"Now kill all the boys"
Jack
Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
From the fourth book of the Torah:
Numbers 31
14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
Seon Ferguson
"Jack" <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote in message
news:Dmcbl.18376$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Jack
> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
lesser extent, Christians
John Manning
> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
Killing all the boys and keeping the virgin girls for themselves is
symbolic of *what* exactly!?!?
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<o5ebl.11325$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>
>Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
>lesser extent, Christians
Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
>>
>> "Jack" <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote in message
>> news:Dmcbl.18376$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>>>
>>>
>>> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>>>
>>> Numbers 31
>>>
>>> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
>>> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>>>
>>> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>>>
>>> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
>>> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
>>> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>>>
>>> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>>>
>>> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>>
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Matt Silberstein
<jrob...@terra.com.br> in
<Wc6dnVbozOVYfPDU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>
>
>Killing all the boys and keeping the virgin girls for themselves is
>symbolic of *what* exactly!?!?
It is likely a statement about political identity.
[snip]
John Manning
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:59:47 -0200, in alt.atheism , John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> in
> <Wc6dnVbozOVYfPDU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>>
>> Killing all the boys and keeping the virgin girls for themselves is
>> symbolic of *what* exactly!?!?
>
> It is likely a statement about political identity.
How? ...and according to who?
Matt Silberstein
<jrob...@terra.com.br> in
<WKudnb3alvhOl_PU...@giganews.com> wrote:
Don't worry, I don't expect you to have any knowledge of the topic,
knowledge would just get in your way. But if you want to learn, read
Friedman's _Who Wrote The Bible_
(http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353,
ISBN-13: 978-0060630355)
Jack
Jack
> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
> <o5ebl.11325$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
>> lesser extent, Christians
>
> Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
Deir Yassin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
The over-arching theme of the first five books of the Old Testament, or
Torah, is that the Jews/Israelites have a special relationship to God
not shared by non Jews/Israelites, and that they have a right, bestowed
by this God, on certain real estate. Anyone that comes between
Jews/Israelites and that real estate can be summarily dealt with.
Jack
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:54:58 -0200, in alt.atheism , John Manning
> <jrob...@terra.com.br> in
> <WKudnb3alvhOl_PU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:59:47 -0200, in alt.atheism , John Manning
>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> in
>>> <Wc6dnVbozOVYfPDU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>>>> Killing all the boys and keeping the virgin girls for themselves is
>>>> symbolic of *what* exactly!?!?
>>> It is likely a statement about political identity.
>>
>> How? ...and according to who?
>
> Don't worry, I don't expect you to have any knowledge of the topic,
> knowledge would just get in your way. But if you want to learn, read
> Friedman's _Who Wrote The Bible_
> (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353,
> ISBN-13: 978-0060630355)
Who *wrote* the Bible is not important.
Who *reveres* the Bible as the Word of God *is* important.
Jack
> I bet people really did shit like that.
did?
That shit goes on today.
DoD
> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> > On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> > <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
>
> >> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
> >> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
> >> lesser extent, Christians
>
> > Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
>
> Deir Yassin
Hello, asswipe... How about some factual information on Deir Yassin.
Introduction
For fifty years, critics of Israel have used the battle of Deir Yassin
to blacken the image of the Jewish State, alleging that Jewish
fighters massacred hundreds of Arab civilians during a battle in that
Arab village near Jerusalem in 1948.
This analysis brings to light, for the first time, a number of
important documents that have never previously appeared in English,
which help clarify what really happened in Deir Yassin on that fateful
day.
One is a research study conducted by a team of researchers from Bir
Zeit University, an Arab university now situated in Palestinian
Authority territory, concerning the history of Deir Yassin and the
details of the battle. The researchers interviewed numerous former
residents of the town and reached startling conclusions concerning the
actual number of people killed in the battle.
The second important work on this subject that has never previously
appeared in English, and which was consulted for this study, is a
history of the 1948 war by Professor Uri Milstein, one of Israel's
most distinguished military historians. His 13-volume study of the
1948 war includes a section on Deir Yassin based on detailed
interviews with the participants in the battle and previously-unknown
archival documents. Professor Milstein's meticulous research has been
praised by academics from across the political spectrum.1
Another document used in this study is the protocols of a 1952
hearing, in which, for the first and only time, Israeli judges heard
eyewitness testimony from participants in the events at Deir Yassin
and issued a ruling that has important implications for understanding
what happened in that battle.
This study is also based upon a unique collection of testimonies
concerning the battle of Deir Yassin, by participants and
eyewitnesses, which are on file in Israel's Metzudat Ze'ev Archives
and have never before appeared in English.
The documents cited in this study were located in Israeli archives by
a team of researchers and legal scholars, with additional research in
the United States by Chaviva Rosenbluth.
Deir Yassin's Strategic Value
The Arab village of Deir Yassin was strategically situated on a hill
overlooking the main highway entering Jerusalem as well as a number of
Jerusalem's western neighborhoods. Estimates of the town's population
in 1948 vary. The last official British census, in 1945, counted 610
residents, and Arab sources believe the number had grown to 750 by
April 1948.2 The town was also host to several hundred temporary
residents who had relocated from other parts of Jerusalem which were
close to the battlefields where Arab and Jewish forces were clashing.3
But because of Deir Yassin's strategic location, it was almost
inevitable that it, too, would become a battle site.
The British Mandate authorities were scheduled to depart from
Palestine on May 15, 1948, and the surrounding Arabs states had vowed
to invade, in order to prevent the establishment of a Jewish State.
But long before that date, Arab and Jewish armies were already
battling. An "Arab Liberation Army," sponsored by the Arab League and
manned by volunteers from various Arab countries, attacked Jewish
communities in Palestine throughout the winter and spring of 1948.
Their attacks on Jewish traffic along major routes succeeded in
cutting off western Jerusalem from other areas.
The Jewish fighting forces consisted of three factions. The largest,
the Haganah, was affiliated with the Labor Zionists. The second
largest, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (IZL), was the underground group led by
Menachem Begin that had spearheaded the Jewish revolt against the
British during 1944-1947. The smallest was the Lehi (acronym for
Fighters for the Freedom of Israel; commonly called the Stern Group),
a splinter of the IZL. Relations between the Haganah, on the one
hand, and the IZL and Lehi, on the other, were tense at best.
Although there had been times when the two sides cooperated in the
fight against the British, there were also several periods when the
Haganah had collaborated with the British against the IZL and Lehi.
The political rivalry between the two camps was passionate and,
indeed, the rivalry between their heirs, the Labor and Likud parties,
continues to this day.
In recognition of the growing danger from Arab military operations,
the two sides began negotiating, in early 1948, to formally merge into
a single Zionist army. At the same time, there was increasing
cooperation between the two on various levels. Yehoshua Arieli,
Jerusalem commander of the Gadna, which was the Haganah's paramilitary
youth wing, recalled: "Before Deir Yassin, there was cooperation
between the Haganah and the IZL in Jerusalem...The cooperation was not
total, there were points of friction, but it held up."4 A draft merger
agreement between the Haganah and the IZL was reached in March. The
draft agreement, and the ongoing cooperation on the ground between the
two camps, ignited a fierce debate on the Zionist left. Mapam, the
influential left wing of the Labor Zionist camp, strongly opposed any
cooperation with the IZL, with whom they had strong ideological
differences. Mapam members and sympathizers within the Haganah
lobbied vigorously against the agreement during the weeks prior to,
and immediately after, the battle at Deir Yassin.5
At the same time, in early April 1948, the Haganah launched a major
military offensive against Arab strongholds in the western Jerusalem
area, in order to break the siege of western Jerusalem. IZL and Lehi
representatives met with the Haganah's commander for Jerusalem, David
Shaltiel, to discuss what action the IZL and Lehi could take to assist
the Haganah's offensive. It was in this context that the idea of
capturing Deir Yassin first arose. Exactly who first raised the idea
of targeting Deir Yassin is unclear. The chief of Lehi intelligence
in Jerusalem, Moshe Barzili, later said that Shaltiel was the first to
speak of Deir Yassin, in a discussion with Lehi commanders in early
April. According to Barzili, Shaltiel said, "If you want to help and
to initiate an action, take Deir Yassin." Shaltiel said that the
Haganah intended to build an airfield between Deir Yassin and the
adjacent Jewish neighborhood of Givat Shaul. Mordechai Ra'anan, the
IZL commander for Jerusalem, likewise recalled discussing with
Shaltiel the idea of attacking Deir Yassin, with the two of them
agreeing on the strategic value of its capture.6 On April 7, Shaltiel
sent Ra'anan a note:
I have learned that you intend to act against Deir Yassin. I would
like to draw your attention to the fact that the capture and holding
of Deir Yassin are one stage in our general plan. I have no
opposition to you carrying out the action, provided that you have the
forces to hold it. If you cannot I would hereby warn you against
blowing up the village which will lead to its abandonment by the
residents and the seizure of the ruins and the abandoned houses by
foreign forces. Such an eventuality will hinder rather than help the
general effort, and a reconquest of the place will entail great losses
of our men. Another reason I would like to present to you is that if
foreign forces are drawn to the place, it will disrupt our plan to
construct an airfield."7
When Shimon Monita, a Haganah spy who was infiltrating the Lehi,
caught wind of the IZL-Lehi plan to attack Deir Yassin, he rushed to
report the news to his contact man in Haganah intelligence, evidently
unaware of the high-level coordination between Haganah, IZL and Lehi
regarding the planned attack. Monita's contact reassured him, "That's
okay."8
On the afternoon of Thursday, April 8, according to Lehi officer Moshe
Idelstein, he met at the Allenby cafe in Jerusalem with a
representative of the 4th Brigade of the Palmach, the Haganah's mobile
strike division. The Palmach man conveyed Shaltiel's request that the
attack on Deir Yassin be coordinated with the Haganah's imminent
assault on the nearby Arab town of Kastel and a plan to send a convoy
along the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road. That night, Idelstein recalled, "I
went with one of the Palmach's convoy escorts, Avri Elad, along the
convoy parked on the road in Beit Hakerem, and we discussed final
coordination."9 Lehi's Patchia Zalivensky and Mordechai Ben-Uziahu
later recalled that the group's Jerusalem commander, Yehoshua Zettler,
sent them to inform Zalman Meret, chief of the Haganah's Moriah
brigade, that Lehi agreed to coordinate the attack on Deir Yassin with
the action against Kastel and the convoy. They then discussed battle
tactics and communications protocols. They also agreed, at Shaltiel's
request, to exchange a quantity of explosives, which Lehi possessed in
abundance, for a case of Bren machine-gun bullets. According to
Zalivensky, Meret's parting words were: "Do it and succeed."10
Later that evening (April 8), according to Lehi members, Meret met
with several Lehi representatives at his home, in the Beit Hakerem
neighborhood of Jerusalem. Lehi's Moshe Barzili, who took part in the
meeting, later recalled:
Meret asked, in the name of Shaltiel, that we attack [Deir Yassin] on
Friday April 9, at dawn, in order to help the re-conquest of Kastel.
We requested from him a vehicle, ammunition and food, and he
immediately agreed to our request. We brought the request to attack
at dawn to [Lehi Jerusalem commander Yehoshua] Zettler and [IZL
Jerusalem commander Mordechai] Ra'anan for their decision."11
Zettler later recalled: "In Lehi, there were many who were strictly
Orthodox, and I tried not to have actions on the Sabbath. An attack
on Friday morning would be liable to bring us to operational
activities on the Sabbath, but after I received Shaltiel's urgent
request via Dror [Mordechai Ben-Uziahu] I agreed to attack on Friday
at dawn."12
Additional evidence of the coordination between Haganah and the IZL-
Lehi forces regarding Deir Yassin is to be found in a report sent by
Haganah district intelligence officer Mordechai Gihon to Meret on
April 10, the day after the battle: "Assistance to the dissidents by
us. The dissidents' liaison officer informed us of H-hour. We gave
our positions appropriate instructions regarding assistance during
retreat and medical aid."13 Gihon later recalled that his commanders
in the Haganah told him there was an agreement between the Haganah and
the IZL and Lehi regarding the attack on Deir Yassin, with the Haganah
responsible for blocking the way between Deir Yassin and Ein Kerem in
case enemy forces sought to reach the town. His commanders instructed
Gihon to set up a Spandau machine gun on the nearby Sharafa ridge
[which today is known as Mount Herzl] in order to control the pass by
gunfire. Gihon and a comrade slept in Givat Shaul on the night of
Thursday, April 8, in order to reach their assigned position by dawn
on April 9.14 Likewise, a post-battle internal Haganah intelligence
report about Deir Yassin stated: "Before the battle, IZL men shared
the details of their plan in a meeting with Haganah representatives,
including H-hour. At that same meeting, it was decided that if the
IZL would be forced to retreat, Haganah forces would cover the
retreating force."15
At midnight on Thursday, April 8, an IZL force of 72 men, commanded by
Benzion Cohen with deputy commanders Yehuda Lapidot and Michael
Sharif, reached Beit Hakerem. An hour later, they set out on foot
toward Deir Yassin, where they would rendezvous with a Lehi force of
60 men. On the way, according to Lapidot, they encountered a Haganah
patrol. "We told them that we were going to attack Deir Yassin,"
Lapidot recalled, "and they blessed us 'Good luck, good luck'."16
Deir Yassin's record of anti-Jewish violence
Some historians later expressed surprise at the choice of Deir Yassin
as a target, in view of what they regarded as the village's peaceful
history. In fact, Deir Yassin served as a center of weapons
trafficking during the violent Palestinian Arab outbreaks in 1920;
Deir Yassin residents had carried out violent attacks on the Jews of
Givat Shaul in October 1928; and during the August 1929 Arab riots
throughout Palestine, the villagers of Deir Yassin had again assaulted
their Jewish neighbors in Givat Shaul as well as Jews in the Beit
Hakerem neighborhood and the Montefiore Quarter.17 A Jewish fighter
who was stationed in Givat Shaul to help defend the village against
Arab attacks during the violence 1936 later recalled how
we continually faced attempted forays into our homes from Deir
Yassin. We dug out our 'illegal' weapons every night and waited,
while the Jewish supplementary police [part of the British Mandate
police force] repulsed the infiltrators again and again. Months
later, we had a defense position in nearby Motza [and the commander]
often asked my help to transport men to their night duties in Motza.
Driving back and forth to Motza from Jerusalem, I spent many hours
lying in roadside ditches after ambushes out of Deir Yassin.18
In late 1947, as Arab-Jewish hostilities intensified, the Deir Yassin
village leadership agreed to an informal truce with their Jewish
neighbors, with both sides promising to refrain from attacking each
other. Some historians have claimed that Deir Yassin's leaders
initially rebuffed a proposal to station Syrian or Iraqi units of the
Arab Liberation Army in their village. But by March 1948, there were
numerous reports of Arab soldiers taking up positions in Deir Yassin.
Haganah driver Arnold Shper testified in a 1952 judicial proceeding
that during his posting in Givat Shaul in February and March 1948, he
spoke with Haganah intelligence agents who mentioned "that foreign
Arabs had been detected in Deir Yassin, [including] Iraqis." Jerusalem
Haganah intelligence officer Mordechai Gihon led two reconnaissance
sorties into Ein Kerem, adjacent to Deir Yassin, and returned with
documents revealing regular contacts between Deir Yassin and the bases
of Syrian and Iraqi volunteer soldiers in Ein Kerem. On March 30,
Gihon reported to his superiors that "150 men, mostly Iraqis, entered
Deir Yassin."19 Some of the Haganah's information about developments
in Deir Yassin was coming directly from inside the village itself. A
Haganah agent code-named "Ovadia," working in the Jerusalem area for
the Haganah's Arabic Department, met regularly with Deir Yassin
residents as well as their mukhtar, or village chief, who was a paid
Haganah informant.20
During the week prior to the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin,
there was a spate of shooting attacks from the village aimed at Jewish
targets in the area. On Friday night, April 2, gunfire from the Deir
Yassin area raked the adjacent Jewish neighborhoods of Beit Hakerem
and Bayit Vegan.21 On Sunday, April 4, commander Shaltiel received an
urgent message from the intelligence officer of the Haganah's Etzioni
division: "There's a gathering in Deir Yassin. Armed men left [from
Deir Yassin] in the direction of [the nearby town of] lower Motza,
northwest of Givat Shaul. They are shooting at passing cars."22 That
same day, the deputy commander of the Haganah's Beit Horon brigade,
Michael Hapt reported to Shaltiel: "A [Jewish] passenger car from
Motza was attacked near the flour mill, below Deir Yassin, and is
stopped there. There is rifle fire upon it. You too send an armoured
vehicle with weapons. There is concern that the road is cut off."23
An armoured vehicle carrying Lehi fighters was also attacked at the
same spot that day. A Haganah intelligence officer who described the
incident to his superiors reported that according to Lehi officer
David Gottlieb, those of his men who disembarked from their vehicle to
return fire said that the attackers appeared to be Arab soldiers
rather than local villagers.24 A telegram from Michael Hapt, of the
Haganah's Beit Horon brigade, to the Haganah command, at 5:00 p.m.
that day, urged: "In order to prevent [an attack] on lower Motza,
cutting off of road to Jerusalem, and capture of position south of
Tzova, Deir Yassin must be captured."25
Shortly before the battle of Deir Yassin, there was additional
troubling news: Mordechai Gihon's lookouts reported that numerous
armed men were moving between Ein Kerem and Deir Yassin. Some of the
soldiers were wearing Iraqi uniforms, and while many of them had
entered Deir Yassin, only a few had returned to Ein Kerem.26 And just
hours before the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin began, Shaltiel
cabled his colleague Shimon Avidan: "The Arabs in Deir Yassin have
trained a mortar on the highway in order to shell the convoy [bringing
supplies to besieged Jewish portions of Jerusalem]."27
Begin vetoed mistreatment of civilians
Until the spring of 1948, the IZL and Lehi had been underground
guerrilla movements engaged in hit-and-run attacks on British
targets. Deir Yassin would mark the first time that they would
undertake an actual battle with Arab forces. During the pre-battle
briefings, the question of dealing with civilians and prisoners was
discussed. According to Benzion Cohen and Yehuda Lapidot, the
commander and deputy commander of the IZL force that took part in the
battle, some of the Lehi representatives favored "killing anyone that
opposed us" during the battle, regardless of age or gender. The issue
was put before IZL commander-in-chief Menachem Begin, who vetoed any
mistreatment of civilians or prisoners, and insisted that the
attackers use a loudspeaker to urge Deir Yassin's residents to flee
prior to the battle, even though that meant surrendering the advantage
of surprise.28 Zettler gave his men explicit orders to avoid harming
women and children.29 Even Meir Pa'il, a militant opponent of the IZL
and Lehi, later acknowledged: "I learned that during their planning
someone tried to suggest a massacre-- 'if we, the IZL and Lehi are
finally going to do a joint operation, the Arabs should know it'.
There were some hooligans who suggested it. The commanders were
opposed. There was an explicit decision against it."30
The attackers did their best to implement Begin's directive. The
first of the Jewish fighting units to reach Deir Yassin was led by a
truck armed with a loudspeaker. An Iraqi-born Jew, who spoke fluent
Arabic, called out to the residents to leave via the western exit from
Deir Yassin, which the attackers had left clear for that purpose.
Soon after entering the town, however, the truck was hit by Arab
gunfire and careened into a ditch. Repeated efforts by Lehi men to
extract the truck, while under fire, proved unsuccessful. Whether or
not the truck's message was heard by the villagers is unclear.
Several hundred Deir Yassin residents did flee, although it is not
clear if they were responding to the announcements, the sound of
gunfire, or word-of-mouth warnings from fellow-villagers close to the
battle sites.
Every house was turned into an armed military post
The IZL and Lehi commanders had expected that large numbers of the
residents would flee, and the remaining would surrender, perhaps after
token resistance. Instead, both groups of Jewish soldiers, entering
the town from different sides, immediately encountered fierce volleys
of Arab rifle fire, some of it from the foreign troops who had been
reported in the area. IZL deputy commander Michael Harif, who was one
of the first to enter Deir Yassin, later recalled how, early in the
battle, "I saw a man in khaki run ahead. I thought he was one of us,
I ran after him and told him, 'Move ahead to that house!' Suddenly he
turned, pointed his weapon at me and fired. He was an Iraqi soldier.
I was wounded in the leg."31 Lehi's Patchiah Zalivensky later recalled
that among the Arab soldiers killed by his unit was a Yugoslavian
Muslim officer, whose identification papers indicated he had been with
the all-Muslim units of the Nazi SS that had been organized in
Yugoslavia during World War II by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the
Palestinian Arab leader and Nazi collaborator.32 In an alleyway, Lehi
soldier Ezra Yachin came face to face with an Arab armed with a
rifle. Instantly he started to release the bolt. The measure of
those fearful seconds! Who would shoot first? Who would survive? It
was I who pulled the trigger first--but it didn't work. My foe turned
to leap over an old wall, and as he did so he shot at me. I felt a
pain in my right thigh...Dror [Mordechai Ben-Uziahu] had clambered up
onto a rooftop from where he was able to spot my assailant who was
dressed in the uniform of an Iraqi officer, and shot him.33
The substantial quantities of weapons and ammunition that the IZL and
Lehi men found in Deir Yassin provided additional confirmation of
earlier suspicions that the village had been turning into a heavily-
armed Arab military post. Yehuda Lapidot, deputy commander of the IZL
force in Deir Yassin, later recalled: "A cache of ammunition for
English rifles which we found in the village saved the day. We filled
the clips for the Bren [machine-gun], distributed weapons to the boys
and fought on." In another house, IZL fighter Yehoshua Gorodenchik
discovered an additional 20 clips of ammunition for the Bren gun.34
Lehi soldiers David Gottlieb, Moshe Barzili, and Moshe Idelstein found
a huge quantity of Czech rifle bullets which did not fit their rifles;
they offered to trade 6,000 of them to the Haganah for 3,000 British
bullets.35
The Jewish fighters' advance into Deir Yassin was painstakingly slow
because of the intense Arab firepower. The IZL's Reuven Greenberg
reported later that "the Arabs fought like lions and excelled at
accurate sniping." He also noted that "[Arab] women ran from the
houses under fire, collected the weapons which had fallen from the
hands of Arab fighters who had been wounded, and brought them back
into the houses."36 There were also instances in which, after storming
a house, dead Arab women were found with guns in their hands,
indicating that they had taken part in the battle.37 "To take a
house," Ezra Yachin recalled, "you had either to throw a grenade or
shoot your way into it. If you were foolish enough to open doors, you
got shot down--sometimes by men dressed up as women, shooting out at
you in a second of surprise."38
When they tried to storm some of the individual stone houses, the Lehi
fighters were surprised to discover that most of the homes had doors
made of iron, not wood as their pre-battle briefings had led them to
believe. The attackers had no choice but to attach powerful
explosives to the doors to blow them open, and a number of the
inhabitants were inadvertently killed or wounded in the explosions.39
Slowly, house by house, the Lehi forces advanced.
On the other side of the village, meanwhile, the IZL soldiers were
having less success. By 7:00 a.m., the IZL commanders, stymied by the
Arab resistance and their own mounting casualties, sent a messenger to
the Lehi camp that they were seriously considering retreating from the
town altogether. The Lehi commanders told the messenger to inform the
IZL that Lehi had already penetrated the village and expected victory
soon. The IZL quickly arranged to receive a supply of explosives from
their base in Givat Shaul, and proceeded to blast their way into house
after house. In some cases, entire sections of the houses collapsed
from the force of the explosion, burying the Arab soldiers as well as
civilians who were still inside. It is unclear if the civilians had
chosen to stay of their own free, or were held hostage by Arab
soldiers who thought that their presence would deter the Jewish
forces--a tactic frequently employed by Arab terrorists in southern
Lebanon in our own era.40 At the same time, there were numerous
instances of Arabs emerging from the houses and surrendering; more
than 100 were taken prison by the end of the day. At least two
Haganah members who were on the scene later recalled hearing the Lehi
repeatedly using a loudspeaker to implore the residents to surrender.
41 There were also instances in which Arabs feigned surrender, then
produced hidden weapons and shot at their would-be Jewish captors.42
The Haganah played a crucial role in the battle
Meanwhile, on the nearby Sharafa ridge, the Haganah's Mordechai Gihon
watched as a stream of Arab fighters and civilians fled from Deir
Yassin, and as Arab reinforcements from Ein Kerem and Malcha began
advancing toward the town from the south. "We fired bursts from the
Spandau machine-gun onto the road," Gihon reported to his superiors.
"We hit Arabs fleeing from Deir Yassin and we blocked their way. We
prevented the advance of the reinforcements, and we also might have
hit some IZL men who entered our line of fire. At about 8:30 a.m. we
returned to Givat Shaul." Haganah men in adjoining areas also sprayed
gunfire in the same direction, to prevent the reinforcements from
advancing.43
The Haganah also played a crucial role in the battle itself. After
conquering most of the village, the IZL and Lehi forces were stalled
at the house of the mukhtar, or village leader, which was situated on
a hill from which incessant rifle fire was directed at the Jewish
forces. In response to the attackers' appeal, a Haganah unit arrived
with two-inch mortars and proceeded to pummel the mukhtar's
stronghold, which soon fell.44 While the mortar unit was at work, IZL
Jerusalem commander Mordechai Ra'anan was meeting with David Shaltiel
in nearby Givat Shaul, at Shaltiel's request, according to testimony
Ra'anan gave in a 1952 legal case:
This was in the midst of the operation, at 1:00 or 2:00 in the
afternoon.
To the best of my recollection, it was on a street in Givat Shaul. In
his opinion, we had taken on a job far beyond our capabilities, and he
spoke with a certain ridicule, but in earnest. I asked him if that
[ridicule] was the only reason he had called me to meet with him, and
he asked me if we needed any help, and I replied that we required no
further assistance. Because at that time, a unit of Haganah men which
had returned from the battles of Motza had offered --or the commander
of that unit had offered-- assistance, and the operation itself was at
the mopping-up stage.45
The Haganah unit returning from Motza was sent into Deir Yassin to aid
the dozens of wounded IZL and Lehi fighters. "In order to extricate
the wounded, we had to eliminate the sources of gunfire," recalled
Haganah unit leader Moshe Eren. Kalman Rosenblatt, a member of one of
the two Haganah units that entered the village to assist the wounded,
said: "We threw hand grenades into the houses before we entered them."
The Haganah soldiers were more effective than the IZL and Lehi forces,
Lehi's David Gottlieb recalled. "They achieved in one hour what we
could not accomplish in several hours. They had good weapons, and
they had battle experience."46
No evidence that Arab prisoners were mistreated
When the battle ended, in the late morning, the IZL and Lehi found
themselves with about 40 Arab prisoners, mostly women and children, as
well as some elderly people. They were loaded on two trucks and
driven to a Lehi camp in Jerusalem's Sheikh Bader neighborhood.
According to the camp guards, the Arabs were given food and water,
held there until the late afternoon, and then transported to a nearby
Arab section of the city and released. Meanwhile, during the course
of the afternoon, a small number of additional Arab survivors of the
battle were found in some of the houses in Deir Yassin. They were put
on a truck and driven towards Jerusalem's Arab sector, passing through
downtown Jerusalem and the Orthodox neighborhood of Meah Shearim on
the way. According to Lehi's Moshe Barzili, the purpose of the
prisoner transport was "strictly humanitarian," to bring the survivors
to an Arab area. Shimon Monita, the Haganah spy in Lehi, contended
that the IZL and Lehi commanders deliberately chose a travel route
that would take the truck through central Jerusalem, hoping that the
sight of enemy prisoners "would lift the morale of the Jewish public,"
which had been depressed by the grueling Arab siege that had cut them
off from much of the rest of the country. Some later accounts claimed
that Jewish passersby in the streets cursed or even spat at the Arab
prisoners. But according to Natan Yellin-Mor, one of Lehi's three
commanders-in-chief, the hostile reception was from Orthodox Jews who
were angry with the driver, not the prisoners, for bringing the
vehicle in to their neighborhood after the onset of the Sabbath.47
A young Haganah officer named Meir Pa'il later gave a very different
account of what happened to the prisoners, as well as what happened in
Deir Yassin in general. Pa'il played an active role in the Haganah's
operations against the IZL and Lehi during the 1940s, earning a
promotion, in late 1947, to the post of commander of a Haganah
Intelligence Service unit devoted to combating the "dissidents" in the
Jerusalem region. There were ten men under Pa'il's command, including
intelligence officers, infantry men, and members of the Palmach, the
Haganah's mobile strike force. On March 18, 1948, much to Pa'il's
dismay, Haganah official Yisrael Galili ordered that the unit be
disbanded and its members reassigned to the military police. Pa'il
appealed to David Cohen, overall coordinator of actions against the
IZL and Lehi, for a budget "in order to continue the unit." His
request was denied, and the unit disbanded. At the time of the battle
of Deir Yassin, on April 9, Pa'il was out of work--and possibly
looking for ways to convince his superiors that the behavior of the
IZL and Lehi still merited a special squad under his command.48 Pa'il
would later become active on the fringe-left of Israeli politics,
serving as a Member of Knesset for the Moked Party, a faction of
Israel's Communist Party.
According to Pa'il, "a day or two before the Deir Yassin episode, I
met a friend, a Lehi man, Moshe Idelstein, who was once in the
Palmach--though I do not think that he knew what my assignment was in
Jerusalem--and he told me that the IZL and Lehi were going out to
attack Deir Yassin and that I ought to come and see them in action."
Idelstein, by contrast, told historian Uri Milstein: "I knew exactly
what Pa'il's assignment had been; I never told him about our plans to
attack Deir Yassin or anywhere else, and therefore I never invited him
to come along."49
There are other statements in the accounts that Pa'il has given over
the years which raise questions about his credibility as a witness
concerning Deir Yassin. For example, in a 1981 interview, Pa'il said
of Deir Yassin: "It was not situated on any important route. Its
strategic value was zero."50 Pa'il said he went to Deir Yassin on the
morning of the battle, accompanied by a young photographer. "I
suddenly started to hear shots from all over the village. I ran with
[the photographer], and I saw group of IZL and Lehi men running from
house to house, entering, and with gunfire slaughtering the people
sleeping there, spontaneously [i.e. not on orders from above]."
Needless to say, the notion that the Arab residents would have been
sleeping in the midst of a huge battle hardly seems plausible. It is
also difficult to understand how Pa'il could have seen the
"slaughtering" without actually being present inside the houses.
According to Pa'il, "I ran after them and started to shout, 'What are
you doing?' They looked at me like I was crazy, and the photographer
took pictures."51
In contrast to Pa'il's claim of a dramatic confrontation between
himself the IZL and Lehi men, the veterans of the battle interviewed
by Milstein, including Yehoshua Zettler, Mordechai Ra'anan, Moshe
Barzili, Yehuda Lapidot, Patchia Zalvensky, and Moshe Idelstein, all
said that Pa'il was not at Deir Yassin and that it was inconceivable
he could have been there without their knowledge. Nor is there any
evidence from Haganah sources indicating that Pa'il was present; the
statements given by David Shaltiel, Zalman Meret, Zion Eldad, and
Yeshurun Schiff do not mention Pa'il by name or by either of his code
names, "Avraham" and "Ram." The Haganah's Moshe Eren and Mordechai
Gihon, who were at Deir Yassin and who knew Pa'il personally at the
time, said they did not see him there. Yehoshua Arieli, who
supervised the burials, stated that he did not see Pa'il there.
Shlomo Havilov, the Haganah's commander for western Jerusalem, who
spent the night of April 9 in Givat Shaul, stated: "I did not see Meir
Pa'il there. I knew him well. If he had been there I would remember
him."52
As for the identity of the photographer, Pa'il has consistently
refused to name him, saying he "is fearful."53 Pa'il claimed that the
photographer took "36 pictures, some during the battle, some after."54
According to Pa'il, he submitted the photos, together with a report he
compiled about the event, to his Haganah superior, Yisrael Galili, and
they are presently stored as classified material in the Israel Defense
Forces Archives. Galili later confirmed that he received a report and
photographs from Pa'il, but could not recall precisely what was in the
report or what the photos showed.55 Pa'il's claim that some of the
photos revealed an actual massacre in progress has been disputed by
the IDF Archives, which, while not releasing the report or the
photographs, has said that the photographs show dead bodies, without
any way of knowing how or when they were killed.56
Regarding the prisoners, Pa'il is the source of the only claim that
the Jewish fighters massacred a number of Arab prisoners after the
battle. He alleged that a group of about 20 prisoners were "paraded"
through Jerusalem, then brought back to a quarry near Deir Yassin and
massacred.57 Pa'il's allegation has been denied by the Haganah
commander in Givat Shaul, Yona Ben-Sasson, who testified that several
hotheads considered the idea of taking prisoners to the quarry and
killing them, but that he personally talked them out of it.58
Exaggerations by the Red Cross
On April 10, the day after the battle, Jacques de Reynier, the chief
Red Cross representative in Jerusalem, "received a call from the Arabs
asking me to go immediately to the village of Deir Yassin, where the
civilian population of the whole village had just been massacred." De
Reynier's memoirs give no indication that he harbored any doubts as to
the veracity of the allegation. When he set out for Deir Yassin on
April 11, he already seems to have been expecting to encounter the
aftermath of a massacre.59
De Reynier's account brimmed with hostility towards the Jewish side.
As he told it, it was a dramatic tale of a brave humanitarian who
again and again narrowly --and miraculously-- escaped from life-
threatening situations to bring the world the truth about the Jewish
mass-murderers. The first IZL commander he met on the scene
supposedly "had a peculiar glitter in his eyes, cold and cruel." A
female Jewish fighter he encountered was "a beautiful young girl with
criminal eyes." The IZL-Lehi fighters were "these criminals."60
De Reynier's recollections were colorful, but often strained the
bounds of believability. Reaching the outskirts of Deir Yassin, his
car was stopped by "two soldier-like individuals, whose look were far
from reassuring, with machine-guns in their hands, and large cutlasses
in their belts." It seemed that "everything was lost," de Reynier
recalled-- "when, suddenly, a huge fellow, at least two meters tall
and as large as a cupboard, appeared, pushed his comrades aside, and
seized my hand and squeezed it in his enormous paws, shouting
incomprehensibly." According to de Reynier, his anonymous rescuer was
a Jew who had been aided by the Red Cross when he was a prisoner of
the Nazis, so now he would help de Reynier. "With such a bodyguard I
felt I could go to the end of the world," de Reynier wrote.61
Elsewhere in his account, de Reynier affectionately referred to the
man as "my 'wardrobe'" and "my good friend the glass cupboard."62
In fact, the man to whom de Reynier referred was not, as Reynier
suggested, a secret savior whose gratitude to the Red Cross had moved
him to switch sides and help de Reynier reveal the truth about Jewish
savagery.
He was Lehi intelligence officer Moshe Barzili, chosen by his
superiors to escort de Reynier because he and the Red Cross official
both spoke German. He was not sneaking de Reynier into Deir Yassin;
he was sent by Lehi to give Reynier a detailed tour of the battle site.
63 The Jewish fighters gave de Reynier permission to enter because
they had committed no atrocities and had nothing to hide. The
significance of this point was apparently lost on de Reynier,
however. His account makes it seems as if he somehow managed to enter
the village against the Jewish fighters' will--a feat that hardly
seems possible. At another point in his memoir of the visit, de
Reynier claims that when he wanted to enter one of the Arab houses, "a
dozen soldiers surrounded me, their machine-guns aimed at my body,"
yet he "pushed them aside and went in to the house." When he tried to
carry a wounded Arab from the house, "the officer tried to stop me"
but "I pushed him aside." Is it plausible that an unarmed Red Cross
representative repeatedly "pushed aside" machine-gun toting Jewish
soldiers? Barzili later recalled that the Lehi leadership agreed to
permit de Reynier to visit precisely because of the rumors of a
massacre. A Jewish policeman in the British Mandatory government with
whom Lehi had contact, Shlomo Sofer, informed them that "there were
rumors a massacre had taken place in the village, and that a Red Cross
representative wanted to visit it. We hoped that with de Reynier's
help, the rumors would be dispelled."64
As he inspected the village, de Reynier recalled, he was accompanied
by "a Jewish doctor" who had been summoned by the Red Cross office.
The doctor "followed me courageously" from house to house. That was
Dr. Alfred Engel of Magen David Adom, Palestine Jewry's equivalent of
a Red Cross. Engel's later descriptions of what he saw, however,
differed from de Reynier's in significant respects.
According to de Reynier, the Arab residents of Deir Yassin numbered
"approximately 400, never armed." He did not explain the discrepancy
between his claim that they were "never armed" and the fact that they
shot to death 4 of the Jewish fighters and wounded several dozen
more. In the houses he examined, de Reynier saw a number of bodies of
Arabs whom, he claimed, had been killed by "machine-guns, then hand
grenades. It had been finished off with knives, anyone could see
that." He found three survivors, a child and two elderly women.
"There had been 400 people in this village," de Reynier's account
continued. "About 50 of them had escaped, and were still alive. All
the rest had been deliberately massacred in cold blood..." According
to de Reynier, he then visited local Arab leaders to ask what should
be done with the corpses and, upon their request, he returned to Deir
Yassin to ask that they be buried on the site.65
The "Jewish doctor" was Dr. Alfred Engel of Magen David Adom,
Palestine Jewry's equivalent of a Red Cross. In contrast to de
Reynier's hair-raising tales about trying to get into Deir Yassin,
Engel recalled that "We entered the village easily. The only ones
there were the dissidents [IZL and Lehi]," and they were busy "loading
bodies onto trucks." Engel accompanied de Reynier into the houses.
"In the houses there were casualties, a total of about 100 men, women,
and children," he recalled. "It was terrible. I did not see any
signs of defilement, mutilation, or rape." It is noteworthy that in
contrast to de Reynier, who claimed that many of the dead Arabs had
been "finished off with knives, anyone could see that," Dr. Engel,
who saw the corpses along with de Reynier, made no reference to seeing
anyone who had been "finished off with knives." Engel's estimate of
100 dead also contrasted sharply with de Reynier's of 350.66
The Haganah's accusation
The reason so many corpses were still visible when de Reynier arrived
was that David Shaltiel was locked in a fierce dispute with the IZL
and Lehi over how to dispose of the bodies. The IZL and Lehi units,
exhausted from the battle and nursing dozens of their wounded, were
not up to the task of burying the unexpectedly large number of dead
bodies. Nor did they intend to do garrison duty. Their commanders
informed Shaltiel that they were anxious to return to their bases, and
requested that he provided soldiers to occupy the village. Shaltiel
was furious; he neither wanted to divert soldier from other areas to
take over Deir Yassin, nor had he expected to be saddled with the
burden of dealing with burial problems. After heated arguments with
the IZL and Lehi leaders, Shaltiel finally sent a small Haganah force
to the village, followed by a group of members of Gadna, the Haganah's
paramilitary youth group, to handle the burials.67
Among the young buriers was Yair Tsaban, later a Knesset Member and
longtime leader of the leftwing Mapam Party. Tsaban, arriving after
the battle was over, and could not have witnessed how the Arabs were
killed. In an interview with author Eric Silver, Tsaban gave no
indication that he had any idea whether the deceased had been
massacred, or killed inadvertently amidst the firefights and
explosions. All he could do was speculate: since he came across "two
or three cases of old men dressed in women's clothes" among the
deceased, "My conclusion was that what happened in the village so
terrorized these old men that they knew being old men would not save
them. They hoped that if they were seen as old women that would save
them."68 Tsaban's retrospective assumption may be interesting, but
there is no evidence to support it. An equally plausible theory is
that while the old men feared the Jews might massacre the men --just
as the Arabs often massacred their Jewish prisoners-- and therefore
dressed as women, in fact had they been captured alive, they would
have been spared. Instead, they lost their lives because they were
caught in the crossfire or in the dynamited houses, not because of any
massacre. In contrast to de Reynier's claims, Tsaban told author Eric
Silver that he --who reached Deir Yassin two days before de Reynier--
saw no blood on the clothing of the Jewish fighters and "I saw no
evidence of killing by knives."69
Another leftwing activist, Uri Avnery, claimed to have elicited semi-
confessions from some of the participants after the battle. Avnery's
objectivity must be carefully weighed, in view of his long record of
extremist political activity, including serving as editor of the
extreme-left magazine Haolam Hazeh from 1950 to 1990, and serving as a
Knesset Member for two far-left parties, Haolam Hazeh and Sheli, from
1965-1981. Concerning Deir Yassin, Avnery wrote in his 1968 book
Israel Without Zionists that "all the inhabitants of the village who
had not fled were massacred"--going considerably further than even
many of the others who have charged there was a massacre. Avnery
added: "Later, I tried to interrogate the soldiers who took part in
the action. They maintained that the massacre was not premeditated,
that their local commander lost his head after some of his men were
killed by Arab snipers." Avnery provided no dates for the alleged
"interrogations"; none of the names of the individuals whom he
supposedly interrogated; and no actual quotations from them, whether
confessional or otherwise.70
Shaltiel's disputes with the IZL and Lehi over who would occupy the
town after the battle, and over the burial problem, appear to have
kindled his wrath. There was no love lost between Shaltiel and the
"dissidents"; indeed, in 1946-1947, as head of Haganah intelligence,
he had played an active role in the Haganah's operations against the
IZL and Lehi.71 Now he would take one last shot at his old enemies.
Shaltiel, in consultation with his superiors in the Jewish Agency, and
perhaps motivated by a desire to undermine the pending IZL-Haganah
merger agreement, Shaltiel decided to go on the offensive. He told
reporters that he had no advance knowledge of the plan to attack Deir
Yassin, and that the Haganah had taken no part in the battle.
Simultaneously, the Jewish Agency issued a statement expressing its
"horror and disgust" at the "barbaric" behavior of the IZL and Lehi in
Deir Yassin, and sent a cable to Transjordanian ruler King Abdullah,
expressing regrets and condolences for what had happened.72 Surprised
by Shaltiel's turnaround, the IZL promptly released the text of his
April 7 note approving the attack. Years later, the Israeli Defense
Ministry published a history of the 1948 war in which Shaltiel was
quoted as admitting that he knew in advance of the Deir Yassin
attack. Although he did not concede the full extent of his
cooperation in the planning of the attack, Shaltiel said: "I cannot
claim that I did not know about the action. A day before the action
[Thursday, April 8], Yeshurun Schiff informed me of it"--completely
contradicting his claim, immediately after the battle, that he had no
advance knowledge of it.73
After the 1948 war, four wounded Deir Yassin veterans applied to the
Israeli Defense Ministry for the standard benefits provided to injured
Israeli soldiers by Israel's Disabled Persons Act (Benefits and
Rehabilitation) of 1949. The Ministry rejected the request on the
grounds that the battle at Deir Yassin did not qualify as "military
service," since the government defined "military service" as
"organized activity against the Arab gangs and the invading armies."
The veterans sued, hoping that the principles of judicial fairness
would overcome political partisanship, especially once the passions of
the war had subsided. They took their case to the Defense Ministry's
Board of Appeals, a judicial body panel consisting of three judges.
The Board, after hearing testimony from participants in the battle,
ruled that it did indeed fit the Ministry's definition of "military
service."74
The British "coaxed" the witnesses
Arab propagandists routinely claim that the Jewish fighters raped Arab
women during the Deir Yassin battle, but evidence to support the
allegation is lacking. To begin with, the charge of sexual assault is
completely at variance with the behavior of Jewish soldiers throughout
both the 1948 war and subsequent Arab-Israeli wars. (By contrast,
Arabs frequently raped Jewish women during Arab attacks on Jewish
communities, such as the 1929 riots in Hebron.)
As noted earlier, Dr. Engel, who accompanied Jacques de Reynier of
the Red Cross, reported that he "did not see any signs of defilement,
mutilation, or rape."75 Daniel Spicehandler, a member of a Haganah
unit sent to assist the IZL, said later: "So far as I saw, there was
no rape or looting."76 An Arab survivor of the Deir Yassin battle,
Muhammad Arif Sammour, told author Eric Silver emphatically that there
were no sexual attacks. Silver wrote: "Sammour, who has no reason to
minimize the atrocities, is convinced that there was no sexual
assault: 'I didn't hear or see anything of rape or attacks on pregnant
women. None of the other survivors ever talked to me about that kind
of thing. If anybody told you that, I don't believe it.'"77 Sammour's
statement is corroborated by the testimony of two Jewish doctors
physicians, Drs. Z. Avigdori and A. Droyan. At the request of the
Jewish Agency, Avigdori and Droyan were sent by the Histadrut Medical
Committee [the Labor Zionist-affiliated trade union], in Jerusalem, to
Deir Yassin on Monday, April 12. They examined the bodies and
reported that "all the bodies were clothed, the limbs were intact, and
no sign of mutilation was visible on them."78
The original source of the Deir Yassin rape accusation was a senior
British police official. Since the British Mandatory authorities were
still in power at the time of the Deir Yassin battle--they were not
due to leave Palestine until May 15, more than a month later--the
British police carried out their own investigation of the events, led
by Richard C. Catling, Assistant Inspector General of the Mandatory
regime's Criminal Investigation Division and a specialist in Jewish
matters.
Catling was not, however, the most objective person to be
investigating whether or not the IZL and Lehi had carried out
atrocities against Arab civilians.
For much of the previous decade, Catling had played a prominent role
in the Mandate regime's violent struggles with the Jewish fighting
forces and with the IZL and Lehi in particular, who had assassinated
numerous leading British police officers and military officials, and
had publicly humiliated the English forces with retaliatory hangings,
public whippings, assaults on supposedly-invulnerable police stations
and army bases, and spectacular prison breaks. Catling himself
narrowly escaped death at the IZL's hands on more than one occasion.
He was at British police headquarters in Jerusalem during an IZL raid
in 1944, in which a colleague of his was killed, and one of the
suspects captured. While Catling was brutally beating the suspect, an
IZL bomb shook the station. "John Scott was a good friend of mine,"
Catling later recalled. "We had this unfortunate suspect in
[Inspector-General Arthur] Giles's office and I was knocking him about
like hell. I freely admit it. Then the bomb went off. We were
thrown across the room, and covered in plaster." Two years later,
Catling happened to be standing near the reception desk in the main
lobby of the King David Hotel --military headquarters of the British
Mandate regime--when the IZL bombed it in 1946. At the sound of the
massive explosion, Catling dove under the reception desk and was saved.
79
Catling visited the Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan five days after
the battle of Deir Yassin, and interviewed a number of Arab women who
said they had been at Deir Yassin the previous week. "The majority of
those women are very shy and reluctant to relate their experiences
especially in matters concerning sexual assault and they need great
coaxing before they will divulge any information," Catling wrote.
When he was finished "coaxing" them, Catling was able to conclude that
"many sexual atrocities were committed by the attacking Jews."
According to Catling, "many young school girls were raped and later
slaughtered," "old women were also molested," "many infants were also
butchered," and "one story is current concerning a case in which a
young girl was literally torn in two."80 Catling may have been
understandably eager to believe any allegation made against the hated
IZL and Lehi, but the lack of corroboration from other sources,
combined with Catling's likely bias and his own admission that he
engaged in "great coaxing" of the Arab women he interviewed, raises
serious doubts as to the veracity of their allegations.
How many Arabs died at Deir Yassin?
Estimates of the number of Arabs who died at Deir Yassin varied
wildly. Haganah soldier Daniel Spicehandler said he saw "maybe some
fifty dead."81 Shimon Monita, the Haganah spy in Lehi, estimated 60
Arabs dead; the Lehi's Moshe Idelstein recalled the number 61 being
used at the time. Haganah intelligence officer Yona Feitelson, who
arrived in Deir Yassin the morning after the battle, estimated 80
dead. The Haganah's Mordechai Gihon, who was there on the afternoon
of the battle itself, thought the number was in the vicinity of 150.82
IZL commander Menachem Begin, who was briefed on the battle by his
officers, wrote that the number was approximately 130.83
It was Mordechai Ra'anan, the IZL commander in Deir Yassin, who first
used the figure 254. In an interview years later, Ra'anan was asked
how he arrived at that number, which he gave to the media a few hours
after the battle. He replied:
On that day I did not know, could not have known, how many Arabs had
been killed. No one counted the bodies. People estimated that 100 or
150 people were killed. I told the reporters that 254 were killed so
that a big figure would be published, and so that the Arabs would
panic not only in Jerusalem but across the country, and this goal was
accomplished. Reporters, journalists, researchers and historians
treat it as if it were an established fact requiring no investigation,
and nobody bothered to check what the true figure was.84
Meir Pa'il appears to have been one of the first to be fooled by
Ra'anan's figure. In one of his accounts of the battle, Pa'il said
that his report to Galili described "the massacre of 250 people."85
David Cohen, Pa'il's commander in Haganah intelligence, later recalled
that Pa'il had used the number 254 in his report on the battle. "This
number seemed to us exaggerated, and we asked him how he arrived at
it," Cohen said. "Pa'il replied, 'I didn't count them all, but there
is a report straight from the horse's mouth'," referring to Ra'anan.
Writing in Yediot Ahronot in 1972, Pa'il repeated the claim that 254
were killed.86 The fact that Pa'il used the false Ra'anan figure, and
that he apparently admitted to Cohen that he himself did not count the
bodies, raises further questions as to how close Pa'il was to the
scene, and the reliability of his claims about what occurred.
According to Eric Silver, "They buried so quickly that no one stopped
to count the corpses." Silver quoted Muhammad Arif Sammour as saying
that three days after the battle, "representatives of each of the five
clans in Deir Yassin met in Jerusalem in the Moslem offices near the
Al Aqsa mosque and made a list of the people who had not been found.
We went through the names. It came to 116. Nothing has happened
since 1948 to make me think this figure was wrong." Silver added:
"Again, Sammour has every reason for exaggerating rather than playing
down the casualties. His case is reinforced by Yehoshua Arieli
[commander of the Haganah group that buried the bodies], now a
professor of history and Israeli peace campaigner. 'The 116 figure',
he says, 'makes sense. I don't think we could have buried more than
120-40.'"87
Arab researchers' surprising discovery
In 1987, the Research and Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University,
a prominent Arab university in the territory now controlled by the
Palestinian Authority, published a comprehensive study of the history
of Deir Yassin, as part of its "Destroyed Palestinian Villages
Documentation Project." The Center's findings concerning Deir Yassin
were published, in Arabic only, as the fourth booklet in its
"Destroyed Arab Villages Series."
The purpose of the project, according to its directors, is "to gather
information from persons who lived in these villages and were directly
familiar with them, and then to compare these reports and publish them
in order to preserve for future generations the special identity and
particular characteristics of each village."88
The Bir Zeit study's description of the 1948 battle of Deir Yassin
began with the hyperbole typical of many accounts of the event,
calling it "a massacre the likes of which history has rarely known."89
But unlike the authors of any other previous study of Deir Yassin, the
Bir Zeit researchers tracked down the surviving Arab eyewitness to the
attack and personally interviewed each of them. "For the most part,
we have gathered the information in this monograph during the months
of February-May 1985 from Deir Yassin natives living in the Ramallah
region, who were extremely cooperative," the Bir Zeit authors
explained, listing by name twelve former Deir Yassin residents whom
they had interviewed concerning the battle. The study continued: "The
[historical] sources which discuss the Deir Yassin massacre
unanimously agree that number of victims ranges between 250-254;
however, when we examined the names which appear in the various
sources, we became absolutely convinced that the number of those
killed does not exceed 120, and that the groups which carried out the
massacre exaggerated the numbers in order to frighten Palestinian
residents into leaving their villages and cities without
resistance."90 The authors concluded: "Below is a list of the names
and ages of those killed at Deir Yassin in the massacre which took
place on April 9, 1948, which was compiled by us on the basis of the
testimony of Deir Yassin natives. We have invested great effort in
checking it and in making certain of each name on it, such that we can
say, with no hesitation, that it is the most accurate list of its type
until today." A list of 107 people killed and twelve wounded followed.
91
How the "massacre" lie grew
When IZL commander Mordechai Ra'anan deliberately exaggerated the Deir
Yassin death toll for propaganda purposes, he inadvertently provided
fodder to anti-Israel propagandists for decades to follow.
Ra'anan's figure of 254 was broadcast in a BBC Radio report the
evening after the battle.92 Two days later, Dr. Hussein Khalidi,
spokesman for the Arab Higher Committee --the principal Palestinian
Arab agency-- adopted the number 254 as his own, and repeated it to
journalists, claiming that his information was based on a visit to the
village by Red Cross representative Jacques De Reynier of the Red
Cross.93 Khalidi tried to use the role of the Red Cross to give the
massacre claim credibility, by attributing it to a humanitarian agency
that presumably did not take sides in the Arab-Jewish conflict. In
fact, however, Khalidi's information could not have come from Jacques
de Reynier. Khalidi told reporters that de Reynier had "seen 40 or 50
bodies," and had been "told that another 50 were scattered elsewhere
and 150 thrown in to a cistern"--that is, a total of between 240 and
250. But de Reynier's report of his visit to Deir Yassin claimed a
death toll of 350.94 Only Ra'anan had used the number 254, which
Khalidi was now using.
On the evening after the battle, the Jerusalem bureau chief of the New
York Times, Dana Adams Schmidt, together with a group of other
journalists, was given a briefing on the battle by an IZL spokesman in
a house in Givat Shaul, adjacent to Deir Yassin.95 Schmidt's report in
the Times, based on that briefing, stated that "more than 200 Arabs"
were killed in the battle, and made no reference to the notion that
there had been a massacre.96 "Not until the next morning," Schmidt
later recalled in his memoirs, "when I went to the Arab side to see
Dr. Khalid [sic], the spokesman of the Arab Higher Committee, did I
discover the horror of Deir Yassin."97 Schmidt did not explain, either
in his news reports at the time or in his memoirs, why he chose to
believe Khalidi's version rather than that of the IZL spokesmen. Nor
did his reports cite any independent evidence that a massacre had
taken place. In his report on the front page of the next day's New
York Times (April 12), Schmidt treated Khalidi's accusations as valid
and quoted them at length--five full paragraphs. The April 12
dispatch by Schmidt concerning Deir Yassin used the casualty figure of
250.98 By the next day, the Times' figure had grown again, this time
to the number used by Ra'anan and Khalidi: 254.99
The appearance of the massacre allegation in the New York Times gave
the atrocity claim a significant veneer of credibility. Without the
imprimatur of the Times, the claim of massacre would have been little
more than the latest in a long series of disputes between the Jews and
the Arabs. It is true that the Arab version had the endorsement of a
Red Cross official and the Labor Zionist leadership, but both
endorsements were tainted: de Reynier had not personally witnessed the
events, and the Jewish Agency-Haganah statements were made by a party
with a strong political interest in discrediting the IZL and Lehi.
Once it appeared in the Times the "newspaper of the record," it took
on the appearance of fact, not allegation. Now future historians and
journalists could refer to the Times as their source, as if the Times
had investigated and confirmed the massacre allegation, when it had
not. Indeed, some historians --for example, Ben Halpern, in his The
Idea of the Jewish State, which is mandatory reading in many college
courses about the Middle East-- use the Times' 1948 coverage as their
only source for the massacre claim.100
The earliest reports of the battle by foreign correspondents also
embellished the massacre story with additional undocumented
accusations. The New York Times , for example, in its April 13 report
quoted a Haganah statement claiming that the attackers engaged in
"looting." It did not publish any response from the accused.101 Time
magazine reported that the IZL and Lehi "swept into the village of
Deir Yassin and blew up its huts with demolition charges." Readers
were left with a false image of Deir Yassin as a collection of
defenseless thatched huts, rather than the reality of heavy stone
houses, some with iron doors, filled with heavily-armed Arab fighters.
102 Richard Graves, the senior British Mandatory official for
Jerusalem, added an anti-Jewish stereotype: his memoirs of the period,
published in 1949, declared that "women [in Deir Yassin] were stripped
naked and searched for money" by the Jews. As for actual evidence of
a massacre, Graves wrote that "it certainly was a massacre, as the
killing was not provoked by any resistance" --an extraordinary claim,
in view of the Arab fighters' massive, and nearly overwhelming,
firepower.103
Despite the fact that Graves presented no original evidence, his book
has been cited in a number of history texts as the source of the
information that Arabs were massacred at Deir Yassin. Backdrop to
Tragedy: The Struggle for Palestine, by William Polk, David Stamler,
and Edmund Asfour (1957) cited Graves, as did Christopher Sykes in his
Crossroads to Israel (1965).104 The Polk-Stamler-Asfour book has since
been cited as a massacre "source" by the anti-Zionist polemicist
Alfred Lilienthal, while Sykes' book has been cited as the source for
the "massacre" by other historians, including David McDowall
(Palestine and Israel) and Desmond Stewart (The Middle East), as well
as the Marxist anti-Zionist author, Nathan Weinstock (Zionism: False
Messiah).105 Hence the remarkable and disturbing phenomenon of
historians irresponsibly relying on secondary sources, which in some
cases are actually third-hand sources, since they themselves rely on
other secondary sources.
Another of the earliest published accounts of Deir Yassin that became
a source for many subsequent historians was Promise and Fulfilment, by
the journalist Arthur Koestler (1949). Citing no sources except the
original Jewish Agency denunciation, Koestler called the Jewish
fighters' action a "blood-bath" and an "atrocity." Interestingly,
Koestler also implied that some Arab descriptions of the event were
exaggerated, remarking that Arab accounts at the time were "adorned
with the lurid detail of oriental imagination."106 A number of
subsequent history texts (as well as anti-Zionist polemicists such as
Lilienthal and Weinstock) cited Koestler as their source for the
massacre claim, although they did not include Koestler's statement
about the Arabs "imagining" some of the allegations, including Charles
D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (1992) and Nicholas
Bethell, The Palestine Triangle (1979).107 Bethell, in turn, was cited
as one of the "massacre" sources by David McDowall (Palestine and
Israel), who also cited as a source an 1986 article by David Gilmour
in Middle East International .108 A determined reader who chases down
the Gilmour article will find that one of Gilmour's chief sources for
the "massacre" claim is--Arthur Koestler. Thus the chain of
irresponsibility comes full circle, beginning with Koestler's
undocumented allegation; Koestler's account propped up Bethell's;
Bethell's propped up McDowall's; McDowall's was also propped up by
Gilmour's; and Gilmour's was propped up by Koestler.
Many other books that refer to Deir Yassin likewise cite as their
source other books which cite no sources for the massacre claim. Jon
Kimche's Seven Fallen Pillars cited no sources for its massacre
charge, yet is cited in many other history books as the source for the
charge.109
A total of 170 English-language history books which refer to the
battle of Deir Yassin were analyzed for this study. Only 8 of the 170
raised serious doubts as to whether or not there had been a massacre.
Of the 162 books which stated definitively that a massacre had
occurred, 94 of them --58%-- gave no source whatsoever for their
accusation, and an additional 38 -- 23.4%-- cited only secondary
sources for the massacre claim. In other words, a total of 81.4% of
the authors claiming a massacre did so without undertaking any
original research to substantiate their claim.
In the heat of the battle and its immediate aftermath, the Labor
Zionist-controlled Jewish Agency and Haganah had taken advantage of a
difficult situation to score some political points. But years passed,
tempers cooled, and by 1960 a new Labor-led Israeli government was
beginning to reexamine what had happened at Deir Yassin. That year,
the Israel Office of Information --a division of the Foreign Ministry,
then under a Labor government with Golda Meir as Foreign Minister--
issued a pamphlet about the Arab-Israeli conflict which included a
description of the Deir Yassin action far different from the version
circulated by Labor Zionist spokesmen in 1948:
Jewish dissident groups, led by the Irgun Zvai Leumi, undertook
operations against the village of Dir Yassin, without the cooperation
or consent of the main body of the Jewish population organized in
Haganah. This village had been for long a nest of Arab snipers and
armed bands. The action took place before the establishment of the
State of Israel and before effective control by its Government of all
armed forces previously engaged in resisting Arab attacks. The
incident was unreservedly condemned by all responsible Jewish
elements.
Menachem Beigin, Irgun leader, subsequently stated that Haganah had
expressly warned the Irgun command against the attack. He points out,
however, that repeated loud-speaker warnings in Arabic advised non-
combatants who were killed in the fighting to evacuate the village
from which a murderous fire was being directed against the Irgun
irregulars.
The pamphlet then quoted a Deir Yassin survivor, Yunes Ahmed Assad, as
having told the Jordanian newspaper Al Urdun on April 9, 1953: "The
Jews never intended to harm the population of the village, but were
forced to do so after they encountered fire from the population, which
killed the Irgun commander."
While the pamphlet's version mistakenly claimed that the Haganah
opposed the attack, and incorrectly stated that Begin himself had said
so (Begin, in fact, said exactly the opposite), it also directly
challenged and undermined several of the long-standing claims that the
Labor Zionists had themselves initially helped propagate: that Deir
Yassin was not a legitimate target, since it had been peaceful; that
the villagers were unarmed and defenseless; and that the residents had
not been given any prior warning of the attack. Furthermore, the
pamphlet, while noting the condemnations of the "operation," made no
reference to any massacre having been committed.110 Nevertheless,
these startling reversals of long-held positions were almost
universally ignored by subsequent histories of the battle.
In 1969, Israel's Labor government issued an even more extensive
rebuttal of the 1948 accusations. The Information Division of the
Foreign Ministry --at that time under Foreign Minister Abba Eban--
issued a new 9-page pamphlet on the battle of Deir Yassin. The
pamphlet began by denouncing the massacre accusation as a "fairy-tale"
and as "the 'big lie' of Deir Yassin."111 The battle for Deir Yassin,
the pamphlet continued, was an integral, inseparable episode in the
battle for Jerusalem... [Arab forces] were attempting to cut the only
highway linking Jerusalem with Tel Aviv and the outside world. It had
cut the pipeline upon which the defenders depended for water.
Palestinian Arab contingents, stiffened by men of the regular Iraqi
army, had seized vantage points overlooking the Jerusalem road and
from them were firing on trucks that tried to reach the beleaguered
city with vital food-stuffs and supplies. Dir Yassin, like the
strategic hill and village of Kastel, was one of these vantage
points. In fact, the two villages were interconnected militarily,
reinforcements passing from Dir Yassin to Kastel during the fierce
engagement for that hill.112
The pamphlet did not comment on the question of the Haganah's advance
knowledge. It described how the IZL fighters (for some reason the
pamphlet did not mention the Lehi contingents) issued Arabic-language
announcements, prior to the attack, urging the residents to flee.
"Some two hundred villagers did come out and took shelter on the lower
slopes of the hill on which Dir Yassin was perched," the pamphlet
reported. "None of them, during or after the fighting, was hurt or
molested in the slightest, and all were afterwards transported to the
fringe of the Arab-held fifth of East Jerusalem and there
released."113
The battle was dominated by "fierce house-to-house fighting," the
pamphlet noted. "Most of the stone buildings were defended hotly and
were captured only after grenades were lobbed through their windows."
Some Arabs "attempted to escape in women's dress. When approached,
they opened fire. They were discovered to be wearing Iraqi military
uniforms under the disguise." Inside the house, the Jewish fighters
were horror-stricken to find that, side byside with those of combatant
Palestinians and Iraqis, were the bodies of women and children.
Either these luckless villagers had trusted in the Arab soldiers to
beat off the attack or had been prevented from leaving the village
with the others when the opportunity was given before the fighting
began or perhaps had been afraid to go. Whatever the reason, they
were the innocent victims of a cruel war and the responsibility for
their deaths rests squarely upon the Arab soldiers whose duty it was--
under any rule of wara--to evacuate them the moment that they turned
Dir Yassin into a fortress...This was no massacre of an unarmed,
peaceful village population by a military unit as Arab propaganda
pretends; the Irgun fought and won a battle, there was no aftermath of
outrage or brutal excess.114
In a direct rebuke to what Labor Zionist leaders had claimed 21 years
earlier, the 1969 Foreign Ministry pamphlet emphasized that while Arab
propagandists had made much use of the statements issued by the Jewish
Agency and the Haganah in 1948, in fact "the Agency and the Haganah
were in no position to 'admit' or 'contradict' anything [concerning
the massacre allegation], as their defense units did not take part in
the battle nor could they have known at first-hand of the
circumstances in which civilian casualties had been caused."115 Yet
this extraordinary pamphlet, with its complete reversal of earlier
Labor Zionist charges of a massacre, was almost universally ignored by
historians.
Additional baseless allegations
One of the most troubling aspects of how historians have handled the
Deir Yassin episode has been the tendency of many of them to embellish
the standard massacre allegation with lurid details that have no
reliable evidence to support them. That Arab sources have engaged in
such exaggerations is perhaps not entirely surprising, in view of the
intensity of emotion surrounding the controversy. One of the leaflets
of the Palestinian Arab intifada, for example, claimed that at Deir
Yassin, the Jews "ripped open the bellies of pregnant women in order
to destroy the seed of our people."116 Arab writers have also claimed
that, among other things, some of the Deir Yassin victims were "buried
alive;"117 that all of the 250 "massacre" victims were "women and
children;"118 that the female Arab survivors were paraded through
Jerusalem while "stripped naked;"119 and that Jerusalem residents
unleashed "a hail of stones" upon the hapless prisoners and the trucks
drove by.120
What is surprising, however, is the frequency with which these and
similar "details" have appeared in what are considered mainstream
history texts. Almost none of these accusations are accompanied by
sources, and the rare cases in which sources are given invariably turn
out to offer no evidence in support of the charges made.
One text claimed that the massacre in Deir Yassin took place "while
its inhabitants slept."121 Many books asserted that the Jews killed
the "entire population" of the village, which would mean anywhere from
400 to 1,000 victims.122 Others have alleged --without any sources--
that the victims were "stripped and robbed"123 and "raped and
disemboweled,"124 with the survivors paraded "naked in trucks" through
Jerusalem.125 Even as widely regarded a historian as Howard Sachar has
made the charge --without any documentation -- that the bodies of the
"more than 200" victims were all "mutilated."126
One text that claimed the Jews "looted and raped," Dilip Hiro's Inside
the Middle East 127 did have a footnote: Noah Lucas's The Modern
History of Israel.128 Yet the Lucas book made no such charge. Another
accusation bearing a worthless footnote was the unique claim by
Terence Prittie that the villagers raised white flags of surrender,
which the Irgun ignored. "Irgun apologists claimed afterwards that
although the villagers had put out white flags, they [the Arabs]
defended every house," Prittie asserted.129 His footnote for the claim
was page 215 of Days of Fire, by Irgun alumnus Shmuel Katz. The
average reader would no doubt assume that Katz acknowledged the waving
of white flags. In fact, Katz did not even mention white flags; he
stated only that "Almost every house in the village was defended."130
The "Begin confession" that never was
Several historians have gone so far as to use a fabricated
"confessional" statement attributed to IZL leader Menachem Begin. In
his autobiography, The Revolt, which was first published in Hebrew in
1950 and in English in 1951, Begin strongly denied the massacre
allegation. Basing himself on reports from the IZL officers who took
part in the battle (Begin himself was not on the scene), Begin argued
that the Arab civilians were killed inadvertently during the house to
house fighting. He also noted that the panic which the Deir Yassin
massacre story ignited around the country unintentionally benefited
the Jewish forces, because it led to voluntary Arab emigration from
strategically important areas.
The most creative fraudulent paraphrasing of Begin's memoir appeared
in Edward Said's The Question of Palestine (1979). Without using any
actual quotation marks, Said reported: "In this book, Begin describes
his terrorism--including the wholesale massacre of innocent women and
children--in righteous (and chilling) profusion. He admits to being
responsible for the April 1948 massacre of 250 women and children in
the Arab village of Deir Yassin." Of course, Begin "admits" no such
thing, but since Said had no footnote, readers could not check the
veracity of his sources.131 Gerald Kaufman (To Build the Promised
Land) makes a similar claim of a Begin "confession," writing that the
Irgun committed "an unspeakable massacre" which is "still justified by
Begin more than 23 years later." Kaufman's implication is that Begin
acknowledges and justifies a massacre; in fact, Begin denies the
massacre and justifies merely the idea of targeting Deir Yassin for
capture.132 A variation on this theme is the claim--for example, by
Lois Aroian and Richard Mitchell--that in his book, "Begin justified
the massacre on military grounds and claimed that without it, the
Jewish state would have been still-born." Needless to say, they did
not quote Begin's actual words, which would have contradicted their
misleading paraphrase.133 Another text even had Ben-Gurion, rather
than Begin, supposedly declaring --without a source note, of course--
"Without Deir Yassin, there would have been no Israel."134
An alleged Begin quotation was offered by Lawrence Joffe, who, in his
contribution to the 1989 volume Israel and the Palestinians , asserted
that "Menachem Begin is on record as saying: 'The massacre was not
only justified, but there would not have been a state of Israel
without the victory of Deir Yassin." Like Said, Joffe provided no
source for the claim.135 Jamal Nassar's 1991 study of the Palestine
Liberation Organization utilized the same Begin quote, claiming it can
be found on page 164 of the 1951 edition of The Revolt. In fact,
there is no such statement on that or any other page.136 Punyapriya
Dasgupta's 1988 study of the Palestinian Arabs came a step closer to
resolving the mystery, by providing a footnote which read: "This
sentence existed in the Hebrew original published in Israel but was
omitted in the English edition." But instead of citing the alleged
Hebrew-language original, Dasgupta continues: "See Sami Hadawi, Bitter
Harvest."137 A footnote in Hadawi's book attributed the alleged Begin
statement to an obscure (now defunct) anti-Israel publication called
the Jewish Newsletter, which claimed the statement appeared in The
Revolt. Hadawi contacted the publication's editor, "who stated that
he had taken it from a Hebrew version of The Revolt published in
Israel for 'home consumption.'"138 In fact, the Deir Yassin section in
the Hebrew edition of The Revolt is identical to the English editions;
there is no quote by Begin admitting or praising any massacre.139
Portraying the Jews as Nazis
For some historians, the Deir Yassin story is an irresistible
opportunity to invert history, by portraying the Jews as the
equivalent of Nazis and the Arabs as the equivalent of the Nazis'
Jewish victims. Maxime Rodinson and Erskine Childers called it "the
Israeli Oradour" (referring to the site of a Nazi massacre of
Frenchmen), while Stewart Perowne compared Palestinian Arabs
emigrating after Deir Yassin to "Frenchmen in their thousands [who]
fled before the advancing Nazis."140 Desmond Stewart compared Deir
Yassin to Auschwitz in one of his books, and to "Lidice or Hiroshima
in little" in another.141 Kenneth Cragg dubbed it "the Arab
Lidice."142 An editorial in the U.S. weekly Christian Century
declared Deir Yassin "a horror worse than Lidice, for in Lidice only
the men and boys were slaughtered."143 The most preposterous example
in this vein was that of Andrew Sinclair, in Jerusalem: The Endless
Crusade (1995), who characterized Deir Yassin as "a ghastly re-
enaction of what the Nazis had done to the Jews at Lidice." Evidently
Sinclair was unaware that Czechs, not Jews, were the victims of the
Nazi atrocity at Lidice, which was undertaken as a reprisal for the
assassination of Nazi official Heinrich Heydrich by Czech partisans.
So anxious was Sinclair to portray the Jews as modern-day Nazis that
he literally falsified history, injecting the Jews into an historical
episode to which they had no connection, so that in the minds of
readers, the Zionists' behavior would seem to resemble that of a well-
known Nazi atrocity.144
Blurring fact and fiction
The two most detailed accounts of the battle of Deir Yassin are so
detailed primarily because the authors have creatively "reconstructed"
the event based on an amalgam of interviews, news reports, and
imagination.
Dan Kurzman, in Genesis 1948, turned the battle into an entertaining
11-page drama. Although Kurzman presents his account as if it were
indisputable historical fact, not fiction, he supplies detailed
dialogue among the combatants and even claims to have known what
individuals were thinking at particular moments. In his preface, he
describes style as "using the techniques of the novelist and
biographer to bring history alive." Instead of specific footnotes,
Kurzman states merely that he "reconstructed" the story of Deir Yassin
"mainly from interviews with Arab survivors" --whom he does not name--
and ten Israelis, some of whom were not even at Deir Yassin. His most
controversial claim is that "some of [the attackers] admit that," in
the heat of the battle, they "lost all restraint and cold-bloodedly
shot every Arab they found--man, woman, or child." Significantly,
however, Kurzman does not say which of the attackers "admitted" to him
that they carried out atrocities. Nor was there any evidence of any
other claim, prior to the publication of his book in 1970, that any
attackers had "admitted" massacring Arabs at Deir Yassin.
In short, there is no way of knowing whether Kurzman's claim is
authentic or a creative combination of speculation and assumption.145
Despite the ambiguity surrounding the source of Kurzman's claim, it
was subsequently repeated as fact in other history books. For
example, J. Bowyer Bell, in his Terror Out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi,
LEHI, and the Palestine Underground, 1929-1949 --still the only
comprehensive English-language history of the Jewish revolt against
the British-- stated: "Some [of the attackers in Deir Yassin]
privately admitted that men, women, and children had been shot on
sight." Bell offered no footnote nor any other clue as to who exactly
had made this private "admission," but Bell's other footnotes for
indicated that he relied heavily on Kurzman and on O Jerusalem, by
best-selling journalists Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, which
appeared in 1972.146 Bell's account, in turn, became the "massacre"
source for a number of other books, including Melvin Urofsky's 1978
study of relations between Israel and American Jewry. Indeed, Urofsky
embellished the accusations, stating that "stories of other
atrocities, some confirmed and some not, of rapes and mutilations and
butcherings, have circulated to this day"--even though the only source
Urofsky cited, Bell, did not confirm any rapes, mutilations, or
butcherings.147
Like Kurzman, Collins and Lapierre authored a fast-paced, entertaining
saga which emphasized readability over historical accuracy, putting
into the combatant's mouths (and minds) the words that the authors
imagine were spoken, whether or not they were actually spoken. Unlike
Kurzman, Collins and Lapierre did specify their sources for their
allegations--Arabs who claimed to have witnessed atrocities, and the
British police official Richard Catling. Apparently accepting the
veracity of Arab allegations without questioning, Collins and Lapierre
repeated a claim by a 12 year-old Arab boy that Jewish fighters lined
up a large group of adults and children against a wall and shot them
down, "but most of us children were saved because we hid behind
parents." Collins and Lapierre did not seem to have wondered why, if
the Jews were intent on massacring them, would they have refrained
from shooting the children who supposedly survived the first volley of
bullets? Collins and Lapierre also recited wild allegations by Arabs
of Jewish fighters raping Arab women, cutting open the stomach of a
woman who was nine months pregnant, and slashing Arabs "from head to
toe" with a sword. The Jews "killed, they looted, and finally they
raped," Collins and Lapierre concluded definitively.148 (David Hirst,
author of a 1977 study of the Arab-Israeli conflict, was so fond of
that phrase that he plagiarized it, writing "The attackers killed,
looted, and finally they raped," without attributing it to Collins and
Lapierre. To make matters worse, numerous subsequent books which have
claimed a massacre took place have listed Hirst's book as their source.
149)
The rape allegations were based exclusively on the report of British
investigator Richard Catling. Collins and Lapierre reported that
although they "interviewed, with some difficulty, a number of
survivors of the massacre in 1969," they used quotations from only one
of them, "because of the fear that perhaps over the years the
survivors' accounts of what happened might have been altered to
conform with some of the propaganda excesses associated with it." In
other words, even Collins and Lapierre found the survivors' accounts
to be less than reliable. In their notes at the back of the book --
but, strangely, not in the text itself-- Collins and Lapierre
acknowledged that Haganah men Yeshurun Schiff and Yehoshua Arieli, who
were part of the unit sent to help bury bodies, "saw no evidence of
rape."150
The latest and the worst
Two of the most significant recent studies of the conflict between
Israel and the Palestinian Arabs feature most of the errors of their
predecessors concerning Deir Yassin. Instead of utilizing recent
research to rectify past mistakes, as serious scholars would be
expected to do, they have compounded and multiplied past errors.
Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal authored Palestinians: The
Making of a People, nearly 400 pages long, was published by the
prestigious Free Press in 1993. Mark Tessler's A History of the
Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, over 900 pages in length, was published
by the Indiana University Press in 1994. Both books have become
required reading in numerous college courses dealing with the Arab-
Israeli conflict.
Kimmerling and Migdal began their description of Deir Yassin with the
remarkable comment: "The sequence of events in Dayr Yasin is now
scarcely disputed," and proceed with the standard allegations of a
massacre. Presumably the intention of the remark was to suggest that
since virtually no historians dispute the massacre claim, therefore it
must be true. That itself is irresponsible, since the historian's
obligation is to independently investigate the events about which he
is writing, not merely to count the number of historians on each side
of a dispute, and then conclude that the side with the larger number
must be telling the truth. What makes the Kimmerling-Migdal account
even more preposterous, however, is the fact that they did not even
mention that the IZL and Lehi denied there was a massacre. Instead,
they state definitively --but without citing any sources-- that after
the battle, "the Jewish fighters killed many of the remaining men,
women and children and" --again, without sources-- "raped and
mutilated others."151
To their credit, Kimmerling and Migdal acknowledge the Bir Zeit study,
although they misrepresent its conclusion, when they write: "A recent
study by a team of researchers at Bir Zeit University found that the
figure probably did not exceed at 120." In fact, as noted earlier, the
Bir Zeit researchers concluded: "we became absolutely convinced that
the number of those killed does not exceed 120."152 "Absolutely
convinced" --not "probably." Kimmerling and Migdal then add: "But that
does not diminish the depth of the atrocity or its short- and long-run
effects." Certainly a massacre of 120 people is no less horrifying
than a massacre of 254 people. But Kimmerling and Migdal have missed
the most significant point about the Bir Zeit study. If those who
claimed there was a massacre --Arab spokesmen, Labor Zionist
officials, the Red Cross representative-- have been proven to be so
completely unreliable concerning the crucial question of the casualty
total, what does that say about the reliability of their other claims?
If the accusers were willing to knowingly assert that the number of
victims was nearly 150% larger than it really was, how can we trust
their other claims--of rape, mutilation, and of the massacre itself?
Some of those who used death toll figures ranging from 254 to 350 knew
that the number was a vast exaggeration; others among the accusers
were no doubt simply carelessly parroting as fact figures that they
had no way of confirming. Whether through mendacity or carelessness,
they mangled the truth, and such behavior would have discredited all
of their testimony in a court of law.
Tessler, like Kimmerling and Migdal, nowhere acknowledged that the
alleged perpetrators of the massacre deny there was a massacre.
Tessler's version of the IZL's position was a variation on the "Begin
confessed" theme: "Menachem Begin subsequently boasted about the
contribution of the massacre to other military operations," according
to Tessler. Begin did not, of course, boast about a "massacre" making
such a contribution, but rather about how the false claims of a
massacre had the unexpected effect of scaring Arabs to leave some
areas that would otherwise have been the sites of difficult battles.
Furthermore, Tessler also included some of the usual falsehoods, such
as characterizing the village residents as "defenseless" and asserting
that the IZL and Lehi "mutilated many of the bodies" --without citing
any evidence.153
"The major significance of Deir Yassin," according to Tessler, "lies
not in a dispute about what really happened or about whether there
could be any justification for the massacre, it lies in bitter
disagreement about whether or not there was a systematic and
calculated Zionist campaign of terror designed to drive Palestinians
from the area that became the State of Israel." One side of the
debate, according to Tessler, consists of "opponents of Israel as well
as some Israeli scholars and pro-Zionist authors," who say Deir Yassin
was part of a broader Zionist plot. The other side consists of those
who say there may have been some justification for targeting Deir
Yassin, but who "deplore the fact that unarmed Arab civilians were
murdered" and "agree with critics who insist that it makes no
difference whether or not a legitimate military operation preceded the
massacre." From Tessler's skewed perspective, there is no room for
even considering the possibility that there was no massacre.154
Tessler is one of a large number of historians whose books were
published after the Bir Zeit study was revealed in Ha'aretz in 1991,
yet who continued to claim that over 200 Arabs were killed and made no
reference to what the Bir Zeit researchers discovered. Of the 29
texts published after 1991 that were reviewed for this study, only one
--Kimmerling and Migdal, as noted earlier-- mentioned the Bir Zeit
findings.
A number of encyclopedias dealing with Middle East topics likewise
parrot the 254 figure. For example, the Political Dictionary of the
Middle East in the 20th Century, Congressional Quarterly's The Middle
East, the Historical Atlas of the Jewish People, the Timetables of
Jewish History and the Historical Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli
Conflict all claim there was a massacre of 250-254, or "hundreds" of,
Deir Yassin civilians. The Historical Encyclopedia of the Arab-
Israeli Conflict , which had a particularly lengthy entry on Deir
Yassin, managed to repeat almost every major error made by its
predecessors. Although published in 1996, it ignored the Bir Zeit
study and claimed 254 civilians were "slaughtered." (Curiously,
another entry in the same encyclopedia, which mentioned Deir Yassin in
passing, stated that 240 were killed.) The entry made it appear as if
David [it erroneously called him "Daniel"] Shaltiel did not favor the
attack, ignoring Shaltiel's pre-battle letter to the IZL, as well as
his admissions in 1960 and subsequent revelations by Milstein and
others about the Haganah's cooperation in the attack. The
encyclopedia entry questioned whether there were really Iraqi or other
Arab soldiers in the village, and quoted Meir Pa'il and Jacques de
Reynier as sources, without reference to the contradictions in their
allegations.155 Don Peretz, who is both a professor and an extreme-
leftwing political activist, is the author of at least two major
encyclopedia entries on Deir Yassin, the Encyclopedia of the Modern
Middle East and the "Arab-Israel Dispute" installment in the Library
in a Book series published by Facts on File. Both entries, although
published five years after the Bir Zeit study was revealed in
Ha'aretz, accused the IZL and Lehi of the mass murder of "200 to 250"
civilians. One of the entries claimed "There was little armed
resistance to the attack"; the other did not acknowledge any
resistance whatsoever. One mentioned the attackers' statement that
Arab soldiers were based in the village, but hastened to add --
incorrectly-- that their claim was "not substantiated by the Haganah;"
Peretz's other entry made no reference to the Arab soldiers. Neither
of the entries mentioned the house-to-house fighting.156
Conclusion
It has been said that a lie can travel halfway across the world before
the truth can catch up with it. The lie that Jewish fighters
massacred Arab civilians in Deir Yassin has gone halfway across the
world and further over the past fifty years. The original "massacre
lie" has been embellished upon with additional false accusations, and
then recirculated by an array of harsh critics of Israel and careless
historians, the Deir Yassin lie has taken on a life of its own, making
its way into authoritative texts such as encyclopedias, where it is
being passed on to the next generation as established fact. The truth
has struggled to catch up, but, step by step, it has gained ground.
First there was the Israeli judicial ruling in 1952, an official
recognition, by the very parties that had charged massacre, that the
battle was, in fact, a legitimate military operation against enemy
armed forces. Then came the Israeli Labor government's 1960 pamphlet
describing Deir Yassin without any reference to the supposed
massacre. Next, the Labor government's 1969 reversal, acknowledging
the errors that Labor officials had made in 1948 and officially
clearing the Jewish fighters of the charge that they committed
atrocities. Finally, in 1987, the Bir Zeit University study--Arab
researchers confirming that one of the central claims of the accusers,
the death toll of 254, was a wild and reckless exaggeration. Taken
together, these developments and revelations have exposed, once and
for all, the lie of the Deir Yassin "massacre." It has taken fifty
years, but the truth has finally caught up.
Footnotes
1 For example, Benny Morris, dean of Israel's leftwing "new
historians," has written that Milstein's study "will most likely turn
out to be the definitive military history of the 1948 war...No one is
likely to surpass the sheer breadth, depth, and scope of this
work...Israeli military history has now been pulled up to a new,
higher and refreshing plane." (Morris, "'Pre-History' vs. 'History',
Jerusalem Post, 9 May 1989, p.40).
2 Sharif Kanani and Nihad Zitawi, Deir Yassin, Monograph No.4,
Destroyed Palestinian Villages Documentation Project (Bir Zeit:
Documentation Center of Bir Zeit University, 1987), p.6.
3 Uri Milstein, The War of Independence: Out of Crisis Came Decision -
Volume IV [Hebrew] (Tel Aviv: Zmora-Bitan Publishers, 1991), p. 256.
4 Milstein, p.253 (interview with Yehoshua Arieli, 11 December 1987).
5 Milstein, pp.277-278.
6 Milstein, p.255 (interview with Moshe Barzili, 9 May 1982).
7 Israel Ministry of Defense, David Shaltiel: Jerusalem 1948 (Tel
Aviv: Israel Ministry of Defense, 1981), p. 139.
8 Milstein, p.260 (interview with Shimon Monita).
9 Milstein, p.260 (interview with Moshe Idelstein).
10 Testimony of Patchiah Zalivensky, Metzudat Ze'ev [Jabotinsky
Archives, Tel Aviv] (hereafter cited as MZ); Milstein, p.260
(interview with Yehoshua Zettler).
11 Milstein, p.260 (interview with Moshe Barzili).
12 Milstein, p.260 (interview with Yehoshua Zettler).
13 Milstein, p.260, quoting "Report by 'Elazar' [Gihon's Haganah code
name]," 10 April 1948.
14 Milstein, p.260 (interview with Mordechai Gihon).
15 Milstein, p.260, quoting "Report of the Haganah's [Anti-Dissident]
Unit on the Deir Yassin Action."
16 Testimony of Mordechai Ra'anan, MZ; Testimony of Yehuda Lapidot,
MZ; Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ; Milstein, p.262 (interviews
with Mordechai Ra'anan and Yehuda Lapidot).
17 Milstein, pp.255-256; Bernard Wasserstein, The British in
Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict
1917-1929 (London: Royal Historical Society, 1978), p.69.
18 Yitshaq Ben-Ami, Years of Wrath, Days of Glory (New York: Shengold,
1983), p.439.
19 Milstein, p.257 (interview with Mordechai Gihon). Milstein found
the report in the Israel Defense Forces Archives, War of Independence
Collection 83/17, Reports of "Teneh," 9 April 1948.
20 Milstein interview with Haganah agent Yona Ben-Sasson, 12 November
1980; also, Milstein, citing the Ben-Nur Report in the David Shaltiel
Archives.
21 "Shots in Jerusalem,"Davar, 4 April 1948, p.2.
22 Milstein, p. 257, citing the Israel Defense Forces Archives, War
of Independence Collection 88/17, "From Hashmonai," 4 April 1948,
10:00 A.M.
23 Milstein, p. 257, citing the Israel Defense Forces Archives, War
of Independence Collection 88/17, "From Sa'ar," 4 April 1948, 10:00
A.M.
24 Testimony of David Gottlieb, MZ; Milstein, pp.257-258, citing the
Israel Defense Forces Archives, War of Independence Collection 21/17,
"From Hashmonai," 4 April 1948.
25 Milstein, p. 258, citing "Operations Log - Arza," 4 April 1948,
17:00 hours, Broadcast #562, Israel Defense Forces Archive, War of
Independence Collection, 88/17.
26 Milstein, p.258 (interview with Mordechai Gihon).
27 Milstein, p.258, citing Israel Defense Forces Archive, War of
Independence Collection, 228/3, Operation Log, 9 April 1948, 2:40 a.m.
28 Testimony of Benzion Cohen, MZ; Testimony of Yehuda Lapidot, MZ.
29 Ilan Kafir, "Three Accounts of Deir Yassin" (Hebrew), Yediot
Ahronot, 4 April 1972, p.3.
30 Ron Miberg, "They Showed Us the Photographs!" (Hebrew), Monitin,
April 1981, p.37.
31 Milstein interview with Harif, p.262.
32 Milstein, p.263 (interview with Zalivensky).
33 Yachin's testimony is quoted at length in Lynne Reid Banks, A Torn
Country: An Oral History of the Israeli War of Independence (New York:
Franklin Watts, 1982), pp. 58-65.
34 Milstein, p.265 (interviews with Yehuda Lapidot and Yehoshua
Gorodenchik).
35 Milstein, p.265, citing Israel Defense Forces Archive, Yitzhak Levy
collection, "Report of Yaakov Weg."
36 Testimony of Reuven Greenberg.
37 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.
38 Banks, op.cit., p.62.
39 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ.
40 Milstein, pp.264-265, interviews with Ezra Yachin, Mordechai
Ra'anan, Benzion Cohen and Yehuda Lapidot; Testimonies of Mordechai
Ra'anan, Benzion Cohen, and Yehuda Lapidot.
41 Milstein, p.263, interview with Uri Brenner; Daniel Spicehandler's
testimony, quoted in Ralph G. Martin, Golda: Golda Meir - The
Romantic Years (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1988), p.329.
42 Testimony of Yehoshua Gorodenchik, MZ. Benny Morris, a harsh
critic of the IZL and Lehi, has characterized Gorodenchik's testimony
as "confused." (Morris, The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem
(New York and London: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p.323, n.175.
43 Milstein, p.264, (interview with Mordechai Gihon and "Report of
Etzioni intelligence officer").
44 Milstein, p.266.
45 Testimony of Mordechai (Kaufman) Ra'anan, 30 June 1952, Procotol of
the Board
of Appeals in Appeal 89-90-92-96/51, p.7, File kaf-10/9, MZ. 46
Milstein, p. 266 (interviews with Moshe Eren, Kalman Rosenblatt, and
David Gottlieb).
47 Natan Yellin-Mor, Fighters for the Freedom of Israel [Hebrew]
(Jerusalem: Shikmona Publishers, 1974), p.472; Milstein, p.267
(interviews with Moshe Barzili and Shimon Monita, and Testimony of
Yaffa Bedian).
48 Milstein, p.255 (interviews with Meir Pa'il; interviews with
Yitzhak Levy; interview with David Cohen, 18 July 1987; interview with
David Shaltiel; interview with Yehoshua Arieli; Testimony of Meir
Pa'il, 10 May 1971).
49 Milstein, p.259 (Testimony of Meir Pa'il; interviews with Moshe
Idelstein).
50 Miberg, op.cit., p.36.
51 Pa'il quoted in Yerach Tal, "There Was No Massacre There" [Hebrew],
Ha'aretz, 8 September 1991, pp.2-3.
52 Milstein, p.274 (interviews with Yehoshua Zettler, Mordechai
Ra'anan, Moshe Barzili, Yehuda Lapidot, Patchia Zalivensky, Moshe
Idelstein, Moshe Eren, Shlomo Havilov, Yehoshua Arieli); Testimonies
of David Shaltiel, Zalman Meret, Zion Eldad, and Yeshurun Schiff, MZ.
53 Tal, op.cit.
54 Miberg, p.39.
55 Ha'aretz, 8 September 1991; Miberg, op.cit.
56 Milstein, p.275.
57 Pa'il, quoted in Kafir, op.cit.
58 Milstein, p.275 (interview with Yona Ben-Sasson).
59 The relevant sections of Reynier's report are translated in Walid
Khalidi, ed. From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the
Palestine Problem Until 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine
Studies, 1987), pp.761-766.
60 Reynier, 762, 763.
61 Ibid., p.762.
62 Ibid., pp.763, 764.
63 Milstein, p.269.
64 Milstein,p.269 (interview with Moshe Barzili).
65 Ibid., 764-765.
66 Milstein, pp.269-270 (interview with Alfred Engel, 7 December
1987).
67 Milstein, p.260.
68 Eric Silver, Begin: The Haunted Prophet (New York: Random House,
1984), p.93.
69 Ibid., p.95.
70 Uri Avnery, Israel Without Zionists: A Plea for Peace in the Middle
East (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1968), p.196. Avnery also got
the date of the battle wrong, as well as the time of day it took
place. He stated that the IZL and Lehi captured Deir Yassin in a
"night battle"; the battle actually began at dawn and continued until
mid-day. He asserted that the "massacre" took place on April 10, when
in fact the Arabs who died were killed --however they were killed-- on
April 9.
71 Yellin-Mor, op.cit.
72 "Agency Berates Massacre," Palestine Post, 12 April 1948, p.1.
73 Israel Ministry of Defense, David Shaltiel, Jerusalem 1948 (Tel
Aviv: Israel Ministry of Defense, 1981), p.139. In what may be
another instance of post-battle recriminations, but this time coming
from the IZL-Lehi side, Lehi member Reuven Greenberg later claimed
that after the battle, a Palmach member killed an Arab civilian with a
small explosive charge. (Testimony of Reuven Greenberg, MZ.) Lehi
veteran Baruch Nadel described a similar incident in Kati Marton's A
Death in Jerusalem (New York: Pantheon, 1994, p.29), although Marton
translated Nadel's reference to the perpetrator as "an
Israeli" (rather than "a Palmach member") which seems inaccurate,
since the State of Israel did not yet exist at the time of the
incident. Yisrael Segal, correspondent for the leftwing Israeli
magazine Koteret Raishit, examined Greenberg's testimony and concluded
that it "is almost certainly drawn mainly from the imagination." Segal
notes that Greenberg's account of the killing of the Arab "has no
corroboration from other testimonies." Questioning Greenberg's
credibility as a witness, Segal characterizes him as "a man with a
checkered past who was involved in many political and criminal capers
in the first years of the state...Greenberg knew how to tell
tales." (Segal, "The Deir Yassin File" [Hebrew], Koteret Raishit, 19
January 1983, p.8.)
74 Decision of the Board of Appeals in Appeal 89/51 (Aryeh Halperin
v. Benefits Officer), File: kaf 4-10/2, MZ.
75 Milstein, pp.269-270 (interview with Alfred Engel, 7 December
1987).
76 Spicehandler testimony in Martin, op.cit.
77 Silver, p.95
78 David Shaltiel, Jerusalem 1948, p.140; Aryeh Yitzhaki, "Deir
Yassin--Not Through a Warped Mirror," Yediot Ahronot, 14 April 1972, p.
17.
79 Thurston Clarke, By Blood and Fire: July 22, 1946 - The Attack on
Jerusalem's King David Hotel (New York: G.P.Putnam's Sons, 1981), p.
224; Nicholas Bethell, The Palestine Triangle: The Struggle for the
Holy Land, 1935-48 (New York: G.P.Putnam's Sons, 1979) p.156.
80 A long excerpt from Catling's report may be found in Collins and
Lapierre, p.276.
81 Spicehandler testimony in Martin, op.cit.
82 Milstein, p.274 (interviews with Shimon Monita, Moshe Idelstein,
Yona Feitelson, and Mordechai Gihon).
83 Menachem Begin, The Revolt (Los Angeles: Nash, 1972), p.163.
84 Milstein, pp.268-269 (interview with Mordechai Ra'anan).
85 Milstein, p.269 (Testimony of Meir Pa'il).
86 Milstein, p.273 (interview with David Cohen, 18 July 1987). Pa'il
used the figure in Yediot Ahronot, 20 April 1972. But in 1989, he
wrote that in his report to Galili, "the number of those murdered was
not mentioned at all, since we did not then know the number." (Uri
Milstein, "The Speech Which Was Not Given" [Hebrew], Ha'aretz, 10
March 1989, p. 15.)
87 Silver, op.cit., pp.95-96.
88 Kanani and Zitawi, Deir Yassin (Bir Zeit study), p.5.
89 Ibid., p.7.
90 Ibid., pp.7-.8.
91 Ibid., p.57.
92 Milstein, p.273 (interview with Mordechai Ra'anan).
93 "Arabs Charge Cruelty," Palestine Post, 12 April 1948, p.1;
Schmidt, "Arabs Say Kastel...," op.cit.
94 The relevant sections of Reynier's report are translated in Walid
Khalidi, ed. From Haven to Conquest: Readings in Zionism and the
Palestine Problem Until 1948 (Washington: Institute for Palestine
Studies, 1987), pp.761-766.
95 Dana Adams Schmidt, Armageddon in the Middle East (New York: The
John Day Company, 1974), pp.4-5.
96 Dana Adams Schmidt, "200 Arabs Killed, Stronghold Taken," New York
Times, 10 April 1948, p.6.
97 Schmidt, Armageddon, p.5.
98 Dana Adams Schmidt, "Arabs Say Kastel Has Been Retaken; Jews Deny
Claim," New York Times, 12 April 1948, p.1.
99 "A Haganah Plane Downed by British," New York Times, 13 April 1948,
p.7.
100 Ben Halpern, The Idea of the Jewish State (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1969), p.480, n.60.
101 "A Haganah Plane...," op.cit.
102 "Palestine: War for the Jerusalem Road," Time, 19 April 1948, pp.
34-35.
103 R.M. Graves, Experiment in Anarchy (London: Victor Gollancz Ltd,
1949), p.179.
104 William Polk, David Stamler, and Edmund Asfour Backdrop to
Tragedy: The Struggle for Palestine (Boston: Beacon Hill Press, 1957),
p.290; Christopher Sykes, Crossroads to Israel (Cleveland and New
York: World Publishing Company, 1965), p.351.
105 Alfred M. Lilienthal, The Zionist Connection: What Price Peace?
(New York: Dodd, Mead & Co., 1978), p.795, n.23; David McDowall,
Palestine and Israel: The Uprising and Beyond (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1989), p.298, n.44; Desmond Stewart, The Middle
East: Temple of Janus (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), p.314;
Nathan Weinstock, Zionism: False Messiah (London: Ink Links Ltd,
1979), p.303, n.45.
106 Arthur Koestler, Promise and Fulfilment: Palestine 1917-1949 (New
York: The MacMillan Company, 1949), p.160.
107 Weinstock, op.cit., p.305, n.23; Lilienthal, op.cit., p.795, n.40;
Charles D. Smith, Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict (New York:
St. Martin's Press, 1992), p.150, n.64; Nicholas Bethell, The
Palestine Triangle: The Struggle for the Holy Land, 1935-48 (New York:
G.P.Putnam's Sons, 1979), pp.354-355.
108 McDowall, op.cit., p.299, n.44; David Gilmour, "The 1948 Arab
Exodus: 2. What Really Happened," Middle East International No.288
(21 November 1985), pp.15-17.
109 Jon Kimche, Seven Fallen Pillars: The Middle East, 1915-1950
(London: Secker and Warburg, 1950) is cited by, among other books,
Sydney D. Bailey, Four Arab-Israeli Wars and the Peace Process
(London: Macmillan, 1990); Noam Chomsky, The Fateful Triangle: The
United States, Israel and the Palestinians (Boston: South End Press,
1983); and David Gilmour, Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the
Palestinians, 1917-1980 (London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1980).
110 Israel's Struggle for Peace (New York: Israel Office of
Information, 1960), pp.41-42.
111 Background Notes on Current Themes - No.6: Dir Yassin (Jerusalem:
Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Information Division, 16 March 1969),
pp. 1-2.
112 Ibid., pp.2-3.
113 Ibid., p.4
114 Ibid., p.5-6.
115 Ibid., p.6.
116 Quoted in Shaul Mishal and Reuben Aharoni, Speaking Stones:
Communiques from the Intifada Underground (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse
University Press, 1994), p.223.
117 Abu Iyad with Eric Rouleau, My Home, My Land (New York: Times
Books, 1981), p.4.
118 Edward Said, The Question of Palestine (New York: Times Books,
1979), p.44.
119 Issa Nakhleh, on p.570 of John Norton Moore, ed., The Arab Israeli
Conflict - Volume I: Readings (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press, 1974).
120 Sami Hadawi and Robert John, Palestine Diary - Volume Two:
1945-1948 (New York: New World Press, 1972), p.328.
121 Eugene M. Fisher and M. Cherif Bassiouni, Storm Over the Arab
World: A People in Revolution (Chicago: Follett, 1972), p.44.
122 This allegation appears in, for example, William R. Polk, The
Elusive Peace: The Middle East in the Twentieth Century (New York:
St.Martin's Press, 1979), p.144: John Marlowe, The Seat of Pilate: An
Account of the Palestine Mandate (London: The Cresset Press, 1959), p.
245; and George Lenczowksi, The Middle East in World Affairs (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1962), p.400.
123 William Polk, David Stamler, and Edmund Asfour Backdrop to
Tragedy: The Struggle for Palestine (Boston: Beacon Hill Press, 1957),
p.291. 124 Cheryl A. Rubenberg, in Roselle Tekiner, Samir Abed-
Rabbo, and Norton Mezvinsky, eds. Anti-Zionism: Analytical
Reflections (Brattleboro, VT: Amana Books, 1989), p.189.
125 Geoffrey Furlonge, Palestine is My Country: The Story of Musa
Alami (John Murray, London 1969), p.155
126 Howard M. Sachar, A History of Israel: From the Rise of Zionism
to Our Time (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1996), p.333.
127 New York: McGraw-Hill, 1982, p.62.
128 New York: Praeger, 1975.
129 Eshkol: The Man and the Nation (New York: Pitman, 1969), p.130.
130 Samuel Katz, Days of Fire (Jerusalem: Steimatzky's, 1968), p.215.
131 Said, op.cit., p.44.
132 Gerald Kaufman, To Build the Promised Land (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1973), p.139.
133 Lois A. Aroian and Richard P. Mitchell, The Modern Middle East
and North Africa (New York and London: Macmillan and Collier
Macmillan, 1984), p.245.
134 Christina Jones, The Untempered Wind: Forty Years in Palestine
(London: Longman, 1975), p.90.
135 Martin Wright, ed. Israel and the Palestinians (London: Longman,
1989), p.24).
136 Jamal R. Nassar, The Palestine Liberation Organization: From
Armed Struggle to the Declaration of Independence (Westport, CT:
Praeger, 1991), p.24, n.57.
137 Punyapriya Dasgupta, Cheated by the World: The Palestinian
Experience (London: Sangam Books, 1988), p.82, n.39.
138 Sami Hadawi, Bitter Harvest: Palestine Between 1914-1979 (Delmar,
NY: The Caravan Books, 1979), pp.80-81.
139 Menachem Begin, The Revolt: The Memoirs of the Commander of the
Irgun Zvai Leumi in Eretz Yisrael [Hebrew](Tel Aviv: Achiasaf
Publishers, 1950).
140 Maxime Rodinson, Israel: A Colonial-Settler State? (New York:
Monad Press, 1973), p.114, n.109; Erskine Childers, "The Other
Exodus," The Spectator, 12 May 1961; Stewart Perowne, "Levant Dusk:
The Refugee Situation," in Walter Z. Laqueur, ed., The Middle East in
Transition (New York: Praeger, 1958), p.222.
141 Desmond Stewart, The Middle East: Temple of Janus (Garden City,
NY: Doubleday, 1971), p.314; Desmond Stewart, The Palestinians:
Victims of Expediency (London: Quartet Books, 1982), p.62.
142 Kenneth Cragg, This Year in Jerusalem: Israel in Experience
(London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 1982), p.56.
143 "Israel and Judaism," Christian Century, 16 March 1949, p.328.
144 Andrew Sinclair, Jerusalem: The Endless Crusade (New York: Crown,
1995), p.232.
145 Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948: The First Arab-Israeli War (New York:
World Publishing, 1970), pp. xi, 138-149.
146 J. Bowyer Bell, Terror Out of Zion: Irgun Zvai Leumi, LEHI, and
the Palestine Underground, 1929-1949 (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1979), p.296.
147 Melvin I. Urofsky, We Are One! American Jewry and Israel (Garden
City, NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1978), p.485. Bell is also the only
source cited for the Deir Yassin massacre charge in Stephen Green's
Taking Sides: America's Secret Relations with a Militant Israel (New
York: William Morrow and Company, 1984), p.260, n.15.
148 Larry Collins and Dominique Lapierre, O Jerusalem (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1972), pp.274-276.
149 David Hirst, The Gun and the Olive Branch: The Roots of Violence
in the Middle East (London and Boston: Faber and Faber, 1977).
Collins and Lapierre wrote, "Its [Deir Yassin's] assailants killed,
they looted, and finally they raped." (p.275) Hirst wrote, "The
attackers killed, looted, and finally they raped." (p.125) Books
listing Hirst as a source include: Yemima Rosenthal, ed. Documents on
the Foreign Policy of Israel: Volume 3 - Armistice Negotiations with
the Arab States December 1948-July 1949 (Jerusalem: Government
Printer, 1981; Dilip Hiro, Inside the Middle East (New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1982); John W. Amos II, Palestinian Resistance: Organization of
a Nationalist Movement ((New York: Pergamon Press, 1980); and David
Gilmour, Dispossessed: The Ordeal of the Palestinians 1917-1980
(London: Sidgwick and Jackson, 1980).
150 Collins and Lapierre, op.cit., p.584.
151 Kimmerling and Migdal, op.cit., p.151.
152 Kanani and Zitawi, Deir Yassin (Bir Zeit study), p.7.
153 Tessler, op.cit., p.291.
154 Ibid., pp.292-293.
155 Yaacov Shimoni and Evyatar Levine, eds.Political Dictionary of the
Middle East in the 20th Century (New York: Quadrangle/New York Times
Books, 1974, p.36; Congressional Quarterly, The Middle East
(Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly, 1991), p.13; Eli Barnavi,
ed.Historical Atlas of the Jewish People (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
1992), pp.244, 276; Judah Gribetz, ed. Timetables of Jewish History
(New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993), p.495; Bernard Reich,
ed.Historical Encyclopedia of the Arab-Israeli Conflict (Westport, CT:
Greenwood Press, 1996), pp.128-129, 247.
156 Peretz has served as an official of a number of extreme-left
organizations, including the Jewish Committee on the Middle East (as a
member of its Advisory Committee), which calls for halting all U.S.
aid to Israel; the Jewish Peace Lobby (as a member of its Policy
Council), which lobbies in Washington for PLO statehood; Breira (as a
member of its board of directors), the first American Jewish group to
call for an Israeli retreat to the pre-1967 borders; and the Committee
for New Alternatives in the Middle East (as a member of its Steering
Committee), which lobbied against U.S. arms shipments to Israel
during the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Peretz's two Deir Yassin entries
appeared in Reeva S. Simon, Philip Mattar, and Richard W. Bulliet,
eds. Encyclopedia of the Modern Middle East (New York: Simon &
Schuster - Macmillan, 1996), pp.546-547, and Don Peretz, Library in a
Book: The Arab-Israel Dispute (New York: Facts on File, 1996), pp.39,
121.
Jack
> On Jan 14, 12:06 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
>>> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
>>> <o5ebl.11325$as4.11...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>>>> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
>>>> lesser extent, Christians
>>> Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
>> Deir Yassin
>
> Hello, asswipe... How about some factual information on Deir Yassin.
Benny Morris, a professor of history at Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev in Be'er Sheva, Israel, writes:
"Deir Yassin is remembered… for the atrocities committed by the IZL and
LHI troops during and immediately after the drawn-out battle: Whole
families were riddled with bullets… men, women, and children were mowed
down as they emerged from houses; individuals were taken aside and
shot." Haganah intelligence reported, '...there were piles of dead. Some
of the prisoners, moved to places of incarceration, including women and
children, were murdered viciously by their captors... LHI members...
relate that the IZL men raped a number of Arab girls and murdered them
afterward (we don't know if this is true).' Another intelligence
operative (who visited the site hours after the event) reported the
'adult males were taken to town Jerusalem in trucks and paraded in the
city streets, then taken back to the site and killed… Before they were
put on the trucks, the IZL and LHI men searched the women, men, and
children [and] took from them all the jewelry and stole their money.'
Finally, the 'Haganah made great efforts to hide its part in the
operation." - Righteous Victims, ibid.p.208
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre#Number_of_dead.2C_wounded_and_prisoners
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<XSpbl.17707$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:54:58 -0200, in alt.atheism , John Manning
>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> in
>> <WKudnb3alvhOl_PU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:59:47 -0200, in alt.atheism , John Manning
>>>> <jrob...@terra.com.br> in
>>>> <Wc6dnVbozOVYfPDU...@giganews.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>>>>> Killing all the boys and keeping the virgin girls for themselves is
>>>>> symbolic of *what* exactly!?!?
>>>> It is likely a statement about political identity.
>>>
>>> How? ...and according to who?
>>
>> Don't worry, I don't expect you to have any knowledge of the topic,
>> knowledge would just get in your way. But if you want to learn, read
>> Friedman's _Who Wrote The Bible_
>> (http://www.amazon.com/Who-Wrote-Bible-Richard-Friedman/dp/0060630353,
>> ISBN-13: 978-0060630355)
>
>
>Who *wrote* the Bible is not important.
>
>Who *reveres* the Bible as the Word of God *is* important.
If they "revere" the parts you quote then it could be important. Do
you have any evidence at all that these quotes are significant to
anyone?
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<JTpbl.17708$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>Jack wrote:
>> I bet people really did shit like that.
>
>did?
>
>That shit goes on today.
You taking about Uganda and Congo?
Jack
Tell me which parts are considered by devout Jews to be the Word of God
and which parts are not.
Jack
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:09:39 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
> <JTpbl.17708$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>> Jack wrote:
>>> I bet people really did shit like that.
>> did?
>>
>> That shit goes on today.
>
> You taking about Uganda and Congo?
Among other places.
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 12:06 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> >>> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
> >>> <o5ebl.11325$as4.11...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
> >>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
> >>>> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
> >>>> lesser extent, Christians
> >>> Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
> >> Deir Yassin
>
> > Hello, asswipe... How about some factual information on Deir Yassin.
>
> Benny Morris,
Hello dickhead... Benny Morris is probably misquoted by more people
with an anti Jewish agenda, than anyone else. And since you obviously
have one, you can take that "quote" and shove it up your ass.
Jack
> Jack wrote:
>> I bet people really did shit like that.
>
> did?
>
> That shit goes on today.
I'm glad I don't live there.
Jack
Is this a misquote from the Torah?
Numbers 31
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 12:34 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> DoD wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 12:06 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >>>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> >>>>> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
> >>>>> <o5ebl.11325$as4.11...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
> >>>>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
> >>>>>> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
> >>>>>> lesser extent, Christians
> >>>>> Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
> >>>> Deir Yassin
> >>> Hello, asswipe... How about some factual information on Deir Yassin.
> >> Benny Morris,
>
> > Hello dickhead... Benny Morris is probably misquoted by more people
> > with an anti Jewish agenda, than anyone else. And since you obviously
> > have one, you can take that "quote" and shove it up your ass.
>
> Is this a misquote from the Torah?
I have no idea, and do not care one way or the other, dickhead.
Jack
Sure you do, or you wouldn't have bothered to answer.
The fact is that the book revered by Jews as the Word of God contains
justification for committing atrocities while waging wars of aggression.
Tough if you don't like it.
DoD
Dickhead, it also contains many good things... You know, like the
"golden rule". The fact that you take a few quotes to make Jews look
bad says a hell of lot about you and that you would most like commit
atrocities rather than any Jew of today.
$Discount$
jack@the_wild_kingdom.com says...
> Moses
>
has been dead 4000 years.
carpet bomb gaza and leave no one alive on orders of those alive today.
Jack
A glass of pure water with one teaspoon of urine in it is mostly pure
water, but would you drink it?
DoD
Obviously it would depend on the circumstances, now wouldn't it? I bet
you would drink it after after a long walk in the Sinai. But more
pertinant to your silly reply is the fact that their are filters out
there.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<AQpbl.17706$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 20:45:09 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
>> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
>> <o5ebl.11325$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>>>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>>> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
>>> lesser extent, Christians
>>
>> Got any examples of Jews using that passage as a guiding principle?
>
>
>Deir Yassin
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_Yassin_massacre
And your connection of that to the Torah is what?
>The over-arching theme of the first five books of the Old Testament, or
>Torah, is that the Jews/Israelites have a special relationship to God
>not shared by non Jews/Israelites, and that they have a right, bestowed
>by this God, on certain real estate. Anyone that comes between
>Jews/Israelites and that real estate can be summarily dealt with.
So you think it was other passages, not that one. I wonder, do you
think multiple acts of terrorism by Arabs on Jews had anything to do
with Deir Yassin? And did you consider that the Jews of Israel
condemned that actions by the Irgun?
[snip]
Jack
What filters are there for The Word of God?
The Jews are no different than the Muslims when they look to their
respective Books for justification of their respective atrocities.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<SKqbl.17715$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
No, you have to defend your claim. I am not about to try to give you a
full education in interpreting the Torah.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<HLqbl.17716$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
East Timor? Guatemala?
Jack
It's always easy, after the fact, to condemn atrocities committed by
one's side. But the fact remains that the Jewish identity is based on
atrocities, real or mythical, and that many of these atrocities were,
according to sacred Jewish texts, ordered by God.
Anyone who does not distance themselves from such misleading and inhuman
ideologies can expect nothing but trouble.
Aunt Jemima
I have never heard of a Jew looking at their book for justification of
atrocities. Jews go further out of their way than anyone to avoid
atrocities. It is a good quality to have, but to the extent they take it can
sometimes be annoying.
Jack
"Full education"?
You mean "spin", don't you?
It's all there, spelled out quite clearly.
God ordered the Israelites, through His prophet Moses, to kill women and
children and to enslave young girls.
Spin it however you need to in order to justify in your own mind these
atrocities, past and present.
Jack
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:09:20 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
> <HLqbl.17716$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>
>> Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:09:39 -0800, in alt.atheism , Jack
>>> <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
>>> <JTpbl.17708$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jack wrote:
>>>>> I bet people really did shit like that.
>>>> did?
>>>>
>>>> That shit goes on today.
>>> You taking about Uganda and Congo?
>> Among other places.
>
> East Timor? Guatemala?
My Lai and other unknown villages in Vietnam.
As I wrote, it goes on to this day, even as I type.
Jack
When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, after several rockets were fired
into northern Israel and one of its patrols attacked by Hezbollah, the
UN estimated that 1,191 Lebanese civilians were killed and
4,409 wounded. Everyone saw the images on their TV screens of Israeli
bombs falling into civilian areas. In this regard, the Israelis seem no
different than Hamas or Hezbollah.
DoD
How you interpret stuff obviously.
> The Jews are no different than the Muslims when they look to their
> respective Books for justification of their respective atrocities.
They look to their books for justifications to commit atrocities? Do
you even know anything about Jews, other than what you hear from Jew
hating sources?
Jack
What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
Is it fair for world powers to allow aggression by Group A against
Group B because Group A was horribly wronged by Group C?
Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands, as they were
wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
and this side for Arabs." They did the same when they left India. "This
side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
That is where Jews come from.
> Is it fair for world powers to allow aggression by Group A against
> Group B because Group A was horribly wronged by Group C?
Group B are the agressors.
> Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands,
Ah, no they didn't.
> as they were
> wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
> and this side for Arabs."
That doesn't make sense.
> They did the same when they left India. "This
> side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
>
> After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.-
Arabs are violent.
David
> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
Biblical text you cited.
> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> Numbers 31
>
> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder. It
could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
And there is no reference to rape in the text.
Duwaynea Anderson
Numbers 31 describes the people of Israel taking woman and children as
prisoners. When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
There is no standard of decency that I'm aware of that justifies the
killing of un-armed women and children prisoners of war. It's a
testament to the true evil of religion that religious people will
actually try and justify what Moses did.
> And there is no reference to rape in the text.
The Israelites didn't kill all the children. They kept the little
girls that had not "known man" as "wives." Unless those little girls
were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
try and justify what’s in Numbers 31. It’s too bad there are people
that actually try.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<VJrbl.8732$8_3...@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com> wrote:
No.
>It's all there, spelled out quite clearly.
I did not know you were a Biblical literalist. I find literalism
amusing at times, but not interesting otherwise.
>God ordered the Israelites, through His prophet Moses, to kill women and
>children and to enslave young girls.
>
>Spin it however you need to in order to justify in your own mind these
>atrocities, past and present.
Do you think those events occurred? Do you have any evidence that
people are currently doing things based on those passages?
Jack
> On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> DoD wrote:
>
>> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
>
> That is where Jews come from.
That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
subjugating those who were there before them.
>> Is it fair for world powers to allow aggression by Group A against
>> Group B because Group A was horribly wronged by Group C?
>
> Group B are the agressors.
The Deir Yassin massacre took place between April 9 and April 11, 1948.
Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq on May 15,
1948, the day after the Jewish inhabitants of the area proclaimed the
independent state of Israel.
>
>> Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands,
>
> Ah, no they didn't.
Who drew the lines? Certainly no one who was living there at the time.
>> as they were
>> wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
>> and this side for Arabs."
>
> That doesn't make sense.
Only to someone who doesn't have any to begin with.
>> They did the same when they left India. "This
>> side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
>>
>> After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.-
>
> Arabs are violent.
Read the Old Testament much?
Jack
> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>>
>
> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> Biblical text you cited.
What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
a man," don't you understand?
>
>> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>>
>> Numbers 31
>>
>> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
>> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>>
>> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>>
>> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
>> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
>> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>>
>> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>>
>> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
have been killed, *is*.
> It
> could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> And there is no reference to rape in the text.
"Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
What do you *suppose* happened?
Ben Kaufman
<SNIP>
>When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, after several rockets were fired
>into northern Israel and one of its patrols attacked by Hezbollah, the
>UN estimated that 1,191 Lebanese civilians were killed and
>4,409 wounded. Everyone saw the images on their TV screens of Israeli
>bombs falling into civilian areas. In this regard, the Israelis seem no
>different than Hamas or Hezbollah.
You omitted the fact that they were trying to rescue a soldier kidnapped by
Hezbollah and Hezbollah was using Lebanese as human shields.
Ben
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 1:32 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > Biblical text you cited.
>
> > > From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> > > Numbers 31
>
> > > 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > > thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> > > 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> > > 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > > of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > > so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> > > 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> > > 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder. It
> > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> Numbers 31 describes the people of Israel taking woman and children as
> prisoners.
This is true.
> When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
> of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
> take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
>
This is not.
Not all of them.
> There is no standard of decency that I'm aware of that justifies the
> killing of un-armed women and children prisoners of war.
There is, however, a standard of decency whereby guilty individuals
can be executed for crimes they commit. Which is what the Bible text
is describing here, at least for the women.
And if you are referring to modern day conventions, they pre-suppose
that nations have the resources to care for children who are prisoners
of war. Resources the Israelites did not have.
>It's a
> testament to the true evil of religion
Unsupported assertion.
>that religious people will
> actually try and justify what Moses did.
>
Again, no evidence has been provided that Moses ordered wanton murder
or rape.
> > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> The Israelites didn't kill all the children.
This is true.
> They kept the little
> girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
This is not.
> Unless those little girls
> were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
> It’s too bad there are people
> that actually try.
What you claim happened in Numbers 31 and what the text actually says
happened are two very different things.
I am not justifying what you claim happened in Numbers 31. I have no
need to do so.
Jack
What do you suppose is the meaning of the passage, "Now kill all the
boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for
yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."?
>
>> God ordered the Israelites, through His prophet Moses, to kill women and
>> children and to enslave young girls.
>>
>> Spin it however you need to in order to justify in your own mind these
>> atrocities, past and present.
>
> Do you think those events occurred?
What I think is of no consequence. What I read in the Torah, the most
sacred writings of the Jews, held by the devout to be The Word of God,
is that God's prophet to the Jews, Moses, ordered the wanton killing of
the Midianite woman and children and the enslaving of the virgin girls.
> Do you have any evidence that
> people are currently doing things based on those passages?
Again, all that I know is what I read in the Torah, and what I read in
the history books and news stories, and what I see on television and I
draw my conclusions.
David
> David wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > Biblical text you cited.
>
> What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> a man," don't you understand?
>
I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
support your assertion.
>
>
>
>
> >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> >> Numbers 31
>
> >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> >> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> >> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> >> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
>
> But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> have been killed, *is*.
>
For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
children they did execute if they let them live.
Which you haven't.
So your assertion remains unsupported.
> > It
> > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
Jack.
> What do you *suppose* happened?
I don't suppose Jack, that is the difference between you and I.
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> DoD wrote:
>
> >> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
>
> > That is where Jews come from.
>
> That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
> subjugating those who were there before them.
Do you understand what ancient civilization was about? Obviously not.
So should Jews go to Iraq? What about even earlier. Why are you anti-
semites so childish?
> >> Is it fair for world powers to allow aggression by Group A against
> >> Group B because Group A was horribly wronged by Group C?
>
> > Group B are the agressors.
>
> The Deir Yassin massacre took place between April 9 and April 11, 1948.
> Israel was attacked by Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq on May 15,
> 1948, the day after the Jewish inhabitants of the area proclaimed the
> independent state of Israel.
During the week prior to the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin,
there was a spate of shooting attacks from the village aimed at Jewish
targets in the area. On Friday night, April 2, gunfire from the Deir
Yassin area raked the adjacent Jewish neighborhoods of Beit Hakerem
and Bayit Vegan.21 On Sunday, April 4, commander Shaltiel received an
urgent message from the intelligence officer of the Haganah's Etzioni
division: "There's a gathering in Deir Yassin. Armed men left [from
Deir Yassin] in the direction of [the nearby town of] lower Motza,
northwest of Givat Shaul. They are shooting at passing cars."22 That
same day, the deputy commander of the Haganah's Beit Horon brigade,
Michael Hapt reported to Shaltiel: "A [Jewish] passenger car from
Motza was attacked near the flour mill, below Deir Yassin, and is
stopped there. There is rifle fire upon it. You too send an armoured
vehicle with weapons. There is concern that the road is cut off."23
An armoured vehicle carrying Lehi fighters was also attacked at the
same spot that day. A Haganah intelligence officer who described the
incident to his superiors reported that according to Lehi officer
David Gottlieb, those of his men who disembarked from their vehicle to
return fire said that the attackers appeared to be Arab soldiers
rather than local villagers.24 A telegram from Michael Hapt, of the
Haganah's Beit Horon brigade, to the Haganah command, at 5:00 p.m.
that day, urged: "In order to prevent [an attack] on lower Motza,
cutting off of road to Jerusalem, and capture of position south of
Tzova, Deir Yassin must be captured."25
Shortly before the battle of Deir Yassin, there was additional
troubling news: Mordechai Gihon's lookouts reported that numerous
armed men were moving between Ein Kerem and Deir Yassin. Some of the
soldiers were wearing Iraqi uniforms, and while many of them had
entered Deir Yassin, only a few had returned to Ein Kerem.26 And just
hours before the IZL-Lehi action against Deir Yassin began, Shaltiel
cabled his colleague Shimon Avidan: "The Arabs in Deir Yassin have
trained a mortar on the highway in order to shell the convoy [bringing
supplies to besieged Jewish portions of Jerusalem]."27
> >> Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands,
>
> > Ah, no they didn't.
>
> Who drew the lines? Certainly no one who was living there at the time.
They didn't draw the lines on other peoples lands. And why are the
Arabs bitching? They started off with a 80 20 split and then managed
to get even more.
> >> as they were
> >> wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
> >> and this side for Arabs."
>
> > That doesn't make sense.
> Only to someone who doesn't have any to begin with.
Interpret for me:
"as they were wont to do wherever they held sway"
> >> They did the same when they left India. "This
> >> side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
>
> >> After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.-
>
> > Arabs are violent.
>
> Read the Old Testament much?
Yes, without an anti-Jewish lense.
Jack
And their strategy for retrieving those captured solders was to bomb
Beirut?
Jack
> On Jan 14, 3:53 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> DoD wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>>>> DoD wrote:
>>>> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
>>> That is where Jews come from.
>> That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
>> subjugating those who were there before them.
>
> Do you understand what ancient civilization was about? Obviously not.
> So should Jews go to Iraq? What about even earlier. Why are you anti-
> semites so childish?
I am not anti-Semite. If you choose to believe that I am, that is your
problem.
I am merely trying to understand why Jews regard a man like Moses, as he
is portrayed in the Torah, as a prophet of God.
Do you have anything that isn't from a rabidly Zionist website?
>
>>>> Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands,
>>> Ah, no they didn't.
>> Who drew the lines? Certainly no one who was living there at the time.
>
> They didn't draw the lines on other peoples lands. And why are the
> Arabs bitching? They started off with a 80 20 split and then managed
> to get even more.
>
>>>> as they were
>>>> wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
>>>> and this side for Arabs."
>>> That doesn't make sense.
>
>> Only to someone who doesn't have any to begin with.
>
> Interpret for me:
>
> "as they were wont to do wherever they held sway"
Don't play dumb and don't ask me to explain to you what every
semi-educated person alive in the world today should know.
>>>> They did the same when they left India. "This
>>>> side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
>>>> After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.-
>>> Arabs are violent.
>> Read the Old Testament much?
>
> Yes, without an anti-Jewish lense.
But apparently with a pro-Jewish one because if you read the Old
Testament much you would realize what a blood-thirsty lot were the
Israelites described therein.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Numbers 31 describes the people of Israel taking woman and children as
> > prisoners.
>
> This is true.
>
> > When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
> > of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
> > take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
>
> This is not.
I'm amazed at the extent to which some people will try to lie. Here's
the verse in question:
Numbers 31: 17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him.
> Not all of them.
I didn't say all of them.
>
> > There is no standard of decency that I'm aware of that justifies the
> > killing of un-armed women and children prisoners of war.
>
> There is, however, a standard of decency whereby guilty individuals
> can be executed for crimes they commit.
What crimes do you think the little children committed?
> Which is what the Bible text
> is describing here, at least for the women.
What "crime" did the women committ?
> And if you are referring to modern day conventions, they pre-suppose
> that nations have the resources to care for children who are prisoners
> of war. Resources the Israelites did not have.
I hope Matt Silberstein is reading -- Mat, this is the sort of
religious madness I was talking about. David is actually trying to
justify the genocide in the Bible. What other acts of genocide do you
think he might try justifying?
> >It's a
>
> > testament to the true evil of religion
>
> Unsupported assertion.
Your comments are the support, David.
> >that religious people will
> > actually try and justify what Moses did.
>
> Again, no evidence has been provided that Moses ordered wanton murder
> or rape.
Killing women and children prisoners of war is as "wanton" as it
comes.
> > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > The Israelites didn't kill all the children.
>
> This is true.
>
> > They kept the little
> > girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
>
> This is not.
There's no point is lying about it. Here's the verse:
Numbers 31: 17-18.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves.
> > Unless those little girls
> > were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> > brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> > try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
>
> The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
> text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
How were they taken?
> Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
>
> > It’s too bad there are people
> > that actually try.
>
> What you claim happened in Numbers 31 and what the text actually says
> happened are two very different things.
>
> I am not justifying what you claim happened in Numbers 31. I have no
> need to do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Jack
What did the text say happened?
Jack
> On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> David wrote:
>>> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>>> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
>>> Biblical text you cited.
>> What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
>> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
>> a man," don't you understand?
>>
>
> I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> support your assertion.
Then you're hopelessly insane and can't be reasoned with.
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > Biblical text you cited.
>
> > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > a man," don't you understand?
>
> I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> support your assertion.
What part did he fail? Be specific.
> > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> > >> Numbers 31
>
> > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > >> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > >> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > >> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
>
> > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> > have been killed, *is*.
>
> For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime? What,
exactly, was the crime?
> And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
> children they did execute if they let them live.
You are not honestly trying to argue that a warring nation that can't
afford to feed its prisoners of war is justified in killing them, are
you?
> Which you haven't.
>
> So your assertion remains unsupported.
>
> > > It
> > > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
> Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
> Jack.
Do you think the little girls, that had just had their fathers,
mothers, and brothers killed, willingly allowed themselves to be
"taken" by the Israelites?
>
> > What do you *suppose* happened?
>
> I don't suppose Jack, that is the difference between you and I.- Hide quoted text -
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:05 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Numbers 31 describes the people of Israel taking woman and children as
> > > prisoners.
>
> > This is true.
>
> > > When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
> > > of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
> > > take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
>
> > This is not.
>
> I'm amazed at the extent to which some people will try to lie.
Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying. That is because
Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
> Here's
> the verse in question:
>
Yes, let's read it.
> Numbers 31: 17
> Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> > Not all of them.
>
Bingo, as I pointed out not all of them.
> I didn't say all of them.
>
You didn't say some of them either.
Your words-
"he instructed the Israelites to take the women and children prisoners
and kill them."
Note you failed to say "some" children.
Which is why I corrected you. Thus no lie on my part.
>
>
> > > There is no standard of decency that I'm aware of that justifies the
> > > killing of un-armed women and children prisoners of war.
>
> > There is, however, a standard of decency whereby guilty individuals
> > can be executed for crimes they commit.
>
> What crimes do you think the little children committed?
>
You read minds poorly, I don't think the little children committed any
crimes.
> > Which is what the Bible text
> > is describing here, at least for the women.
>
> What "crime" did the women committ?
>
You can read the details in Numbers chapters 20-25.
> > And if you are referring to modern day conventions, they pre-suppose
> > that nations have the resources to care for children who are prisoners
> > of war. Resources the Israelites did not have.
>
> I hope Matt Silberstein is reading -- Mat, this is the sort of
> religious madness I was talking about.
Correcting your historical ignorance and your poor reading
comprehension is not religious madness Anderson.
> David is actually trying to
> justify the genocide in the Bible.
More laughable nonsense from Anderson, I have no need to justify
Anderson's unsupported claims.
> What other acts of genocide do you
> think he might try justifying?
>
Notice Anderson has provided no evidence I have justified genocide,
that is because Anderson cannot, since I did no such thing.
> > >It's a
>
> > > testament to the true evil of religion
>
> > Unsupported assertion.
>
> Your comments are the support, David.
>
Wrong again Anderson.
> > >that religious people will
> > > actually try and justify what Moses did.
>
> > Again, no evidence has been provided that Moses ordered wanton murder
> > or rape.
>
> Killing women and children prisoners of war is as "wanton" as it
> comes.
>
Again you fail to support your assertion, failing to consider whether
the women should be spared from execution for their crimes, and what
the Israelites can do for the children.
> > > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > > The Israelites didn't kill all the children.
>
> > This is true.
>
> > > They kept the little
> > > girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
>
> > This is not.
>
> There's no point is lying about it.
Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying. That is because
Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
>Here's the verse:
>
Yes, let's read it again.
> Numbers 31: 17-18.
> Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
> children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
> yourselves.
>
Thanks for proving my point, no mention of taking them as wives.
> > > Unless those little girls
> > > were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> > > brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> > > try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
>
> > The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
> > text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
>
> How were they taken?
>
Not in the way you claimed.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:12 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > > David wrote:
> > > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > > Biblical text you cited.
>
> > > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > > with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > > a man," don't you understand?
>
> > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > support your assertion.
>
> What part did he fail? Be specific.
>
Wanton murder and rape.
>
>
> > > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> > > >> Numbers 31
>
> > > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > > >> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> > > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> > > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > > >> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > > >> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> > > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> > > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
>
> > > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> > > have been killed, *is*.
>
> > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>
> Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime?
The Biblical text suggests it.
>What,
> exactly, was the crime?
>
You can read Numbers chapters 20-25. It will give you the background
on the fighting.
> > And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
> > children they did execute if they let them live.
>
> You are not honestly trying to argue that a warring nation that can't
> afford to feed its prisoners of war is justified in killing them, are
> you?
>
Of course not.
I am arguing that you and Jack have failed to support your
assertions.
To support your assertion, you would have to explain what the
Israelites were supposed to do with the children.
> > Which you haven't.
>
> > So your assertion remains unsupported.
>
> > > > It
> > > > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> > > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > > "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
> > Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
> > Jack.
>
> Do you think the little girls, that had just had their fathers,
> mothers, and brothers killed, willingly allowed themselves to be
> "taken" by the Israelites?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
This is about what the Biblical text actually states, and how it
differs from what you claim.
David
> David wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> David wrote:
> >>> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
> >>> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> >>> Biblical text you cited.
> >> What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> >> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> >> a man," don't you understand?
>
> > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > support your assertion.
>
> Then you're hopelessly insane
Unsupported assertion.
> and can't be reasoned with.
>
You admitted Jack that your claim on the text you quoted was just a
supposition, and now you back down when it is pointed out you can't
support your assertion.
David
What the text says happened is that the Jews took the girls, they were
not killed like the others.
It says nothing more, and nothing less. It says nothing about wives,
about rape, none of this stuff you and Anderson made up.
You had to make it up, because the text doesn't state it.
You want a better idea of what actually happened? Check out the
commentary of ancient Jews like Josephus or Philo. Unlike the two of
you they actually understood the culture they were commenting on.
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 3:53 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> DoD wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >>>> DoD wrote:
> >>>> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
> >>> That is where Jews come from.
> >> That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
> >> subjugating those who were there before them.
>
> > Do you understand what ancient civilization was about? Obviously not.
> > So should Jews go to Iraq? What about even earlier. Why are you anti-
> > semites so childish?
>
> I am not anti-Semite. If you choose to believe that I am, that is your
> problem.
You meet all the requirements.
> I am merely trying to understand why Jews regard a man like Moses, as he
> is portrayed in the Torah, as a prophet of God.
You have to take the whole thing in context.
What is wrong with Kleins work? He references a lot of Milstein who
was meticulous, used primary sources and because he was meticulous,
some of
the output was not very flattering to Jews. You problem is that it
shows how ridiculous this portion of your argument is.
> >>>> Britain drew some lines on a map of other peoples' lands,
> >>> Ah, no they didn't.
> >> Who drew the lines? Certainly no one who was living there at the time.
>
> > They didn't draw the lines on other peoples lands. And why are the
> > Arabs bitching? They started off with a 80 20 split and then managed
> > to get even more.
>
> >>>> as they were
> >>>> wont to do wherever they held sway, and proclaimed, "This side for Jews
> >>>> and this side for Arabs."
> >>> That doesn't make sense.
>
> >> Only to someone who doesn't have any to begin with.
>
> > Interpret for me:
>
> > "as they were wont to do wherever they held sway"
>
> Don't play dumb and don't ask me to explain to you what every
> semi-educated person alive in the world today should know.
I have no clue what that means.
> >>>> They did the same when they left India. "This
> >>>> side for Hindus and this side for Muslims".
> >>>> After each partition, warring and atrocities ensued.-
> >>> Arabs are violent.
> >> Read the Old Testament much?
>
> > Yes, without an anti-Jewish lense.
>
> But apparently with a pro-Jewish one because if you read the Old
> Testament much you would realize what a blood-thirsty lot were the
> Israelites described therein.
What culture hasn't had blood-thirsty periods?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > > When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
> > > > of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
> > > > take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
>
> > > This is not.
>
> > I'm amazed at the extent to which some people will try to lie.
>
> Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying.
Actually, I did. In fact I quoted the relevant verse from Numbers.
Here it is again:
Numbers 31: 17
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>That is because
> Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
We can all see what you told, David.
> > Here's
> > the verse in question:
>
> Yes, let's read it.
>
> > Numbers 31: 17
> > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> > > Not all of them.
>
> Bingo, as I pointed out not all of them.
I didn't say "all of them."
Why do you think that matters, anyway? You think it was okay to just
kill some of them?
> > I didn't say all of them.
>
> You didn't say some of them either.
Oh, gawd. And I didn't say Santa Claus, either.
<snip>
> > What crimes do you think the little children committed?
>
> You read minds poorly, I don't think the little children committed any
> crimes.
Then how do you justify the fact that the Bible describes Moses
killing them?
> > > Which is what the Bible text
> > > is describing here, at least for the women.
>
> > What "crime" did the women committ?
>
> You can read the details in Numbers chapters 20-25.
That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women prisoners
of war for not worshiping the right god?
<snip>
> > What other acts of genocide do you
> > think he might try justifying?
>
> Notice Anderson has provided no evidence I have justified genocide,
> that is because Anderson cannot, since I did no such thing.
You quoted Numbers chapter 20-25 to explain why you think Moses was
justified in killing un-armed women and children of war.
<snip>
> > Killing women and children prisoners of war is as "wanton" as it
> > comes.
>
> Again you fail to support your assertion, failing to consider whether
> the women should be spared from execution for their crimes, and what
> the Israelites can do for the children.
And there you just did it again.
<snip>
> > > > They kept the little
> > > > girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
>
> > > This is not.
>
> > There's no point is lying about it.
>
> Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying. That is because
> Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
Of course I did. I even posted the verse. Here it is again:
Numbers 31: 17-18.
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
yourselves.
> >Here's the verse:
>
> Yes, let's read it again.
>
> > Numbers 31: 17-18.
> > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
> > children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
> > yourselves.
>
> Thanks for proving my point, no mention of taking them as wives.
Unless those little girls were willingly marrying the men that just
killed their mothers, brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as
rape. I’d be ashamed to try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
> > > > Unless those little girls
> > > > were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> > > > brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> > > > try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
>
> > > The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
> > > text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
>
> > How were they taken?
>
> Not in the way you claimed.
How were they taken?
> > > Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
>
> > > > It’s too bad there are people
> > > > that actually try.
>
> > > What you claim happened in Numbers 31 and what the text actually says
> > > happened are two very different things.
>
> > > I am not justifying what you claim happened in Numbers 31. I have no
> > > need to do so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jack
> On Jan 14, 4:31 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> DoD wrote:
>>> On Jan 14, 3:53 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>>>> DoD wrote:
>>>>> On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>>>>>> DoD wrote:
>>>>>> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
>>>>> That is where Jews come from.
>>>> That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
>>>> subjugating those who were there before them.
>>> Do you understand what ancient civilization was about? Obviously not.
>>> So should Jews go to Iraq? What about even earlier. Why are you anti-
>>> semites so childish?
>> I am not anti-Semite. If you choose to believe that I am, that is your
>> problem.
>
> You meet all the requirements.
I meet all *your* requirements, which don't seem to be that stringent.
What is wrong with Benny Morris' work?
The trick is not to get trapped into proclaiming that the bloodlust was
the will of God, as Jews seem to do.
Face it. You either cling to the Torah and make excuses for your
blood-thirsty God, or you renounce it and free yourself from that baggage.
Jack
Use your imagination, David.
What do you suppose became of the girls?
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 14, 2:52 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:12 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > David wrote:
> > > > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > > > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > > > Biblical text you cited.
>
> > > > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > > > with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > > > a man," don't you understand?
>
> > > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > > support your assertion.
>
> > What part did he fail? Be specific.
>
> Wanton murder and rape.
You don't think it's "wanton" to kill un-armed women and children
prisoners of war?
> > > > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> > > > >> Numbers 31
>
> > > > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > > > >> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> > > > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> > > > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > > > >> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > > > >> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> > > > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> > > > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > > > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
>
> > > > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> > > > have been killed, *is*.
>
> > > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> > > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>
> > Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime?
>
> The Biblical text suggests it.
>
> >What,
> > exactly, was the crime?
>
> You can read Numbers chapters 20-25. It will give you the background
> on the fighting.
That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women
prisoners
of war for not worshiping the right god?
> > > And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
> > > children they did execute if they let them live.
>
> > You are not honestly trying to argue that a warring nation that can't
> > afford to feed its prisoners of war is justified in killing them, are
> > you?
>
> Of course not.
>
> I am arguing that you and Jack have failed to support your
> assertions.
My assertion is that the Bible describes Moses killing un-armed women
and children prisoners of war. People can read all about it in
Numbers 31.
> To support your assertion, you would have to explain what the
> Israelites were supposed to do with the children.
You must be kidding. Let them *GO,* of course.
Only a religious fanatic would argue they had to kill their un-armed
prisoners.
> > > Which you haven't.
>
> > > So your assertion remains unsupported.
>
> > > > > It
> > > > > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> > > > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > > > "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
> > > Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
> > > Jack.
>
> > Do you think the little girls, that had just had their fathers,
> > mothers, and brothers killed, willingly allowed themselves to be
> > "taken" by the Israelites?
>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
But you made it about what you think. You think the girls were not
raped. Let's remind folks of what you are trying to justify:
1) Moses tells his people to kill all the people in another tribe.
Everyone.
2) Moses' people don't do it. They take the women and children as
prisoners of war
3) Moses gets angry and tells them to kill the women and children
prisoners of war
4) Moses makes one exception -- he tells them they can "keep" the
little girls that have not "known man"
You assert the little girls were not raped.
> This is about what the Biblical text actually states, and how it
> differs from what you claim.
Matt? You reading? Here's one of those Biblical literalists -- and
he's trying like hell to justify genocide.
> > > > What do you *suppose* happened?
>
> > > I don't suppose Jack, that is the difference between you and I.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
> On Jan 14, 2:38 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > David wrote:
> > > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > >> David wrote:
> > >>> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > >>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
> > >>> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > >>> Biblical text you cited.
> > >> What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > >> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > >> a man," don't you understand?
>
> > > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > > support your assertion.
>
> > Then you're hopelessly insane
>
> Unsupported assertion.
>
> > and can't be reasoned with.
>
> You admitted Jack that your claim on the text you quoted was just a
> supposition, and now you back down when it is pointed out you can't
> support your assertion.
David, do you think it was okay for Moses to kill the women and
children as described in Nubmers 31?
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<Tktbl.17741$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
Why do you care what I think? Have you made any attempt to find out
what people who use the Bible for insight think?
>>
>>> God ordered the Israelites, through His prophet Moses, to kill women and
>>> children and to enslave young girls.
>>>
>>> Spin it however you need to in order to justify in your own mind these
>>> atrocities, past and present.
>>
>> Do you think those events occurred?
>
>What I think is of no consequence. What I read in the Torah, the most
>sacred writings of the Jews, held by the devout to be The Word of God,
>is that God's prophet to the Jews, Moses, ordered the wanton killing of
>the Midianite woman and children and the enslaving of the virgin girls.
You are a Biblical literalist, Jews are not Biblical literalists.
There is almost no way you can understand what the Jews thing about
the Torah as long as you refuse to understand that.
>> Do you have any evidence that
>> people are currently doing things based on those passages?
>
>Again, all that I know is what I read in the Torah,
Written Torah.
>and what I read in
>the history books and news stories, and what I see on television and I
>draw my conclusions.
IOW you have no evidence. Thanks.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:54 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > > When Moses found out they'd been taken prisoners, instead
> > > > > of being killed as Moses commanded, he instructed the Israelites to
> > > > > take the women and children prisoners and kill them.
>
> > > > This is not.
>
> > > I'm amazed at the extent to which some people will try to lie.
>
> > Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying.
>
> Actually, I did.
Actually you did not, you were in error, and I corrected you.
> In fact I quoted the relevant verse from Numbers.
This is true.
> Here it is again:
>
Yes, let's read it again.
> Numbers 31: 17
> Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
Right, like I said, no mention of rape. Thanks for proving I told the
truth Anderson.
> >That is because
> > Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
>
> We can all see what you told, David.
>
Yes, everyone can see I told the truth, and you provided no evidence
that I lied.
> > > Here's
> > > the verse in question:
>
> > Yes, let's read it.
>
> > > Numbers 31: 17
> > > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > > woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> > > > Not all of them.
>
> > Bingo, as I pointed out not all of them.
>
> I didn't say "all of them."
>
And you didn't say some of them. Which is why I corrected you.
> Why do you think that matters, anyway? You think it was okay to just
> kill some of them?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
I corrected your error. It doesn't matter why I did it. I just chose
to do it.
> > > I didn't say all of them.
>
> > You didn't say some of them either.
>
> Oh, gawd. And I didn't say Santa Claus, either.
>
I didn't say you did.
> <snip>
>
> > > What crimes do you think the little children committed?
>
> > You read minds poorly, I don't think the little children committed any
> > crimes.
>
> Then how do you justify the fact that the Bible describes Moses
> killing them?
>
I am not the one making assertions Anderson.
You failed to justify it was wanton murder. I pointed out you failed
to justify that.
> > > > Which is what the Bible text
> > > > is describing here, at least for the women.
>
> > > What "crime" did the women committ?
>
> > You can read the details in Numbers chapters 20-25.
>
> That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women prisoners
> of war for not worshiping the right god?
>
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. That isn't what Numbers
chapters 20-25 states were the crimes the women committed.
> <snip>
>
> > > What other acts of genocide do you
> > > think he might try justifying?
>
> > Notice Anderson has provided no evidence I have justified genocide,
> > that is because Anderson cannot, since I did no such thing.
>
> You quoted Numbers chapter 20-25
Referred, not quoted.
> to explain why you think Moses was
> justified in killing un-armed women and children of war.
>
Wrong, this isn't about what I think.
You asked where you could learn about the crimes of the women, I
referred you to the text where you could educate yourself. You either
didn't read it, or failed to comprehend what you read.
> <snip>
>
> > > Killing women and children prisoners of war is as "wanton" as it
> > > comes.
>
> > Again you fail to support your assertion, failing to consider whether
> > the women should be spared from execution for their crimes, and what
> > the Israelites can do for the children.
>
> And there you just did it again.
>
I again corrected your errors and pointed out you failed to justify
your assertions.
> <snip>
>
> > > > > They kept the little
> > > > > girls that had not "known man" as "wives."
>
> > > > This is not.
>
> > > There's no point is lying about it.
>
> > Notice Anderson provided no evidence that I am lying. That is because
> > Anderson cannot, since I told the truth.
>
> Of course I did.
Actually you did not, you were in error, and I corrected you.
> I even posted the verse. Here it is again:
>
Yes, let's read it again.
> Numbers 31: 17-18.
> Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
> children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
> yourselves.
>
Right, like I said, no mention of rape. Thanks for proving I told the
truth Anderson.
> > >Here's the verse:
>
> > Yes, let's read it again.
>
> > > Numbers 31: 17-18.
> > > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > > woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women
> > > children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for
> > > yourselves.
>
> > Thanks for proving my point, no mention of taking them as wives.
>
> Unless those little girls were willingly marrying the men that just
> killed their mothers, brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as
> rape. I’d be ashamed to try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
>
The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
> > > > > Unless those little girls
> > > > > were willingly marrying the men that just killed their mothers,
> > > > > brothers and fathers, I think it qualifies as rape. I’d be ashamed to
> > > > > try and justify what’s in Numbers 31.
>
> > > > The only thing for you to be ashamed about is your own ignorance. The
> > > > text does not support your claim that the girls were taken as wives.
>
> > > How were they taken?
>
> > Not in the way you claimed.
>
> How were they taken?
>
Not in the way you claimed.
> > > > Neither does the historical commentary on this Biblical text.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:01 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:38 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > > David wrote:
> > > > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > >> David wrote:
> > > >>> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > >>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
> > > >>> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > >>> Biblical text you cited.
> > > >> What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > > >> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > > >> a man," don't you understand?
>
> > > > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > > > support your assertion.
>
> > > Then you're hopelessly insane
>
> > Unsupported assertion.
>
> > > and can't be reasoned with.
>
> > You admitted Jack that your claim on the text you quoted was just a
> > supposition, and now you back down when it is pointed out you can't
> > support your assertion.
>
> David, do you think it was okay for Moses to kill the women and
> children as described in Nubmers 31?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
When you are ready to actually support your assertions, you let me
know.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> Yes, let's read it again.
>
> > Numbers 31: 17
> > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> Right, like I said, no mention of rape.
Rape can be described. Tell me why you think Numbers 31:17 does not
describe rape.
<snip>
> > Then how do you justify the fact that the Bible describes Moses
> > killing them?
>
> I am not the one making assertions Anderson.
Do you think Moses' actions were wrong?
<snip>
> > That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women prisoners
> > of war for not worshiping the right god?
>
> More laughable nonsense from Anderson. That isn't what Numbers
> chapters 20-25 states were the crimes the women committed.
Then explain exactly why you think these un-armed women and children
were justifiably killed. Are you too ashamed to say?
<snip>
> > to explain why you think Moses was
> > justified in killing un-armed women and children of war.
>
> Wrong, this isn't about what I think.
Do you think it was wrong for Moses to kill un-armed women and
children?
<snip to end>
David
Heh, well at least Jack admits that his accusations of wanton murder
and rape come from his imagination.
> What do you suppose became of the girls?
>
The text says they lived.
If I were to start speculating I would be no more credible than you
are.
I don't speculate. I read the text in terms of what it actually
states.
Duwaynea Anderson
You don't post what you think? What is in all those posts you've
been typing, if not what you think?
> When you are ready to actually support your assertions, you let me
> know.
Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
and children. These were prisoners of war.
And I think it's a damned shame that religious fanatics try to make
excuses for it, too. I think if these fanatics can excuse what the
Bible describes Moses doing, they can pretty much excuse anything.
And that's a dangerous fanatic to have around.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Duwaynea Anderson
The text says that Moses and company killed the women and girls that
had "known" man. The only ones they left alive were the girls that
had not "known man." Those, the Bible says, they kept for themselves.
Do you think that was a good thing to do, David?
> If I were to start speculating I would be no more credible than you
> are.
>
> I don't speculate. I read the text in terms of what it actually
> states.
Matt? You paying attention? Here's one of those religious fanatics
that you were asking about.
>
>
>
> > > You had to make it up, because the text doesn't state it.
>
> > > You want a better idea of what actually happened? Check out the
> > > commentary of ancient Jews like Josephus or Philo. Unlike the two of
> > > you they actually understood the culture they were commenting on.
>
> > >>> I am not justifying what you claim happened in Numbers 31. I have no
> > >>> need to do so.- Hide quoted text -
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 2:58 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 2:52 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 14, 2:12 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > David wrote:
> > > > > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > > > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> > > > > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > > > > Biblical text you cited.
>
> > > > > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> > > > > with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > > > > a man," don't you understand?
>
> > > > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > > > support your assertion.
>
> > > What part did he fail? Be specific.
>
> > Wanton murder and rape.
>
> You don't think it's "wanton" to kill un-armed women and children
> prisoners of war?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
To justify your assertions, you need to deal with the question of the
crimes of the women. And what were supposed to be done with the
children.
>
>
> > > > > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> > > > > >> Numbers 31
>
> > > > > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > > > > >> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
>
> > > > > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> > > > > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > > > > >> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > > > > >> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> > > > > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
>
> > > > > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
>
> > > > > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
>
> > > > > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> > > > > have been killed, *is*.
>
> > > > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> > > > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>
> > > Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime?
>
> > The Biblical text suggests it.
>
> > >What,
> > > exactly, was the crime?
>
> > You can read Numbers chapters 20-25. It will give you the background
> > on the fighting.
>
> That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women
> prisoners
> of war for not worshiping the right god?
>
More laughable nonsense from Anderson. Try reading Numbers 20-25 more
carefully next time.
> > > > And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
> > > > children they did execute if they let them live.
>
> > > You are not honestly trying to argue that a warring nation that can't
> > > afford to feed its prisoners of war is justified in killing them, are
> > > you?
>
> > Of course not.
>
> > I am arguing that you and Jack have failed to support your
> > assertions.
>
> My assertion is that the Bible describes Moses killing un-armed women
> and children prisoners of war.
Oh. I see.
So you are changing your assertion now?
Because originally you claimed that Jack was correct in his assertion
that Moses ordered wanton murder and rape.
> People can read all about it in
> Numbers 31.
>
So now you are revising your assertion? Admitting you have no
justification for the full original assertion? Because your assertion
does not include an accusation of rape now.
Is it just murder now?
> > To support your assertion, you would have to explain what the
> > Israelites were supposed to do with the children.
>
> You must be kidding. Let them *GO,* of course.
>
Go where?
> Only a religious fanatic would argue they had to kill their un-armed
> prisoners.
>
I am not the one putting forth an argument here. You are fanatically
denying your own error.
>
>
> > > > Which you haven't.
>
> > > > So your assertion remains unsupported.
>
> > > > > > It
> > > > > > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>
> > > > > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>
> > > > > "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
> > > > Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
> > > > Jack.
>
> > > Do you think the little girls, that had just had their fathers,
> > > mothers, and brothers killed, willingly allowed themselves to be
> > > "taken" by the Israelites?
>
> > This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>
> But you made it about what you think.
Wrong again Anderson, this isn't about what I think.
> You think the girls were not
> raped.
I pointed out the text does not state the girls were raped, I pointed
out that you added that in yourself.
This isn't about what I think.
> Let's remind folks of what you are trying to justify:
>
Heh, correction Anderson, what you are trying to justify.
You are making assertions here, not I. I pointed out why your
assertion was unsupported.
> 1) Moses tells his people to kill all the people in another tribe.
> Everyone.
> 2) Moses' people don't do it. They take the women and children as
> prisoners of war
> 3) Moses gets angry and tells them to kill the women and children
> prisoners of war
> 4) Moses makes one exception -- he tells them they can "keep" the
> little girls that have not "known man"
>
A reasonable recap of the conclusion to the war with the Midianites.
> You assert the little girls were not raped.
>
Correction, you asserted the little girls were raped. I pointed out
your assertion has no support in the Biblical text.
Do you understand the difference now?
> > This is about what the Biblical text actually states, and how it
> > differs from what you claim.
>
> Matt? You reading? Here's one of those Biblical literalists
Correcting your historical ignorance and your reading comprehension
errors is not Biblical literalism Anderson.
> -- and
> he's trying like hell to justify genocide.
>
Notice Anderson has provided no evidence that I have tried to justify
genocide, that is because I don't.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:27 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > Yes, let's read it again.
>
> > > Numbers 31: 17
> > > Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every
> > > woman that hath known man by lying with him.
>
> > Right, like I said, no mention of rape.
>
> Rape can be described.
It is not described in verse 17. You have no rape.
> Tell me why you think Numbers 31:17 does not
> describe rape.
>
This isn't about what I think. You have failed to justify Numbers
31:17 describes rape. "Because Duwaynea Anderson says so" is not a
justification.
> <snip>
>
> > > Then how do you justify the fact that the Bible describes Moses
> > > killing them?
>
> > I am not the one making assertions Anderson.
>
> Do you think Moses' actions were wrong?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
This isn't about me.
> <snip>
>
> > > That's it? You are justifying the killing of un-armed women prisoners
> > > of war for not worshiping the right god?
>
> > More laughable nonsense from Anderson. That isn't what Numbers
> > chapters 20-25 states were the crimes the women committed.
>
> Then explain exactly why you think these un-armed women and children
> were justifiably killed.
This isn't about what I think Anderson, and you read minds poorly.
> Are you too ashamed to say?
>
I proudly correct your errors and your poor reading comprehension
Anderson.
> <snip>
>
> > > to explain why you think Moses was
> > > justified in killing un-armed women and children of war.
>
> > Wrong, this isn't about what I think.
>
> Do you think it was wrong for Moses to kill un-armed women and
> children?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
This isn't about me.
> <snip to end>
David
Very good, no inclusion of rape this time. You stuck much closer to
what the Biblical text actually says.
> Do you think that was a good thing to do, David?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
> > If I were to start speculating I would be no more credible than you
> > are.
>
> > I don't speculate. I read the text in terms of what it actually
> > states.
>
> Matt? You paying attention?
Is this a desperate cry for help Anderson? Are you not able to handle
me yourself?
> Here's one of those religious fanatics
> that you were asking about.
>
Why is Anderson talking about himself? I have never seen someone so
fanatically deny their own error and try to change the subject in
quite some time like Anderson does.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<jHrbl.17725$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
[snip]
>What filters are there for The Word of God?
If you don't know why are you making claims about Jews?
>The Jews are no different than the Muslims when they look to their
>respective Books for justification of their respective atrocities.
You do know that the "Book" does not contain all of the Torah, don't
you?
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<8Xrbl.17730$Ws1....@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
>Aunt Jemima wrote:
[snip]
>> I have never heard of a Jew looking at their book for justification of
>> atrocities. Jews go further out of their way than anyone to avoid
>> atrocities. It is a good quality to have, but to the extent they take it can
>> sometimes be annoying.
>
>When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, after several rockets were fired
>into northern Israel
That is, after years of attacks by a group that says it is going to
destroy Israel.
>and one of its patrols attacked by Hezbollah, the
>UN estimated that 1,191 Lebanese civilians were killed and
>4,409 wounded. Everyone saw the images on their TV screens of Israeli
>bombs falling into civilian areas. In this regard, the Israelis seem no
>different than Hamas or Hezbollah.
Hamas and Hezbollah set up in civilian areas and then complain when
those civilians are hurt.
DoD
> DoD wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 4:31 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> DoD wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 3:53 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >>>> DoD wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 14, 2:43 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> DoD wrote:
> >>>>>> What right do Jews have to the state of Israel?
> >>>>> That is where Jews come from.
> >>>> That's were Jews held sway for while, after attacking and killing off or
> >>>> subjugating those who were there before them.
> >>> Do you understand what ancient civilization was about? Obviously not.
> >>> So should Jews go to Iraq? What about even earlier. Why are you anti-
> >>> semites so childish?
> >> I am not anti-Semite. If you choose to believe that I am, that is your
> >> problem.
>
> > You meet all the requirements.
>
> I meet all *your* requirements, which don't seem to be that stringent.
Hatred of Jews is my requirement. You certainly fit that bill.
is wrong with Kleins work?
>
> What is wrong with Benny Morris' work?
Nothing. What is wrong is cherry picking from Benny to cast Jews in a
bad light.
> > What culture hasn't had blood-thirsty periods?
>
> The trick is not to get trapped into proclaiming that the bloodlust was
> the will of God, as Jews seem to do.
Really? You just blurt that out without any facts to back it up, and
you wonder why
you are called an anti-semite.
> Face it. You either cling to the Torah and make excuses for your
> blood-thirsty God, or you renounce it and free yourself from that baggage.-
Jewish God is not blood-thirsty. Jewish people are not blood-thirsty.
PalArabs and people
like you that enable them are blood-thirsty.
Seon Ferguson
"Jack" <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote in message
news:o5ebl.11325$as4....@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Seon Ferguson wrote:
>> Good thing the OT isn't the literal historic truth but symbolic.
>
> Literal or figurative, it is the guiding principle of Jews and, to a
> lesser extent, Christians
>
What's even sadder is the amount of people still take it literally.
Ben Kaufman
>Ben Kaufman wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:29:49 -0800, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> When Israel invaded Lebanon in 2006, after several rockets were fired
>>> into northern Israel and one of its patrols attacked by Hezbollah, the
>>> UN estimated that 1,191 Lebanese civilians were killed and
>>> 4,409 wounded. Everyone saw the images on their TV screens of Israeli
>>> bombs falling into civilian areas. In this regard, the Israelis seem no
>>> different than Hamas or Hezbollah.
>>
>> You omitted the fact that they were trying to rescue a soldier kidnapped by
>> Hezbollah and Hezbollah was using Lebanese as human shields.
>>
>> Ben
>
>And their strategy for retrieving those captured solders was to bomb
>Beirut?
I don't think that was the strategy. After all, it was Hezbollah who had the
leisure to plan the attacks and kidnapping. Israel was reacting in an effort
to rescue the kidnapped soldiers and they did make some mistakes, which they
later acknowledged.
Ben
Jack
Okay, so the Israelis are not bloodthirsty, just stupid.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:29 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 14, 3:22 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com>
>
> > > On Jan 14, 3:01 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > > > > >> David wrote:
> > > > > >>> On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> > > > > >>>> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
> > > > > >>> An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> > > > > >>> Biblical text you cited.
> > > > > >> with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with
> > > > > >> a man," don't you understand?
>
> > > > > > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> > > > > > support your assertion.
>
>
> > > > Unsupported assertion.
>
> > > > > and can't be reasoned with.
>
> > > > You admitted Jack that your claim on the text you quoted was just a
> > > > supposition, and now you back down when it is pointed out you can't
> > > > support your assertion.
>
> > > David, do you think it was okay for Moses to kill the women and
> > > children as described in Nubmers 31?
>
>
I post the facts Anderson.
> What is in all those posts you've
> been typing, if not what you think?
>
The facts Anderson, which refute your unsupported assertions.
> > When you are ready to actually support your assertions, you let me
> > know.
>
> Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
So you are changing your assertion now? You concede that there is no
Biblical text which states they were raped? Just checking because that
wasn't the assertion you started with.
> And I think it's a damned shame that religious fanatics try to make
> excuses for it, too. I think if these fanatics can excuse what the
> Bible describes Moses doing, they can pretty much excuse anything.
I cannot excuse your historical ignorance Anderson, or your failure to
read and comprehend the text. You made up the words about the little
girls being raped, because it isn't there in the text.
No one needs to excuse the stuff Jack make up in his imagination and
no one needs to excuse assertions you not only fail to support but now
furiously backpedal away from.
I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text, I
really couldn't care less about what the Moses in Jack's imagination
is doing.
> And that's a dangerous fanatic to have around.
>
The only fanaticism on display here was your refusal to acknowledge
your own error, you hysterical accusations of lying, and your constant
attempts to change the subject.
Fortunately you are only a danger to yourself.
>
>
> > > > > >>>> From the fourth book of the Torah:
> > > > > >>>> Numbers 31
> > > > > >>>> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders of
> > > > > >>>> thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the battle.
> > > > > >>>> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
> > > > > >>>> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the means
> > > > > >>>> of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor,
> > > > > >>>> so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
> > > > > >>>> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man,
> > > > > >>>> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
> > > > > >>> The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton murder.
> > > > > >> But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy combatants
> > > > > >> have been killed, *is*.
>
> > > > > > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> > > > > > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>
> > > > > > And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
> > > > > > children they did execute if they let them live.
>
> > > > > > Which you haven't.
>
> > > > > > So your assertion remains unsupported.
>
> > > > > >>> It
> > > > > >>> could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
> > > > > >>> And there is no reference to rape in the text.
> > > > > >> "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>
> > > > > > Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
> > > > > > Jack.
>
> > > > > >> What do you *suppose* happened?
>
> > > > > > I don't suppose Jack, that is the difference between you and I.- Hide quoted text -
David
I post the facts Anderson.
> What is in all those posts you've
> been typing, if not what you think?
>
The facts Anderson, which refute your unsupported assertions.
> > When you are ready to actually support your assertions, you let me
> > know.
>
> Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
So you are changing your assertion now? You concede that there is no
Biblical text which states they were raped? Just checking because that
wasn't the assertion you started with.
> And I think it's a damned shame that religious fanatics try to make
> excuses for it, too. I think if these fanatics can excuse what the
> Bible describes Moses doing, they can pretty much excuse anything.
I cannot excuse your historical ignorance Anderson, or your failure to
read and comprehend the text. You made up the words about the little
girls being raped, because it isn't there in the text.
No one needs to excuse the stuff Jack make up in his imagination and
no one needs to excuse assertions you not only fail to support but now
furiously backpedal away from.
I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text, I
really couldn't care less about what the Moses in Jack's imagination
is doing.
> And that's a dangerous fanatic to have around.
>
The only fanaticism on display here was your refusal to acknowledge
your own error, you hysterical accusations of lying, and your constant
attempts to change the subject.
Fortunately you are only a danger to yourself.
>
>
john p
> On Jan 14, 2:52 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 14, 2:12 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > David wrote:
>> > > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>> > > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>>
>> > > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
>> > > > Biblical text you cited.
>>
>> > > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has
>> > > slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
>> > > slept with a man," don't you understand?
>>
>> > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
>> > support your assertion.
>>
>> What part did he fail? Be specific.
>>
>>
> Wanton murder and rape.
>
The Scripture suggests it.
>>
>> > > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>>
>> > > >> Numbers 31
>>
>> > > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders
>> > > >> of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the
>> > > >> battle.
>>
>> > > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>>
>> > > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the
>> > > >> means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what
>> > > >> happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>>
>> > > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
>> > > >> with a man,
>>
>> > > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a
>> > > >> man.
>>
>> > > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton
>> > > > murder.
>>
>> > > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy
>> > > combatants have been killed, *is*.
>>
>> > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
>> > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>>
>> Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime?
>
> The Biblical text suggests it.
>
The text also suggests they were raped.
>>What,
>> exactly, was the crime?
>>
>>
> You can read Numbers chapters 20-25. It will give you the background on
> the fighting.
>
>> > And explain what exactly the Israelites were supposed to do with the
>> > children they did execute if they let them live.
>>
>> You are not honestly trying to argue that a warring nation that can't
>> afford to feed its prisoners of war is justified in killing them, are
>> you?
>>
>>
> Of course not.
>
> I am arguing that you and Jack have failed to support your assertions.
>
> To support your assertion, you would have to explain what the Israelites
> were supposed to do with the children.
>
>> > Which you haven't.
>>
>> > So your assertion remains unsupported.
>>
>> > > > It
>> > > > could be, but you have failed to show it is in this case.
>>
>> > > > And there is no reference to rape in the text.
>>
>> > > "Save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man"?
>>
>> > Notice there is no reference to rape. Thanks for proving my point
>> > Jack.
>>
>> Do you think the little girls, that had just had their fathers,
>> mothers, and brothers killed, willingly allowed themselves to be
>> "taken" by the Israelites?
>>
>>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>
> This is about what the Biblical text actually states, and how it differs
> from what you claim.
>
>
>>
>> > > What do you *suppose* happened?
>>
>> > I don't suppose Jack, that is the difference between you and I.- Hide
>> > quoted text -
>>
>> > - Show quoted text -
--
John P.
"Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis." ~Sigmund Freud
David
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:58:26 -0800, David wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 2:52 pm, Duwaynea Anderson <DuwayneAnder...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 14, 2:12 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On Jan 14, 1:57 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > David wrote:
> >> > > > On Jan 13, 6:46 pm, Jack <jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> wrote:
> >> > > >> Moses orders wanton murder and rape of women and children.
>
> >> > > > An interesting assertion, but one you have not supported with the
> >> > > > Biblical text you cited.
>
> >> > > What part of "Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has
> >> > > slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never
> >> > > slept with a man," don't you understand?
>
> >> > I do understand it Jack, that is why I pointed out you failed to
> >> > support your assertion.
>
> >> What part did he fail? Be specific.
>
> > Wanton murder and rape.
>
> The Scripture suggests it.
>
>
That is a step down from Jack and Anderson's claim of a sure thing.
But not yet correct John.
>
>
>
> >> > > >> From the fourth book of the Torah:
>
> >> > > >> Numbers 31
>
> >> > > >> 14 Moses was angry with the officers of the army—the commanders
> >> > > >> of thousands and commanders of hundreds—who returned from the
> >> > > >> battle.
>
> >> > > >> 15 "Have you allowed all the women to live?" he asked them.
>
> >> > > >> 16 "They were the ones who followed Balaam's advice and were the
> >> > > >> means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what
> >> > > >> happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD's people.
>
> >> > > >> 17 Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept
> >> > > >> with a man,
>
> >> > > >> 18 but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a
> >> > > >> man.
>
> >> > > > The text refers to a battle, a war isn't necessarily wanton
> >> > > > murder.
>
> >> > > But killing women and children captives, after all the enemy
> >> > > combatants have been killed, *is*.
>
> >> > For your assertion to be supported, you would have to explain why the
> >> > women should be granted a reprieve for their crimes.
>
> >> Are you suggesting that the women were guilty of some crime?
>
> > The Biblical text suggests it.
>
> The text also suggests they were raped.
>
You are mistaken.
john p
<big snip>
>> The text also suggests they were raped.
>>
>>
> You are mistaken.
>
Maybe, but others understand it that way too.
Matt Silberstein
<seo...@gmail.com> in
<496eb452$0$2620$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au> wrote:
A small number of Christians and a tiny number of Jews.
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
Then you should stop posting what you think.
> To justify your assertions, you need to deal with the question of the
> crimes of the women.
That's what you think? You think the women had committed crimes that
justified killing them?
Just to remind folks, these women and children were prisoners of war.
Moses had them killed. I think that was wrong. But David "thinks" I
need to show that these un-armed women and children prisoners hadn't
committed some sort of crime worthy of death.
> And what were supposed to be done with the
> children.
You "think" it was okay for Moses to have them killed?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> > and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
> So you are changing your assertion now?
That's been my assertion all along.
> You concede that there is no
> Biblical text which states they were raped?
You "think" that one assertion precludes the other?
Numbers 31 has Moses killing all the girls except the ones that had
not "known" man. He "gave" the virgins to the men. You "think" a
verse has to say "rape" to describe "rape?"
<snip>
> I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
> Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text,
Do you think it was wrong for Moses to have the women and children
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > The text says that Moses and company killed the women and girls that
> > had "known" man. The only ones they left alive were the girls that
> > had not "known man." Those, the Bible says, they kept for themselves.
>
> Very good, no inclusion of rape this time.
You "think" the text has to say "rape" to describe "rape?"
<snip>
> > Do you think that was a good thing to do, David?
>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
Then you should stop posting what you think.
Why are you so afraid to answer the question? It's a simple one. Do
you think Moses was justified in having the women and children
prisoners of war killed, but keeping the virgins alive and giving them
to the Israelites?
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > Rape can be described.
>
> It is not described in verse 17.
Sure it is. Moses specifically "gives" the virgins to the Israelite
men. He has the women, non-virgin girls, and little boys killed.
What does that describe?
<snip>
> > Do you think Moses' actions were wrong?
>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
Then you should stop posting what you think.
And why is it so difficult for you to answer such a simple question?
Was Moses wrong to have killed the women and children?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> I post the facts Anderson.
What "facts" would those be? Be specific.
<snip>
> > Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> > and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
> So you are changing your assertion now?
That's been my assertion all along. Do you dispute it?
> You concede that there is no
> Biblical text which states they were raped?
Do you think the text has to say "rape" to describe "rape?" That's
certainly not a very "factual" point of view.
<snip>
> I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
> Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text,
Moses told the Israelites to kill all the people of another tribe.
The Israelites didn't, though; they took the women and children
prisoners. Moses was angry about this and told them to take the
prisoners and kill them. All the women and the little boys. And all
the girls except the ones that had not "known" man.
So, since you are willing to "talk about what Moses did," I'd like to
"talk" about the morality of what he did.
Do you think that Moses' actions, as described in Numbers 31, were
moral? Was Moses right in doing what he's described doing?
<snip to end>
Duwayne Anderson
Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
science"
American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle.
Matt Silberstein
<jack@the_wild_kingdom.com> in
<pMzbl.14293$c45....@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com> wrote:
How about human and not perfect?
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:53 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Rape can be described.
>
> > It is not described in verse 17.
>
> Sure it is.
Wrong again Anderson, your poor reading comprehension skills have
failed you.
> Moses specifically "gives" the virgins to the Israelite
> men.
The ones who had not committed the crimes which started the war.
> He has the women, non-virgin girls,
The ones to be executed for crimes.
>and little boys killed.
>
Yes, they are executed as well.
> What does that describe?
>
It describes no rape Anderson.
> <snip>
>
> > > Do you think Moses' actions were wrong?
>
> > This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>
> Then you should stop posting what you think.
>
Heh, I post the facts Anderson.
> And why is it so difficult for you to answer such a simple question?
I did answer your question Anderson, why is it so difficult for you to
understand such a simple answer?
> Was Moses wrong to have killed the women and children?
>
Are you asking my opinion Anderson?
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
Very interesting Anderson -
If we were debating the meaning of the text in one of your books,
where you add in words that do not exist in the text, as you are doing
here, you would indeed be in the right, since you are the author.
But you didn't write the book of Numbers, and thus you trying to add
in rape still doesn't work. You can't add it because you say so, you
have to justify it. This you have failed to do.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:58 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > The text says that Moses and company killed the women and girls that
> > > had "known" man. The only ones they left alive were the girls that
> > > had not "known man." Those, the Bible says, they kept for themselves.
>
> > Very good, no inclusion of rape this time.
>
> You "think"
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>the text has to say "rape" to describe "rape?"
>
Your burden Anderson, is to explain "save for yourselves" or "keep
alive for yourselves" means rape. This you have failed to do.
> <snip>
>
> > > Do you think that was a good thing to do, David?
>
> > This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>
> Then you should stop posting what you think.
>
Heh, I post the facts Anderson.
> Why are you so afraid to answer the question?
I did answer the question Anderson, why do you deny it?
> It's a simple one.
And a simple answer, why don't you understand?
> Do
> you think Moses was justified
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>in having the women and children
> prisoners of war killed,
Correction, only some of the children were killed Anderson, the little
girls were not.
> but keeping the virgins alive and giving them
> to the Israelites?
>
Thus the little girls.
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:47 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> > > and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
> > So you are changing your assertion now?
>
> That's been my assertion all along.
>
You left out the part about rape Anderson. Has that part changed or
no?
> > You concede that there is no
> > Biblical text which states they were raped?
>
> You "think" that one assertion precludes the other?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
> Numbers 31 has Moses killing all the girls except the ones that had
> not "known" man.
Yes, the ones who had not committed the crimes which the other women
had.
> He "gave" the virgins to the men. You "think" a
> verse has to say "rape" to describe "rape?"
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
Your burden Anderson, is to explain "save for yourselves" or "keep
alive for yourselves" means rape. This you have failed to do.
> <snip>
>
> > I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
> > Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text,
>
> Do you think it was wrong for Moses to have the women and children
> killed?
>
Are you asking for my opinion Anderson?
> <snip to end>
>
> Duwayne Anderson
> Author of "Farewell to Eden: Coming to terms with Mormonism and
> science"
> American Quarter Horse: The ultimate all-terrain vehicle
David
> On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 23:09:07 -0800, David wrote:
>
> <big snip>
>
> >> The text also suggests they were raped.
>
> > You are mistaken.
>
> Maybe,
Not maybe, you definitely are mistaken.
> but others understand it that way too.
>
Yes, I happen to know who was the first famous writer to understand it
that way and argue it that way.
He didn't know a damn thing about Hebrew culture though, and was
easily refuted.
> --
> John P.
>
> "Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis." ~Sigmund Freud
Freud had a lot of opinions, and that is certainly one of them.
David
wrote:
> On Jan 14, 9:43 pm, David <davecher...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I post the facts Anderson.
>
> What "facts" would those be? Be specific.
>
You can read them in my posts Anderson.
> <snip>
>
> > > Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> > > and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
> > So you are changing your assertion now?
>
> That's been my assertion all along.
You left out the part about rape Anderson. Has that part changed or
no?
>Do you dispute it?
>
You are leaving out the part that the women were being executed for
crimes, which are documented earlier in Numbers, and that all the
children were not killed.
So you have an omission and a correction to your new assertion.
> > You concede that there is no
> > Biblical text which states they were raped?
>
> Do you think
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>the text has to say "rape" to describe "rape?"
Your burden Anderson, is to explain "save for yourselves" or "keep
alive for yourselves" means rape. This you have failed to do.
>That's
> certainly not a very "factual" point of view.
>
Then why did you bring it up?
> <snip>
>
> > I am perfectly willing to talk about what the Moses described in the
> > Biblical text actually did or didn't do as described in the text,
>
> Moses told the Israelites to kill all the people of another tribe.
One of the Midianite tribes, which had engaged in unprovoked
hostilities against the Hebrews, as documented earlier in Numbers.
> The Israelites didn't, though; they took the women and children
> prisoners.
This is true.
> Moses was angry about this and told them to take the
> prisoners and kill them. All the women and the little boys.
The women who had committed the crimes, and the little boys who were
innocent.
> And all
> the girls except the ones that had not "known" man.
>
Which would be the ones who did not commit the crimes the women
engaged in.
> So, since you are willing to "talk about what Moses did," I'd like to
> "talk" about the morality of what he did.
>
Actions, and the morality of actions, are two very different things
Anderson.
One is right there on the text of the page, the other is not. But I
did get your opinion on this already, even though you are not fully
informed, since you don't even know the background behind this
conflict.
> Do you think that Moses' actions, as described in Numbers 31, were
> moral?
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
> Was Moses right in doing what he's described doing?
>
Are you asking for my opinion Anderson?
> <snip to end>
David
>
> <snip>
>
> > This isn't about what I think Anderson.
>
> Then you should stop posting what you think.
>
I post the facts Anderson.
> > To justify your assertions, you need to deal with the question of the
> > crimes of the women.
>
> That's what you think?
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
> You think the women had committed crimes that
> justified killing them?
>
Again, this isn't about what I think Anderson.
> Just to remind folks,
Yes, let's remind folks.
First Anderson is still in complete ignorance, he doesn't even have a
clue about the crimes I am referring to here.
Second, this is even after I pointed him to the relevant chapters in
the Book of Numbers that he could read to educate himself.
Third, when I refuted his unsupported assertions and correct his
historical ignorance his response was to engage in hysterical
accusations of lying, cry out for Matt to help, and try to change the
subject.
> these women and children were prisoners of war.
The women who had committed crimes and the children who had not.
> Moses had them killed.
All of the women who had committed crimes, but not all of the
children.
> I think that was wrong.
That is your opinion Anderson, you are certainly entitled to that.
> But David "thinks" I
> need to show that these un-armed women and children prisoners hadn't
> committed some sort of crime worthy of death.
>
And Anderson demonstrates once again his mind reading skills are very
poor.
I never said the children committed any crimes, they didn't commit any
crimes.
The crimes committed by the women are documented earlier in the Book
of Numbers, if Anderson would take the time to educate himself he
would figure out what the crime actually is, instead of having to make
guesses.
Of course whether Anderson would actually make the effort to read the
Book of Numbers is anyone's guess, if it takes more effort to do that
than for him to continue to whine on Usenet that I won't let him
change the subject it may never happen.
> > And what were supposed to be done with the
> > children.
>
> You "think" it was okay for Moses to have them killed?
>
This isn't about what I think Anderson.
> <snip to end>
Duwaynea Anderson
<snip>
> > > > Okay. I assert that Numbers 31 describes Moses killing un-armed women
> > > > and children. These were prisoners of war.
>
> > > So you are changing your assertion now?
>
> > That's been my assertion all along.
>
> You left out the part about rape Anderson.
But wait, you said I'd changed my assertion. That was a mistake of
logic.
> Has that part changed or
> no?
Numbers 31 is very clear. The virgin girls were not killed, but were
"given" to the Israelis. Are you denying that description doesn't
involve rape? Are you making the silly argument that it can only be
rape if they used the word "rape?"
> >Do you dispute it?
>
> You are leaving out the part that the women were being executed for
> crimes,
What "crimes" can un-armed women and prisoners of war commit that
justifies killing them?
The fact you try to justify the heinous nature of the Israelites
butchering these un-armed prisoners of war illustrates, I think, the
corrosive nature of the Bible on your sense of ethics and morality.
You are, in effect, a living example of how and why this particular
story in the Bible is evil.
<snip>
> This isn't about what I think Anderson.
Then you should stop posting what you think.
<snip to end>