Reply #170: V...

[Shaktimaan]

this isn't really conclusive proof. It's just that one statement by Benny Morris that everyone's seen and knows about along with a journalist who called into question the accuracy of an Economist article supporting instances of Arab evacuation orders by saying:

I decided to turn up the relevant (October 2) 1948 issue of the 'Economist.' The passage that as literally, gone around the world was certainly there, but I had already noticed one curious word in it. This was a description of the massacre at Deir Yassin as an "incident." No impartial observer of Palestine in 1948 calls what happened at this avowedly nonbelligerent, unarmed Arab village in April, 1948, an "incident"-any more than Lidice is called an "incident." Over 250 old men, women and children were deliberately butchered, stripped and mutilated or thrown into a well, by men of the Zionist Irgun Zvai Leumi.

If the Economist article is suspect because it refers to Deir Yassin as an "incident" then Childers' work should probably be ignored by virtue of the fact that she is printing outright falsehoods about Deir Yassin herself; as opposed to merely using an offensive/disturbing word to describe it. Is referring to it as an "incident" really worse than lying about the amount of people killed, who died and how it occurred?

I don't really know if any Arab leaders called for the Palestinians to leave. Benny Morris couldn't find any proof of it, we all know that. But a single man's research pointing to a lack of evidence is not proof that it didn't occur. Particularly considering how the King of Jordan is quoted otherwise.

You have made it out to seem that a majority of evidence exists that has debunked these claims but your argument rests on the research of a single reputable historian who has seemingly not debunked anything. He merely failed to prove it definitively happened.