was so brazenly racist that it had to repeal the Racial Discrimination Act (which is true), and that our institutionalised racism is so grotesque that our own citizens are complaining to the UN about it, because they think that’s the best way to challenge it (which is also true). None of this becomes untrue by saying the US, China or Israel or any other country is more or less racist than us.
The real point of saying “but what about situation x” is basically the same as the first ploy — to divert attention from the issues raised. An intellectually serious response would examine whether or not our indigenous population has been treated shamefully or not, and engage with the vast evidence in favour of this proposition.
Bren Carlill, in his criticisms of Rundle, does briefly try to address issues like settlements, and claims that the real reason there’s no Palestinian state is because of Palestinian rejectionism. However, Carlill’s heart is not really in the issues. Carlill knows where discussing those could lead to. So, he pulls out ploy two, and then ploy one.
What about Iran’s treatment of Khuzestani Arabs? What about the Sahrawis? “Oh! Never heard of them?”
The point of Carlill’s cynical manoeuvre is to change the subject, and imply that critics of Israel crimes could not possibly do so in good faith. Surely, the only issues they ever raise are Palestine, whilst ignoring everything else.
As it happens, the “they only talk about Palestine” ploy is one I enjoy, because it can very easily be addressed. Consider, for example, what Carlill seems to consider an obscure issue — the plight of the Sahrawis. Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco — an occupation deplored by the United Nations Security Council, yet effectively protected from international sanctions by the United States and France. Stephen Zunes should discuss this all in a forthcoming book on the matter, but did so already in his earlier book, Tinderbox (see pp 22-4). The warm blurbs on the back of the book include those by As’ad AbuKhalil, Noam Chomsky, Richard Falk, Kathleen Christison and Naseer Aruri.
Consider also the case of Iran. Carlill deplores the treatment of Khuzestani Arabs, above everyone else in Iran. If one were particularly cynical about where Carlill has learnt about Iran, one might wonder if it’s a coincidence that this happens to be where Iran’s oil is concentrated. However, the problem for Carlill is that responsibility for the egregious human rights abuses there for the last 50 some years can be divided between Iran’s theocrats, and other countries.
For example, the US and Britain, which overthrew the democratically elected secular nationalist Mohammed Mossadeq, and installed the vicious autocratic regime of the Shah. Israel gave its own generous contribution to freedom in Iran, by training the dreaded SAVAK in methods of torture, which it used to torture tens of thousands of Iranians. Iran’s leading dissident figures call for democracy in Iran – but they also plead for an end to threats to bomb Iran, which, according to Akbar Ganji, “makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran”. Funnily enough, Ganji refused to meet with President Bush, but agreed to meet with Chomsky.
Of the intellectuals I’ve named, all are on record deploring Israel’s human rights record. And more can be named who have criticised Iran under the mullahs – and the Shah – but also deplore Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. Like Hamid Dabashi. Or Amnesty International.
Now that the “double standards” of the left ploy can be dispensed with, why not talk about Israel? Carlill talks about “double standards” on racism and human rights, yet only notices these when they aren’t committed by Israel. Carlill seems to think “settlement expansion” — he puts them in quotation marks – is a myth. He also seems to think over 450 000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a military occupation has no relation to the non-existence of a Palestinian state. Carlill makes much of Israel’s offers, leaving out, for example, that Israel’s chief negotiator at Taba — which Israel pulled out of — said he would have rejected the Camp David offer.
And this just continues Carlill’s long service to Israeli racism. Consider, for example, this op-ed. Put aside the gross historical distortions. Carlill actually wrote about the 1948 war: “Yes, Jewish fighters were directly responsible for creating a significant minority of the Palestinian refugees, but this is perfectly understandable. The Jews were fighting to survive, and the Palestinian villagers were engaged in the war to kill the Jews.”
Carlill CUT defends the expulsion of Palestinian civilians from their homes by the Israeli army and terrorist militias. Earlier, he implies that they are not real refugees because they “fled and were not pushed out”, in response to “the Palestinian Arab leadership” spreading “rumours of Jewish massacres”. Perhaps even now Carlill considers Deir Yassin an unsubstantiated rumour.
Carlill has also written that when “Israel kills a civilian, it apologises and launches an investigation.” Yes, on the rare occasions Israel’s crimes are adequately publicised, Israel launches dubious investigations, which quickly show that Israel is the most moral country in the world. More typically, there is no investigation. But consider a few recent cases in the Israeli press, unnoticed by Carlill. YNet reported that an Israeli border guard shot dead an Israeli Arab, without any threat to the Israeli border guard’s life. He was sentenced to six months community service. Haaretz reported on an Israeli man, who should be released from a mental hospital in a few months, after stabbing a Palestinian 24 times. Reporter Nehemia Shtrasler notes bitterly “all he did was kill an Arab”, and as Yesh Din has shown, Israelis who kill Palestinian civilians typically don’t have to worry about being convicted for such trivialities.
Israel’s human rights violations and racism have not only been investigated — they’ve been extensively documented. Carlill simply ignores these facts, when he’s not applauding ethnic cleansing of Palestinians. The simple question for him is: who’s guilty of double standards, Mr Carlill?
Charles Tyler writes: Please would you rein in Bren Carlill. His article makes valid criticisms of Ahmadinejad, and of Rundle, but his views on the Palestinians are so far to the right that they make Netanyahu and Lieberman look like liberals. It is really depressing to see such crap in Crikey. e.g.:
successive Israeli offers to the Palestinians (all rejected without counter-offer) have been of more and more West Bank land. It pretty much destroys the argument that Israeli “settlement expansion” is preventing the establishment of a viable Palestinian state. What’s really preventing the establishment of a viable Palestinian state is a mixture of Palestinian rejectionism, Palestinian corruption and Palestinian incompetence.
So, in Carlill’s view, it’s all the Palestinians fault! Those poor innocent Israelis with their mighty army and backing from the USA — they are the victims all the time! Let Carlill study the actual maps of the territory in question from the agreed partition plan (which was foisted on the Palestinians against their will and with the arm twisting of the USA and the UK in particular) onwards — e.g. after 1948 — after 1967 — and now where the “separation fence” (The words for separation and apartheid are the same word in Hebrew) is being built today. He will see that Israel has continued to expand — illegally I might add — into Palestinian territory at every stage.
The actual territory Israel has been “offering” (can you “offer” somebody something of theirs you have stolen?) is constantly diminishing. Israel has at every stage acted to prevent the potential creation of a viable Palestinian state. All the “offers” have just been stalling tactics while the major enterprise of building a Jewish state in all the occupied territory possible continues unabated. Successive Israeli governments have never stopped building settlements, special access road and checkpoints, and gradually whittling away the Palestinian owned areas building by building and block by block.
What is being created by this regime are small and fragmented Bantustan style enclaves where the Palestinians can be controlled easily. “Warehoused” is the fashionable term. The intention is for all the remaining territory — the great majority of it — to be a Jewish state.
Please would you ask him to study the situation in Israel from both sides of the argument — not just the Jewish/Zionist side — before writing any further articles for you? Perhaps he could first read a little book by the former Australian ambassador to Israel, Peter Rodgers, titled Herzl’s Nightmare. The attached article is a good starting place also. But then somehow I doubt that Mr Carlill has sufficient intellectual objectivity to be influenced by such writings – I suspect his mind is already made up!
Adam Coleman writes: One of the issues Bren Carlill left out of his demolition of Guy Rundle’s article endorsing Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s ridiculous tirade at the Durban II conference in Geneva is also one of the most oft-cited and pernicious: that the partition by the UN of the Transjordan mandate into different Jewish and Arab states (the Palestinian one not quite getting off the ground, sound familiar?) was somehow special and unique. It wasn’t, of course.
Dividing up territories into ethnically-based states has been all the rage since the end of World War I, and continues into the present day, the excising of Kosovo from Serbia being the most recent example.
A case contemporary to the foundation of Israel was the carving-out of Muslim homelands from secular India, creating East and West Pakistan. There was, and remains, plenty of blood-letting as a result of this partition, but one rarely hears the likes of Rundle questioning the validity of Pakistan’s nativity.
Normally this “Jews getting special treatment” version of events is presented in concert with an argument that the holocaust was some kind of fabrication, which supports the modern version of anti-Semitism that conceives of a vast Jewish conspiracy running the world. To his limited credit, Rundle falls just short of this; however, he does assert that the Jewish nature of Israel — “Zionism”, as has become the term — is inherently racist. Maybe it is, but Israel is hardly more racist than myriad other states. Modern, moderate, Muslim Malaysia, for example, has several policies and laws that are far more overtly racist than anything found in Israel.
From an editorial perspective, I wonder why Crikey feels the need to publish Rundle’s (I take it Crikey pays the man for his contributions?) ever more hysterical and baseless attacks on Israel. Sure, Crikey allowed a right of reply to his latest effort, but what will be Rundle’s next: Disproportionate Responses: From the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising to the Gaza Campaign? It can hardly get much worse when he is playing apologist for the most loathsome and extreme anti-Semite since Hitler.
Jack Plimmer writes: Pleeeaaaasssseeeee can you make Guy Rundle write an article on the Arabs of Khuzestan. When an Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council Policy Analyst sums up his argument (defending Israel’s policies towards Palestinians) by using a lack of reporting about the Arabs of Khuzestan (who!?) to claim double standards and racism against the Jews, you know they are on the ropes! I know Rundle is above doing this sort of petty stuff, but when your opponent won’t throw the towel in, you have to go for the knockout!
Hamish Craib writes: Bren Carlill should have used more exclamation marks and sarcasm in his considered response to Guy Rundle’s recent article. I fear Mr Carlill’s failure to be hysterically outraged may risk readers not to appreciate how entirely blameless Israel has been toward Palestinians. I, for one, have absolutely no idea how Mr Rundle could suggest that the West’s tolerance of Israel’s behaviour could used politically to benefit the leader of an Islamic country.
MR Rundle has the Chutzpah to call Bren’s brilliant and well informed response to his ill informed Arabist claptrap childish [ even using a unheard so call expert [ its a wonder Rundle didn't quote another so called' expert' Loewenstein]
If Rundle readers wish to see what is childish check out Rundles smutty interview
VIDEO: Rundle interviews “The Clinton women”
(http://blogs.crikey.com.au/rundle/2008/10/16/video-rundle-interviews-the-clinton-women/
He is more interested in the young woman Tit’s than what she has to say pretty Childish I’d say
Rundles constant attacks on Israel is water off a ducks back I suggest he tell his peace loving Palestinian mates to stop killing each other, stop discriminating against Palestinian Christians { is it any wonder there has never ever been a Palestinian Christian suicide bomber] , the problem is the Israelis don’t have anyone to negotiate with. Would we expect the Americans to negotiate a peace deal with Usama Bin Laden or the Taliban .
As far as I’m concerned the Israelis should extend their security barrier and declare a zero tolerance on Palestinian barbaric behavior and when the Palestinains decide they want to move into this century and give up their addiction for violence and choose a leader that is a non extremist ,Pragmatic and willing to accept a Jewish state next door { just as the Jews would have to accept Islamic state of Palestine as per Hamas Charter} they should end all so called peace negotiations.
Ruth Brown rightly points out that
A case contemporary to the foundation of Israel was the carving-out of Muslim homelands from secular India, creating East and West Pakistan. There was, and remains, plenty of blood-letting as a result of this partition, but one rarely hears the likes of Rundle questioning the validity of Pakistan’s nativity.
What does Mr A and Mr R make of this? What was the differnce in principle? Thousands perhaps millions of Hindu’s and Sikhs and Muslims and tribal minorities were displaced or murdered in the creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh as ‘Muslim’ states. Where is the righteous indignation on behalf of these people? Do these displaced people suffer in camps demanding their own state (no, it’s India like it or not) enjoying foreign support to form militias and to fire rockets across the borders of Pakistan or Bangldesh? What would the reaction of these states if this happened? There is some one-eyed undercurrent in liberal thought that expects Israel to have been made more virtuous by the centuries of persecution and attempted extermination of its people in Europe in demanding and defending their right to a Jewish homeland state, that us not applied to other histocial paralells.
pschoeffel, I’m just relaying emails we have recieved — none of the comments are my own. I’m just the messenger
pschoeffel rightly directs our attention to fact that Israel was created essentially contemporaneously with the carve out of (West) Pakistan and (East) Pakistan [now Banladesh] from the India of the Raj. To create the islamic state, millions were shipped in both directions. Likewise half a million Arabs left and/or were expelled from Israel in 1948 -while a far greater number of Jews were expelled from Arab States of whom 600,000 came to Israel. [In detail: 856,000 Jews left their homes in Arab countries from 1948 until the early 1970s; 260,000 reached Israel in 1948-1951, 600,000 by 1972.] But whereas those transferred from the 2 Pakistans became normal citizens of India — the Arabs that exited Israel were described as refugees — and after 1967 were labelled as Palestinian refugees. There is no question of land theft — there was a population exchange — coupled with a land exchange.
It was amusing to read Michael Brull attempt to criticise my response to Guy Rundle (http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090422-Carlill-vs-Rundle-Ahmadinejad-Palestine-and-Israel.html, April 22) using the same (and more) disingenuous tactics he falsely accused me of doing.
It’s a shame I have to waste so much time going over his various accusations, but there you have it – he accuses me of racism (an accusation subsequently removed by Crikey) and “applauding ethnic cleansing,” among other moral crimes, and these things cannot be left unanswered.
Before I get into it, it’s fascinating that he castigates me for accusing people of being anti-Semitic (that is, racist) to stop discussion of the Izzie-Pallie conflict, but then accuses me of racism himself! Is he attempting the same devious ploy of which he accuses me? I might add, that in my various writings to and about Crikey over the last week or so, the only person I’ve accused of being anti-Jewish is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. That’s a pretty safe assessment…
Brull writes: “Even the most left-wing of Israel’s self-described ’supporters’ thinks those who subject Israel to criticism too searching are anti-Semitic.”
Aside from the stunning generalisation, I challenge Brull to name a single Australian who is the leader or representative of a mainstream Jewish group (Zionist Federation, AIJAC, State Zionist Council, etc etc) who reflexively labels criticism of Israel anti-Semitic. There have been times in recent years when a particular critic or criticism has been so named, but in pretty much every case I can think of, such an assessment was matched by similar accusations from outside the Jewish community.
Brull writes: “The next ploy is no more sophisticated, and is also based around diverting the issues. This is the ‘but what about x?’ ploy. If someone mentions Israel’s crimes against the Palestinians, the vulgar Zionist swings into action: ‘But what about Iran’s oppression of x? What about Zimbabwe’s human rights record? What about Tibet? And Sudan?’ In a sense, this a little bit more senseless. Any issue can be discussed in isolation, and it makes most sense to explain any issue by itself.”
I don’t say and have never said that discussing Israel in isolation is racist. I say, look at the trends. If someone, over a period of time, discusses supposed Israeli racism disproportionately (or only!), one should have the ability to see an agenda.
Later on, Brull writes: “Of the intellectuals I’ve named, all are on record deploring Israel’s human rights record.”
He mentions people who have commented on more than one case of alleged or actual racism. Big whoop. The measure is not whether they’ve mentioned something, but how much focus they’ve given it, and if they utilise differing standards for different cases.
That the Durban process chose to only name one country (Israel) in the entire world as racist, what may one deduce from it? Surely not even Michael Brull believes Israel is the world’s only racist country? Likewise, the UN Human Rights Council passes resolution after resolution condemning Israel, but ignores other countries. I believe the group UN Watch can sum up the Human Rights Council’s bias better than I can: “Obsessed with condemning Israel, the Council in its first year failed to condemn human rights violations occurring in any of the world’s 191 other countries. In its second year, the Council finally criticized one other country when it ‘deplored’ the situation in Burma, but only after it censored out initial language containing the word ‘condemn.’ The Council’s fixation with Israel is not limited to resolutions. Israel is the only country listed on the Council’s permanent agenda (Item 7). Moreover, Israel is the only country subjected to an investigatory mandate that examines the actions of only one side, presumes those actions to be violations, and which is not subject to regular review.” (http://www.unwatch.org/site/c.bdKKISNqEmG/b.3820041/)
Clearly, there are many organisations that criticise many different countries, including Israel. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are two obvious cases. Now, if Human Rights Watch releases a report critical of Israel, do we automatically assume Israel must therefore be guilty of whatever it is that HRW has accused it of? Or do we look at the HRW report, study its findings and follow its references? And what if we see that, over time, HRW disproportionately criticises Israel, or makes numerous allegations about Israel that are later proved false? (http://www.ngo-monitor.org/article/human_rights_watch_hrw_) Do we continue to reflexively believe everything it says?
Brull writes: “Bren Carlill, in his criticisms of Rundle, does briefly try to address issues like settlements, and claims that the real reason there’s no Palestinian state is because of Palestinian rejectionism. However, Carlill’s heart is not really in the issues. Carlill knows where discussing those could lead to. So, he pulls out ploy two, and then ploy one. What about Iran’s treatment of Khuzestani Arabs? What about the Sahrawis? ‘Oh! Never heard of them?’ The point of Carlill’s cynical manoeuvre is to change the subject…”
Bollocks. Rundle claimed Israeli settlement policy was an attempt at genocide(!). I debunked that claim, then moved to Rundle’s next ridiculous claim. I was responding to Rundle, not assessing every aspect of Israeli foreign and domestic policy.
If my point was to change the subject, I would have started discussing either the Sahrawis, Khuzestanis or any number of other ethic group suffering the vagaries of either domestic or foreign oppression. Instead, I highlighted these by name (and not much more) to make the same, central point I’ve made throughout – that focusing on alleged Israeli wrongdoing to the exclusion of others is discriminatory. Again (and I’m so sick of having to write this), this does not mean I think Israel should be ignored, as Michael Brull falsely claims of me. It means I think other countries shouldn’t be.
Brull writes: “He also seems to think over 450 000 settlers in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and a military occupation has no relation to the non-existence of a Palestinian state.”
Darn tootin’! There was no Palestinian state when Israel arrived in the West Bank in 1967! Israel has offered Palestinians a state on numerous occasions since then. The final status agreement, when it is signed, will deal with issues such as troop redeployment and the settlers. The settlers and the soldiers are not the reason there is no Palestinian state. Don’t worry, Michael Brull, the new Palestinian state will be Judenrein enough for you.
Brull writes: “Carlill makes much of Israel’s offers, leaving out, for example, that Israel’s chief negotiator at Taba – which Israel pulled out of – said he would have rejected the Camp David offer.”
Actually, he was talking about the Oslo accords, not Taba. And in the same interview he expressed the opinion that Arafat only signed onto Oslo to shore up his diminishing political control over the Palestinians – that it was little to do with peace. (He also said the army’s chief of staff making a statement about the peace process was “tantamount to a coup d’etat,” indicated his grip on statecraft is not what it could be.)
People can whinge all day long (and they do) about how the Israeli peace offers aren’t good enough. But let me ask a simple question. Where is the Palestinian counter offer? Where was it in Camp David? Where was it in Taba? Where was it in Annapolis? Can Michael Brull point to a single peace offer made by a Palestinian leader on behalf of the PA or PLO? People can point to Israeli offers. Even if those same people are cynical about the extent of the Israeli offers, they at least know Israel has offered something. Michael Brull (falsely) accused me of changing or ignoring topics when I am uncomfortable discussing them. Is this a topic he’ll ignore?
Brull writes: “And this just continues Carlill’s long service to Israeli racism. Consider, for example, this op-ed (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7468&page=0). Put aside the gross historical distortions. Carlill actually wrote about the 1948 war: ‘Yes, Jewish fighters were directly responsible for creating a significant minority of the Palestinian refugees, but this is perfectly understandable. The Jews were fighting to survive, and the Palestinian villagers were engaged in the war to kill the Jews.’”
That quote of mine has no relation to racism. It was a description of one part of the war. And it was, I might add, taken out of context. The 1948 war (actually, 1947-1949, but let’s not let facts get in Michael Brull’s way), was one where one side, the Arabs, was publicly and actively trying to enact a genocide and the other, the Jews, were attempting to prevent the genocide. To put it simply, if you shoot at me and miss, and I shoot back and hit you, you shouldn’t cry foul. The Arab side (Palestinian irregulars and the armies of surrounding Arab countries) were trying to kill as many Jews as possible. The Jews fought back and won. To use a Jewish term, it’s the highest order of chutzpah that the Arabs are claiming to be the victim. Was Germany the victim in World War II?
I stand by the quote Brull provided, and everything else in the article, with one exception – ‘lifphlosh’ should have been spelt without the f.
Brull writes: “Carlill CUT defends the expulsion of Palestinian civilians from their homes by the Israeli army and terrorist militias. Earlier, he implies that they are not real refugees because they ‘fled and were not pushed out’, in response to ‘the Palestinian Arab leadership’ spreading ‘rumours of Jewish massacres’.”
Here, Michael Brull completely misrepresents me. For a start, I claimed the majority of Palestinian refugees from Israel’s War of Independence left of their own accord and were not pushed out. This is historical fact. Some of them left because their leaders encouraged them to. Others left because they were scared of war, and what they thought the Jews would do to them. (Little wonder, really, given what Palestinian and other Arab leaders kept saying they’d do to the Jews! Why wouldn’t the Palestinians expect their enemies to fight the same way the Palestinian side fought?)
The majority of the Palestinians that fled of their own accord did so well before the war reached them.
Brull suggests I defend the expulsion of Palestinian civilians from their homes. It was a messy war, and an example of what is known as “total warfare,” where all aspects of society – civilian, industrial, military, etc – were taking part in the fight. Palestinian combatants (usually not wearing uniform, thus making them hard to distinguish from civilians) would, for instance, launch attacks from friendly villages, or ambush Israeli civilian convoys, then retreat to the shelter of a friendly village, where they would be fed and housed willingly. Israeli soldiers would also shelter in friendly villages. This is one of the reasons why both sides attacked the villages of the other.
This was 1948, not 2008. The Geneva Conventions had not been written. The world wasn’t as nice as it is in comfortable, peaceful, Western, middle class suburbia, where the greatest worry is the price of a latte, from where Michael Brull pontificates.
When looking at historical events, analyse them in their proper context. Was the war nice? No. Did the Jewish side commit excesses? Certainly. Was the Jewish war aim one of extermination? No. Was the Arab war aim one of extermination? Yes.
Since Brull is into linking to other articles, I’d direct him and anyone else interested to this one (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/1948–israel–and-the-palestinians–annotated-text-11373?page=all). It’s a very good description of this aspect of the War of Independence. And it has references, where one can check up on the facts.
One Trackback