From: bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay)
Subject: Re: Deir Yassin
Nntp-Posting-Host: darch
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 103

In article <1r94f9$ge3@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.VXF@forsythe.stanford.edu (Vic Filler) writes:
>In article <1993Apr19.204243.19392@cs.rit.edu>,
>bdm@cs.rit.edu (Brendan D McKay) writes:
>>
>>I have previously posted quotations by Irgun participants that
>>totally destroys Begin's whitewash.  I have no particular desire
>>to post it yet again.
>>
>>Brendan.
>>(normally bdm@cs.anu.edu.au)
>
>You apparently think you are some sort of one-man judge and jury who

So what are you?

>can declare "total" victory and then sit back and enjoy the
>applause.  But you've picked the wrong topic if you think a few
>rigged "quotations" can sustain the legend and lie of the Deir
>Yassin "massacre."

I don't think that, you are just making noise.

>You have a lot to learn when it comes to historical methodology.

That's true.  I try to learn from people who know more than me,
not from useless farts.

>At the most basic level, you should know that there is a big
>difference between weighing evidence fairly and merely finding
>"quotations" that support your preset opinions.

Of course, I have said that more times in this group than
anyone else, I'd think.

>If you have studied the history of Israel at all you must know that
>many of the sources of your "quotations" have an axe to grind, and
>therefore you must be very careful about whom you "quote."  For

Quite true, that's why I am so careful in selecting quotes.

>example, Meir Pa'il, whom you cite, was indeed a general, a scholar,
>and a war hero.  But that doesn't mean everything that comes out of
>his mouth is gold.  In fact (and here your lack of experience
>shows), Pa'il is such a fanatic, embittered leftist that much of his

Oh bullshit.  Fanatic my bum.  Prove your blah or cork it.

>anti-Israel blathering (forget about anti-Irgun blathering) would be
>considered something like treason in non-Israel contexts.  But of
>course you don't consider this AT ALL when you find a juicy
>"quotation" that you can use to attack Israel.

How would you know what I consider?  Read my mind?

>Benny Morris (of Hashomer Hatzair) represents himself as a "scholar"
>when he rehashes the old attacks on the Irgun.  Don't be fooled.
>It's just the old Zionist ideological catfight, surfacing as an
>attack on the (then-) Likud government.  If you will look closely at
>the section on Deir Yassin in his book on the War of Independence,
>you will see his "indictment" to be pure hot air.  And this is the
>BEST HE CAN DO after decades of digging for any sort of damning
>evidence.  Unfortunately for him, because his book parades itself as
>"scholarly," he is forced to put footnotes.  So you can clearly see
>that his Deir Yassin account is based on nothing.

I looked very closely at a large number of sources.  You have no
idea what you are talking about.

>The Deir Yassin "massacre" never took place as the propagandists
>tell it, any more than the Sabra and Shatila "massacres." Do you get

That's true about the accounts of both Irgun and Arab propagandists.
Like Begin, for example.

>the feeling people like to blame the Jews for "massacres," even if

No, I never got that feeling.  I got rather opposite feelings
about people like you, though.

>they have to make them up?  It must sound spicy.  Even some Jews
>like to do it, for reasons of their own.

Honesty?  Perhaps you would explain the testimony from members
of the Irgun, to be found in their own handwriting in the
Irgun Archives in Tel Aviv, that the wounded Arabs were killed,
that a group of 80 prisoners was massacred, that Lehi proposed
exterminating everybody at the pre-raid meeting.  Exactly what
reasons can you propose that this testimony should be rejected
in favour of Begin's?

>Please, don't confuse any of you Deir Yassin "massacre" stuff
>with facts or scholarship.  You should stick to Begin's version
>unless you find something serious to contradict it.

This is very funny.  You carried on about unsupported evidence,
propagandists, axes to grind, and you end up telling us to stick
to the account of the leader of the alleged killers.  You are
obviously a hopeless case, as everyone can plainly see.

>Vic

Brendan.

