View Full Version : US military confirms more horrific pics & vids
Chemicalsuperfreak
May8-04, 06:47 PM
The Bush administration was bracing itself last night for the release of new pictures and video footage from Abu Ghraib which show US soldiers having sex with an Iraqi woman prisoner, troops almost beating a prisoner to death, and the rape of young boys by Iraqi guards at the jail.
Senior officials have warned that the new images and details of the abuse and torture at the prison west of Baghdad will be even more shocking than those already released. They will undoubtedly place even more pressure on President George Bush and his beleaguered Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, as they desperately try to limit the political damage from the growing scandal.
NBC News has quoted military officials as saying that the new photographsalso show US soldiers "acting inappropriately with a dead body". This may refer to a picture, which The Washington Post described but did not publish, of Sabrina Harman, one of seven reservists charged with abuses, posing with thumbs up next to a decaying corpse.
NBC also reported that the rape of young boys by Iraqi guards, apparently in a special section of the prison, had been filmed by US soldiers.
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=519448
You can deny and apologize and fence-sit all you want. It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.
phatmonky
May8-04, 07:02 PM
You can deny and apologize and fence-sit all you want. It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.
Who are you talking to? That is a great way to begin a debate in a forum made for such.
These events are tragic, but Chemicalsuperfreak may have a point. What can the everyday person do about such things? My opinion cant stop these events from occuring as most of this stuff lies half a world away from where I am at. Powerless to protect, powerless to defend.
Lets just hope that the people with power know what they're doing.
Horrifying and sickening to say the least. Then again, that is what war is isnt it? Each side seems to attempt to do the worst things possible to the other...usually civilians come out as being the group that is harmed.
For example, where the Iraqi's practically roasted the bodies of american engineers, four of which were from South Carolina (i believe...it could have been north) and hung their dead bodies on a bridge.
What the hell is wrong with our world?
hughes johnson
May9-04, 02:35 AM
It really doesn't matter what you think anymore.
Thank you, I will do my best to see that you are afforded this same courtesy.
Lets just hope that the people with power know what they're doing.
Of course they do. They know that they can send other people to war in far away lands, where people will be abused and killed and such, and they will make a profit. They know exactly what they're doing.
The Chinese was downtrodden by the Japanese in WWII in the most unfathomably horrific way. There were incidents of civilian pregnant women whose babies were ripped out from the uteruses by the Japanese soldiers with bayonets on the street, just for fun, amongst all the incidents of rape, mutilation, experiments of deadly virus on the civilians and forced prostitution (organised whore houses) for the sexual gratification of the solders in Burma, Hong Kong, Korea, Singapore, Malaysia and different parts of China. It is very natural to hate the Japanese, until one starts to think what had change them from normal people (farmers, students) to sick distorted monsters. I always think unless a country is defending itself from aggressive offensive, wars should be avoided at all costs.
phatmonky
May9-04, 10:00 PM
I always think unless a country is defending itself from aggressive offensive, wars should be avoided at all costs.
But what if there is a threat to an ally?
Then do not go back on your promise to defend an ally. While your country may be dragged into war, you shouldnt pledge an alliance if you are going to go back on it. Untrustworthy, lying countries are not good ones.
Among the many disturbing things is the report - by one of the armed forces' own internal investigations? - that what was going on was institutional and systematic, *not* the behaviour of a few 'rotten apples' .... and this report was available to senior commanders when? Yet Myers and Rummy professed ignorance?? I mean, a credible report, by a general (?), containing damning conclusions takes *months* to crawl up the chain of command?
No senior official has lost his (or her) job over the 9/11 intelligence failures; now no senior official will lose his job over the Iraq torture scandal?
But what if there is a threat to an ally?
Not being a native speaker I have demonstrated on a few occassions that I can easily got hold of the wrong end of a stick altogether. So I need to ask you for clarification, are you referring to the WWII or the Iraqi War? Which ally? Are you saying that pre-emptive strikes are justifiable? Not to me.
phatmonky
May9-04, 11:00 PM
Not being a native speaker I have demonstrated on a few occassions that I can easily got hold of the wrong end of a stick altogether. So I need to ask you for clarification, are you referring to the WWII or the Iraqi War? Which ally? Are you saying that pre-emptive strikes are justifiable? Not to me.
You made the statement that there should only be war if there is a direct aggressive offensive made to your country.
My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country). I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.
Right now, in Sudan, there is genocide going on. This doesn't affect me directly, it doesn't threaten an ally country, but it DOES require a response from the UN (if anyone will have the balls to use the word GENOCIDE) by the UN's own laws. That response, in my opinion, would be fully justified in being a militartistic one.
My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country).
So Iraq had the right to make a "pre-emptive strike" against the USA? And all Saddam's allies, states or otherwise, have a right to do so as well?
I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.
Well, that was ignored.
My response is that I also see a validation for war if an ally is attacked or if a countries livliehood is attacked (blockades don't have to be done in a defensve manner, but could cripple a country). I also believe that an implementation of international law as a last resort is a validation for war.
Right now, in Sudan, there is genocide going on. This doesn't affect me directly, it doesn't threaten an ally country, but it DOES require a response from the UN (if anyone will have the balls to use the word GENOCIDE) by the UN's own laws. That response, in my opinion, would be fully justified in being a militartistic one.
CAVEAT:NOTHING PERSONAL
Validation for war on the basis of:
1. alliance
Depends on the terms of the alliance, whether your ally is at fault in bring about the attack etc. Alliance is not an automatic ticket for violence for me.
2. blockade
Definitely not good enough to wage war for me. What is more important, human lives or economic growth?
3. international law
Yes, that would be validating.
You are in a rash to punish all the warlords/corrupted administration in Africa again. But let me ask you, if you have plentiful supply of food and materials in Sudan, ample investment and education and employment opportunity, why would anybody want to plunder and rob and kill off everyone else? Has the US done everything to help Sudan economically? The US produces more than enough food to feed the whole world, and much of it is locked up in warehouses waiting to rot. My apologies for the sacarcism but I honestly wonder why the US is so indifferent with the pol/eco/soc status of Sudan and yet so pro-active about Iraq.
phatmonky
May10-04, 12:45 AM
So Iraq had the right to make a "pre-emptive strike" against the USA? And all Saddam's allies, states or otherwise, have a right to do so as well?
Absolutely.
phatmonky
May10-04, 12:48 AM
I honestly wonder why the US is so indifferent with the pol/eco/soc status of Sudan and yet so pro-active about Iraq.
I'll reply to the rest of your statement tomorrow, when I have more time.
For now, I'll remind you that we are the ONLY nation on the security coucil that has called for a condemning of the acts happening in Sudan, and ALL other countries have blocked, or abstained, on such a move - we are the MOST pro active about Sudan, al beit less pro active than we were about Iraq. Either way, it's hardly indifference.
Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.
hughes johnson
May10-04, 02:13 AM
Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.
What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.
What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.
ethnic cleansing
n.
The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration, or genocide.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ethnic%20cleansing
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=1&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1904&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=2&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1524&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=4&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=1736&docdb=pr2000&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://srch1.un.org/plweb-cgi/fastweb?state_id=1038396983&view=unsearch&docrank=7&numhitsfound=58&query=Israel%20civilians%20dead&&docid=804&docdb=pr1996&dbname=web&sorting=BYRELEVANCE&operator=and&TemplateName=predoc.tmpl&setCookie=1
http://onenews.nzoom.com/onenews_detail/0,1227,137218-1-9,00.html
http://www.arabicnews.com/ansub/Daily/Day/990902/1999090222.html
http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/6686f45896f15dbc852567ae00530132/7738125ef7c2ca9bc1256c4b00470a79?OpenDocument
http://abc.net.au/news/2002/11/item20021127185951_1.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/07/23/mideast/
http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/4227466.htm
http://www.ummah.com/inewsletter/massacres/palestine/index14.htm
http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/breaking_news/4227466.htm
http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2002/03/04/News/News.44530.html
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/148/05_3.html
http://asia.news.yahoo.com/020926/afp/020926130246top.html
Naturally I have dozens more links to news articles about Israel's ethnic cleansing activities. You can see a collection of news articles at http://scaramouche.blogeasy.com
phatmonky
May10-04, 06:48 AM
Funny, the USA is the state which has blocked all the resolutions against Israel, for their ethnic cleansing activities.
Always looking for a way to demonize us, eh Adam?
All the UN has to do is use the 'G' word and they are all required to help (Rwanda was called "ACTS of Genocide" in order to stop from being required to help)
P.S. Not one of your links mentions the G word or ethnic cleansing.
adrenaline
May10-04, 07:27 AM
Back to the subject..... my main concern is for those Americans still in Iraq. These atrocities will fuel the already burning hatred for Americans and I foresee many more attacks against our troops and possible torture and humiliation for those that will be captured. It makes me wonder if the films and pictures should be revealed only to those resposible for bringing the transgressors for trial and punishment, but then, the public also needs to know as well..... I guess. Don't know what the right answer is.
P.S. Not one of your links mentions the G word or ethnic cleansing.
Read them again. And please think before you type.
Back to the subject..... my main concern is for those Americans still in Iraq. These atrocities will fuel the already burning hatred for Americans and I foresee many more attacks against our troops and possible torture and humiliation for those that will be captured. It makes me wonder if the films and pictures should be revealed only to those resposible for bringing the transgressors for trial and punishment, but then, the public also needs to know as well..... I guess. Don't know what the right answer is.Isn't it true that (at least some of) the photos etc were taken deliberately, as part of the torture? The intention being that unless the suspect 'talked', the humiliating photos would be copied and posted publicly in the neighbourhood where the suspect lived. In other words, there was a 'book of best (interrogation) practice' used by the interrogators, drawn up and endorsed by someone (senior?) in Rummy's department (or Myers' chain of command). Or maybe it was the ex-CIA 'independent contractors', brought in by Wolfie to improve 'efficiency'?
Ours news reported that at least 25 POWs have been killed in USA custody in these camps in Afghanistan and Iraq. One had his head bashed in with a rock.
phatmonky
May10-04, 09:36 AM
Read them again. And please think before you type.
Still doesn't.
Ugh. Amazing.
The dictionary tells you what "ethnic cleansing" is. It tells you which activities are considered "ethnic cleansing". Got it so far?
Now, the articles describe those activities, in great detail and quantity.
russ_watters
May10-04, 04:01 PM
Ugh. Amazing.
The dictionary tells you what "ethnic cleansing" is. It tells you which activities are considered "ethnic cleansing". Got it so far?
Now, the articles describe those activities, in great detail and quantity. Sorry, Adam, you have to be specific. We won't connect the dots for you. If they can be connected, connect them yourself.
This is your usual tactic and it is quite transparent.
Can we please get back on topic?
It's becoming increasingly clear that a) outside bodies (Red Cross, AI) had known about the abuses for months and had notified the appropriate US officials, b) within at least some parts of the US military/intelligence services/government agencies there was disquiet, investigations, and hundreds of pages (?) of corroborated details, and c) claims by Rummy and Myers that they didn't know anything about it until very recently.
At the very least, the apparent inability to process clear information, from multiple internal and external sources, about such abuses is shocking. After all, these kinds of things are precisely what the State Department writes up in its strongest language when castigating other countries for human rights abuses.
But it also seems that the inability to pass such information on wasn't an accident; the techniques were 'approved' and (maybe) a very cynical policy carefully instigated - 'we need the intel, here's how to increase the effectiveness of getting it, don't tell me how you got the intel, just get it' sort of thing. Bush's decision to keep Rummy on may well be consistent - GW gave Rummy the OK (in some vague, general way), with the clear understanding between them that if things backfired, DR wouldn't have to accept responsibility and resign (or be fired).
As Russ said (in another thread), officers knew about the abuses and clearly knew they were unacceptable; that they continued to allow them (and even dish some out?) looks very much like they had been given some kind of tacit green light. That the reports - by the military's own people - were circulated without a senior officer putting a stop to things also suggests a much higher 'OK' from up the chain of command.
I have not seen those pics and vids but one thing.
The most powerful force is public opinion. If I can convince it about what apparantly is right and wrong, it's worth far more than a thousand tanks and attack aircraft. A president who faces defeat at the next election is likely to do as the public dictates so.
So how difficult is it to fake some scenes with horrifying pictures. All you need it some actors and the proper material.
Don't let them fool you.
selfAdjoint
May10-04, 07:59 PM
Not even the soldiers who are blamed for the torture are claiming the pictures are faked! Get real!
russ_watters
May10-04, 11:47 PM
As Russ said (in another thread), officers knew about the abuses and clearly knew they were unacceptable; that they continued to allow them (and even dish some out?) looks very much like they had been given some kind of tacit green light. That the reports - by the military's own people - were circulated without a senior officer putting a stop to things also suggests a much higher 'OK' from up the chain of command. I think it will take quite a while to get to the bottom of this. These scandals have a natural progression they always follow. First, the story breaks, then a single scapegoat is brought out (that one sgt), then comes the outcry as the scope starts to come out (thats where we are now), then the real investigation begins and the who-knew-what-and-when is worked out.
This has months to go before we know what really went on and who was responsible.
selfAdjoint
May11-04, 11:36 AM
In past scandals there was a phase change from the scandal itself to the cover up. Note that it was the Watergate cover up that drove Nixon from office, and it was his disingenuous testimony (or lies if you prefer) about Monicagate that demeaned Clinton in the public's eye and lost him his law license (nobody really cared if he banged her, what else is new?)
This has months to go before we know what really went on and who was responsible.
No. The US government is responsible. However, it may take months before we know who will be sacrificed for the good of the administration.
The one person with the most responsibility/liability is the President. At the 9/11 hearings Condi said we didn't know nor could we have guessed and the information we needed wasn't passed on to us, disingenuous as that is didn't Bush and his cohorts learn from it, it appears the same thing happed again and Rumsfeld is much closer to the Presidents ear. IMO, they are trying and failing to maintain 'plausible deniability'.
I think the whole thing is just incredibly depressing. It's like the "Lord of the Flies". We sent them over there and they turned into animals.
Unfortunately, I think Polly's wrong about this saying something about war. I think it says something about humans, in general. They've done experiments where it shows how quickly one group can dehumanize another just by being asked to play a role (one group of students had to be the guards, the other the prisoners; elementary school kids told kids with blue eyes were less smart one day, told kids with brown eyes were less smart the next; etc). After that, it's not a very big step to all sorts of 'inhuman' acts, as we've constantly seen throughout the world.
Without a lot of the controls of civilization, you'd see this group (or other groups like them) doing the same thing here in the US (or any other country for that matter).
What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something? Donald Rumsfeld has admitted under oath that he is responsible for the commission of many crimes.
In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.
Njorl
russ_watters
May11-04, 03:42 PM
No. The US government is responsible. We'll be looking for something a lot more specific than that.
What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something? Nope, you have it nailed exactly: In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.
At first I thought they were being decent about it. Takuba's report (what I've seen of it) is frank and open. But I saw an unconfirmed mention that this was the third attempt at an investigation. That the first two investigations found nothing wrong. That they only launched this third report after seeing undeniable photographic evidence. We'll see. I want to stress that I have no evidence that Takuba's report was the third investigation, just hearsay.
Njorl
What I find interesting is that Rumsfeld has "taken responsibility". This seems to have absolutely no meaning whatsoever anymore. If Rumsfeld is responsible, then he is headed for prison. That is the result of being responsible for crimes. For some reason, this never seems to come up. Am I missing something? Donald Rumsfeld has admitted under oath that he is responsible for the commission of many crimes.
In Washington, the sure-fire way to avoid accountability is to take responsibility.There's much in the modern world that makes direct responsibility difficult to define and hard to pin on any one person - the recent mid-air collision over Swizerland/Germany is a good example (yes, the air-traffic controller had a great deal of responsibility for what happened; no, he was required to work under conditions that he had clearly stated were inadequate for the job he was asked to do).
However, I naively thought there was much less room for fudge and grey areas in the military; the fact that Rummy hasn't gone (and hasn't been charged with anything at all yet) clearly shows that the codes have their limits.
But, given what we now know about how government is actually executed by US administrations - from the White House - we can hope that the web of nods and winks, plausible deniabilities, euphemisms and double-speak, etc will be penetrated and the deep cynicism and ugly realities brought to light.
Unfortunately, I think Polly's wrong about this saying something about war. I think it says something about humans, in general. They've done experiments where it shows how quickly one group can dehumanize another just by being asked to play a role (one group of students had to be the guards, the other the prisoners; elementary school kids told kids with blue eyes were less smart one day, told kids with brown eyes were less smart the next; etc). After that, it's not a very big step to all sorts of 'inhuman' acts, as we've constantly seen throughout the world.
hmmm, I think you have a point there. As I recall, the Japanese military schools had rigorous and systematic brainwashing sessions that glorified the Japanese history and the status of their Emporer and Chinese were perceived to be less than humans. I wonder what the US army does in terms of hardening the soldiers up psycologically.
selfAdjoint
May11-04, 08:59 PM
There was a famous series of experiments in the 1950s where subjects were invited to "punish" an individual that they could see through a window by giving her electric shocks. They were to do this by pushing a button. Actually the button wasn't hooked up to anything, and the "victim" was an actress who was cued when to simulate pain and shock.
It was ridiculously easy to get the subjects to use heavier and heavier "shocks" with just a little motivation. For a while this study got a lot of ink - a story appeared in the Scientific American - but then it disagreed too strongly with American self image. Cognitive dissonance, to use another psychological term from that era. So it was repressed.
We'll be looking for something a lot more specific than that.
Why? The US government held the Iraqi state responsible for atrocities committed by individuals under that state's rule. Why not hold the USA to the same standard?
phatmonky
May11-04, 11:00 PM
Why? The US government held the Iraqi state responsible for atrocities committed by individuals under that state's rule. Why not hold the USA to the same standard?
Different forms of government mean accountability goes only so high.
Again, this great apples and oranges argument. Go search for the thread about the 12 years olds paper.
In other words, the form of government nullifies the hypocrisy, eh?
phatmonky
May11-04, 11:20 PM
In other words, the form of government nullifies the hypocrisy, eh?
If you are just going to start that garbage again, I'll remind you how lonely it is to debate yourself.
Not at all.
But to say that someone that the top of a body that runs in autonomous sections is just as responsible as a dictator, who has ALL directions fed through him, is garbage.
Do you put a police chief in jail when an officer acts out against command?? No, not at all! You start with the officer who broke the law and work your way up the chain until you stop.
With Saddam you started at the top just about. And it was the UN, not the USA.
What I find really ironic is this double speak about how we held a nation accountable and that was wrong. Then we go in just after the man in charge so we aren't punishing everyone, and that is wrong.
You cannot be made happy, face it.
Do you really think every action in Saddam's Iraq was approved or disapproved by Saddam Hussein?
Do you really think Bush won the last election fairly?
Ebolamonk3y
May11-04, 11:28 PM
Gov. lies. the end. :O
phatmonky
May11-04, 11:52 PM
Do you really think Bush won the last election fairly?
THis questions seems more interesting than the round and round we go that has been occuring.
Yes. Gore would have won had he simply spent his last SIX MILLION. We can ***** and moan about the votes of Florida, but there were plenty of other swing states and Gore could have won in a myriad of ways.
Please read: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/
phatmonky
May12-04, 12:07 AM
Please read: http://www.lumpen.com/coup2k/
I honestly will. But tomorrow - sleep is upon me. g'nite!
I think you need to separate irresponsible policy and criminal behavior.
The criminal behavior was commited by the ones who took bad policy as an excuse for amateur torture hour and seemed to enjoy it, as well.
The irresponsible policy was thinking a reserve unit with a few members who were prison guards in their civilian job were up to the task of creating an environment conducive to interrogation without some pretty close supervision.
In most times, I'd probably consider Rumsfield a pretty good Secretary of Defense. But, with such a weak president, I think he's a little dangerous. With Cheney and Rumsfield having so much control, there's no balance in this administration.
http://www.freep.com/news/nw/abuse13_20040513.htm
Any comments?
Simon666
May20-04, 09:18 AM
What ethnic cleansing? This is the first I have heard of this.
You don't seriously think tens of thousands of people are refugees for nothing? If Serbia does something like that, they get cluster bombed by the US, if Israel does it, they get bombed with loads of dollars. There was very much an ethnic cleansing, you've never heard of this because US media rather keep quiet, the people do not want to read anything bad about Israel you know. :rolleyes:
History (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_refugees)
Most of the refugees had already fled by the time the neighboring Arab states intervened on the side of Palestinians and continued after the armistice that ended the war. These refugees, the great majority of whom had lived there for generations. were not able to return home. During the period mid-1948-53 between 30,000 and 90,000 refugees made their way illegally from their countries of exile to resettle in their former villages or in other Israeli Arab villages. Others emigrated to other countries, such as the US and Canada; most, however, remain in refugee camps in neighboring countries. Furthermore, in 1948 and 1949, 46,000-48,000 Palestinians were internally displaced within Israel[2]; including descendants, they number 150,000-200,000 today, and for the most part have yet to recover their confiscated land.
The Israeli government passed the Absentee Property law, which cleared the way for the confiscation of the property of refugees. The government also demolished many of the refugees' villages, and resettled many Arab homes in urban communities with Jewish refugees and immigrants.
Palestinian exodus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus)
The most important means to achieve that change was through aliya, Jewish immigration to the land of Israel. But the Palestinian Arab population had a much higher birth rate than the Jewish counterpart. Even with Jewish immigration, the Arab population growth firmly outpaced the Jewish one and no part of Palestine, with the exception of Tel Aviv and its surroundings, would be able to produce a Jewish majority. To make matters worse, immigration was restricted by both the Ottoman Turks and the British and relatively few diaspora Jews actually wished to immigrate to Palestine, most preferring to move to North America. An apartheid state, akin to the one in South Africa, was out of the question for most Zionists as they wanted an egalitarian state.
The only viable solution seemed to be a partition of Palestine. But however the land was partitioned, the part belonging to Jews would contain an Arab majority or atleast a very large Arab minorty. For the Zionist leadership transfer of a large Arab population was the only solution. The idea of transfer was not, in 1947-1949, when it actually happened, a new one. In June 12, 1895 Theodore Herzl wrote in his diary:
We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country ... Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried out discreetly and circumspectly.
To Zionists it was of uttermost importance that the transfer plans would not become known to the world as that would lower international support for Zionists.
When I heard these things ... I had to ponder the matter long and hard ... [but] I reached the conclusion that this matter [had best] remain [in the Labor Party Program] ... Were I asked what should be our program, it would not occur to me to tell them transfer ... because speaking about the matter might harm [us] ... in world opinion, because it might give the impression that there is no room in the Land of Israel without ousting the Arabs [and] ... it would alert and antagonize the Arabs ..." (Ben-Gurion 1944)
Moshe Sharett, director of the Jewish Agency's Political Department, declared:
Transfer could be the crowning achievements, the final stage in the development of [our] policy, but certainly not the point of departure. By [speaking publicly and prematurely] we could mobilizing vast forces against the matter and cause it to fail, in advance. ... What will happen once the Jewish state is established - it is very possible that the result will be the transfer of Arabs." (Sharett, 1944)
In 1937 the Peel Commission gave extra fuel to the transfer thinking. It recommended that Britain should withdraw from Palestine and that the land should be partitioned between Jews and Arabs. It also recommended that 225,000 Arabs should be transferred out of the proposed Jewish state. This was a huge step forward for the Zionists. Until then, transfer hadn't been discussed as an option with outsiders but now "the Royal Commission" came to the same solution to the problem as the Zionists had. David Ben-Gurion didn't spare the superlatives when he wrote in his diary:
... and [nothing] greater than this has been done for our case in our time [than Peel proposing transfer]. ... And we did not propose this - the Royal Commission ... did ... and we must grab hold of this conclusion [i.e, recommendation] as we grabbed hold of the Balfour Declaration, even more than that - as we grabbed hold of Zionism itself we must cleave to this conclusion, with all our strength and will and faith
Despite the fact that the notion of transfer had been proposed by a royal commission and that David Ben-Gurion had seen fit to speak of it in the plenum of the Zionist Congress, the subject was still very sensitive.
First stage of the flight, December 1947 - March 1948
During these months the climate in Palestine began to get hot. Hostilities between Jews and Arabs increased and general lawlessness spread as the British declared to end their mandate in May 1948. War was seemingly inevitable. Middle and upper-class families from urban areas withdrew to settle in neighbouring countries such as Transjordan and Egypt. Perhaps as many as 75,000 left in those months. There was also cases of outright explusions such as in Qisarya where roughly 1000 Palestinian Arabs were evicted in February. Irgun and Lehi played an important role in terrorizing the Palestinian population. Most of the refugees from this period probably thought that they soon would return, just as they had done after the Great Arab Uprising 1936-1939. This first flight contributed to demoralize the Palestinians and left them virtually without any leadership.
Second stage of the flight, April 1948 - June 1948
The fighting in these months was concentrated to the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv area. It is logical that it was therefore also in this area that most depopulations took place. The notorious Deir Yassin massacre in early April, and the exaggerated rumours that followed it, helped spread fear and panic among the Palestinians. On May 14, 1948, when Israel's independence was declared, there were already 250,000 refugees on the road.
Third stage of the flight, July 1948
The largest single expulsion of the war began in Lydda and Ramla July 14, in which 60,000 inhabitants were forcibly expelled on the orders of Ben-Gurion and Yitzhak Rabin. Rabin wrote in his memoirs:
What would they do with the 50,000 civilians in the two cities ... Not even Ben-Gurion could offer a solution, and during the discussion at operation headquarters, he remained silent, as was his habit in such situations. Clearly, we could not leave [Lydda's] hostile and armed populace in our rear, where it could endanger the supply route [to the troops who were] advancing eastward. ... Allon repeated the question: What is to be done with the population? Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said: Drive them out! ... 'Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring ... Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of [Lydda] did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion. (Soldier of Peace, p. 140-141)
Additionally, widespread looting and several cases of rape (12 total per Benny Morris[1]) took place during the evacuation. In total, 300,000 Palestinians became refugees in this stage.
Fourth stage of the flight, October 1948 - November 1948
This period of the exodus was characterized by Israeli military accomplishments which was met with resistance from the Palestinians to be made refugees. The Israeli military activities limited itself to the Galilee and the sparseley populated Negev desert. It was clear to the villages in the Galilee, that if they left, return was far from imminent. Therefore far fewer villages was spontaneously depopulated than previously. Most of it was due to clear, direct cause, including brutal expulsion and deliberate harassment. About half a dozen massacres was committed in the Galilee by the IDF during this stage of the war.
Operation Hiram, which was the Israeli military operation that conquered the upper Galilee, is one of the examples in which a direct expulsion order was given to the commanders:
Do all you can to immediately and quickly purge the conquered territories of all hostile elements in accordance with the orders issued. The residents should be helped to leave the areas that have been conquered. (October 31, 1948, Moshe Carmel)
Between 1-200,000 Palestinians left in this stage most going to Lebanon.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.