[kraychik]

One cannot simply assume the entire population is "hostile".

I actually laughed at this statement. What do you propose Israeli soldiers should have done? Subjected everyone to a polygraph starting with the questions:

"Do you hate Jews?"

"Do you recognize Israel as the home of the Jewish people?"

OF COURSE the army must assume they are hostile, and must expel them. They were not meant to be absorbed by Israel after its establishment. Sucks for them, but life goes on.

Whatever the case, those expelled by jewish forces have a right to return.

Absolutely not. There's plenty of Arab/Muslim friendly real estate out there in the Middle East... or even in Michigan. Find a new home there. They will never have a right of return. I think most of us in here know that. To put it in a broader context, I shouldn't have to list off the ENDLESS history of people being displaced as a result of war. This has been going on since the beginning of time. Palestinians just seem to be more delusional about their "rights" in this respect, when compared with the countless other losers of wars in history who've either been displaced or had their land taken over by another country/nation.

[kraychik]

Clearly, that's your opinion. ;P

Clearly, someone such as yourself sees a valid parallel drawn between Nazis forcing Jews to march to death camps (and dying on the march due to overexertion, weather, starvation, dehydration, disease, or bullets) and Palestinians being expelled from their homes during Israel's war for independence. To others, it's obvious what Asad is trying to do. And we're going to call him out on it.

[redcarpet]

A death march is a death march. Doesn't matter who does it.

[ThereBeDragons]

Clearly, someone such as yourself sees a valid parallel drawn between Nazis forcing Jews to march to death camps (and dying on the march due to overexertion, weather, starvation, dehydration, disease, or bullets) and Palestinians being expelled from their homes during Israel's war for independence.

You conveniently omit the fact that many perished during the forced Palestinian expulsion.

The term death march is not exclusive to the Holocaust. My study of history is excessively concentrated in WWII, which may be an explanation, but the death march I am most familiar with the Bataan Death March. The Nazi death marches may be the most heinous, but to call something a death march is not to immediately declare it to be as bad as the Holocaust; something may be called an internment camp, or a ghetto, or a pogrom, without being immediately as the Holocaust in scale or scope.

To others, it's obvious what Asad is trying to do. And we're going to call him out on it.

He did not mention the Nazis - he merely mentioned the term "death march," which you connected immediately with the Nazis, and then used this to argue that he was cleverly insinuating that Jews were Nazis.

[Tailz]

With respect to the term "death march", it is clearly being inappropriately used by Asad. I believe Tailz is also incorrect when he suggests that sebby's motivation for her criticism of Asad's use of the term lies with her intent to elevate the degree of Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. Tailz suggests, not subtly at all, that Sebby intends to portray Jews as suffering the most, and by extension to have less compassion for the suffering of other peoples because "we had it the worst!". Obviously I cannot read sebby's mind, but when one uses the term "death march", one is intentionally drawing on the emotional responses of readers to the term who more than likely associate it with the holocaust. Using the term also compares the Israeli military of the time as being Nazi-like. This is beyond ridiculous and is indeed, as sebby stated, anti-semitic. It is anti-semitic to undermine the catastrophe of the Holocaust (or any part of the Holocaust) by comparing its events inappropriately to other events. In other words, when you wrongly draw parallels between any event and an event from the Holocaust (i.e. people comparing George Bush to Hitler, or your comparison of Palestinians expelled from their homes going on "death marches"),

So tell me Kraychik, does the Bataan Death March, rate high enough to use the term, Death March, without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Does the Death March of Germans captured by the Soviets at Stalingrad, rate high enough to use the term, Death March without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Does the Trail of Tears Death March of Cherokee Indians to Oklahoma, rate high enough to use the term, Death March without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Does the Deir ez-Zor Death March during the 1915 Armenian Genocide, rate high enough to use the term, Death March without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Does the Brünn death march of 1945 (Sudeten Germans expelled by Czechs from Sudetenland to Austria), rate high enough to use the term, Death March without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Does the 1975 forced evacuation of Phnom Penh by the Khmer Rouge, rate high enough to use the term, Death March without degrading the term Death March as applied to Jewish holocaust survivors?

Your yard stick of suffering seems to be based on only quantifying the significance of a Death March, if it’s victims were Jews.

So is the term death march used inappropriately to term those I mentioned above? Or do those Death Marches degrade Holocaust Death Marches?

you are playing down the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and are expressing an anti-semitic POV. No ifs, ands, or buts.

Anti-Semitism, that wolf cry never get’s old around here. I don’t think anyone has played down Jewish suffering during the holocaust, but you certainly have played up Jewish suffering.

I actually laughed at this statement. What do you propose Israeli soldiers should have done? Subjected everyone to a polygraph starting with the questions:

"Do you hate Jews?"

"Do you recognize Israel as the home of the Jewish people?"

OF COURSE the army must assume they are hostile, and must expel them. They were not meant to be absorbed by Israel after its establishment. Sucks for them, but life goes on.

So the whole of Israeli society today, we just have to assume is hostile towards the Palestinians? I mean, we can’t just subject every Israeli to a polygraph test.

A death march is a death march. Doesn't matter who does it.

Or who it is done too.

[Asad]

So, Israel wasn't about to keep them within its borders.

The town my grandparents lived in was not assigned to Israel as part of the partition plan, so it was not within their borders.

Using the term also compares the Israeli military of the time as being Nazi-like. This is beyond ridiculous and is indeed, as sebby stated, anti-semitic.

When I referred to it as a death march, the holocaust was never even on my mind. I never said it with the intent of comparing it to the holocaust, I simply called it a death march, because thats how it appeared to me.

It is anti-semitic to undermine the catastrophe of the Holocaust (or any part of the Holocaust) by comparing its events inappropriately to other events. In other words, when you wrongly draw parallels between any event and an event from the Holocaust (i.e. people comparing George Bush to Hitler, or your comparison of Palestinians expelled from their homes going on "death marches"), you are playing down the suffering of Jews during the Holocaust and are expressing an anti-semitic POV. No ifs, ands, or buts.

As with every debate involving any jew, there is no doubt that I will be called an anti-semite. I not once mentioned the Jews, the holocaust, or anything like that. I simply described the situation as it appeared. The holocaust is not the only place where death marches were utilised, and as such, Jews do not own the term. A death march is a death march, regardless of how many people die, by who it is carried out, and so on.
By using your logic, any massacre after the holocaust cannot be called as such unless it surpasses the deat toll. Or that any war after world war 2 is not really a war because not as many people were killed, and calling any such war a war would insult those who were involved in WW2.

EDIT: I think I recall Asad something along the lines of Palestinians dying during their marches of expulsion and drinking their own urine. I just wanna say that I don't believe that for a second. Just wanted to get that out there.

This is exactly what happened, not only based on my grandparents experiences, as it has been well documented.

OF COURSE the army must assume they are hostile, and must expel them. They were not meant to be absorbed by Israel after its establishment. Sucks for them, but life goes on.

Under the same logic, hamas is well within its right to attack civilians, as it must assume that they are all hostile.

To others, it's obvious what Asad is trying to do. And we're going to call him out on it.

Im not trying to do anything other than describe my grandparents story. I never had the intent of comparing their situation to the holocaust.

[pugsville]

Why do the exact circumstances of the refugees living really matter. They do not leave their homes because it was their real choice, they wanted to stay.

They were prevented from returning, The State of Israel was founded on the massive dispossession of a large segment of the population solely on the basis of race. All the claims that the "jewish homeland" welcomed arabs is just so much piffle. The so called partition plan only included so many arabs in order to maximize the land, and arab interests and rights were to be marginalized. The proof is the dispossession, if any of zoinist really planned to respect others rights this was the moment and they choose not to.

israel mainains control over the west bank and gaza, it's laws apply and it claims the right to decide who lives where. If teh wets bank is part of israel then why havent the arabs got citizenship and rights. They control and use the land, but deny any responisbilty for the people. it's a classic case of having it both ways. If it's occupied then settlements are manifestly illegal and the palestinians have certain rights as a occupied people, if it's part of Israel and the settlements are legal then we have the case where a large segment of the population is denied their civil rights on the basis of race.

The settlements are obiviously a major issue and obstacle to any sort of peace argeement. In any proposed deal israel has wanted most of the settelments as part of the deal. The expression "facts on the ground" was invented by people who beleived that the more settlements the more land israel would ultamately get in any peace deal.

In order to negiotate I think it's a general accepted that a stay of developments a holding of the "status quo" until the the matter is settled. One party saying bugger that it can use more and more of the matter in dispute is obiviously a state of affairs the other party can only view with extreme trepedation.

[sebbysteiny]

Tailz

I've been reading, I am just short on time to write comments as I am snowed under with projects at the moment. I think Asad is doing a good job at answering your questions, although it does look quite transparent what your aim is. I doubt Asads "evidence" will have any impact upon you, and your so called search for truth (more like a search for doubt). The only guy so far who really seems honestly intrested about Asads story is SHILD.

This is funny, especially since I was the one that began asking Asad for his story despite all kinds of objections from everybody else. Now it's getting somewhere, it's me that is trying to cast doubt.

I have not hidden my motives. I'm searching for truth. But all eye witnesses need their testomony tested. In courts, this is called cross examination, and it is done by the other side. It is their performance under cross examination that a judge uses to determine the real facts. At the same time, eye witnesses need a chance to tell their full story, and this is done by the friendly side. As you can see, I've been trying to fulfill both roles.

Your comparison to the Death March forced on Camp Survivors by the Nazi's is quite obvious, trying to prove the superiority of the Jewish victems for their greater suffering, thus lowering the signifigance of palestinian suffering because their death march was no as horrific.

I believe kraychik has answered this quite well. All I would add is that despite my view that making inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust is holocaust denial by another name, I have listened to Asad and given him a full opportunity to justify the use of this expression. If you had read what I had written, you would have seen this. As yet, I still havn’t made up my mind as to whether Asad’s terminology is correct.

Re your “death march” examples. I would personally find it more convincing if you had links to a source like Wikipedia or something where these examples are clearly described as “death marches”.

Anti-Semitism, that wolf cry never get’s old around here. I don’t think anyone has played down Jewish suffering during the holocaust, but you certainly have played up Jewish suffering.

With respect, I’m not sure it is possible to “play up” Jewish suffering. While I very much disagree with “crying anti-Semitism”, I think it is also beyond doubt that many people do use this conflict to further anti-Semitism. It is perfectly respectable in my view to regard inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust as anti-Semitism. But one must be sure that such a comparison has been made and that the comparison is indeed inappropriate before using the term “anti-semitism”.

Kreychik

EDIT: I think I recall Asad something along the lines of Palestinians dying during their marches of expulsion and drinking their own urine. I just wanna say that I don't believe that for a second. Just wanted to get that out there.

On what grounds? Asad’s grandfather was there. You weren’t. Why would he lie to his grandson? Further, is it that unrealistic? I don’t want to undermine my questioning of Asad, but it seems to me that it could be plausible. Give me one possible reason why I should believe you over Asad? If you doubt something Asad has said, you must put it to him. Say “Asad, how do you know that this happened?”. Just for you, I’ll put that to Asad.

I actually laughed at this statement. What do you propose Israeli soldiers should have done? Subjected everyone to a polygraph starting with the questions:

"Do you hate Jews?"

"Do you recognize Israel as the home of the Jewish people?"

OF COURSE the army must assume they are hostile, and must expel them.

I don’t think you are right here. You have to consider the possibility that some civilians are not hostile. In war, you are required to make a distinction between civilian and non-civilians. I don’t think it is right to punish civilians on the off chance that they may be militants.

UNLESS, MILITARY NECESSITY REQUIRES IT, in which case, international law does not make such actions illegal. Infact, my understanding is that the Geneva Conventions specifically authorises a transfer of a population in certain circumstances.

Clearly, someone such as yourself sees a valid parallel

I’m afraid I’m going to have to agree with redcarpet here. That was just your opinion. As above, you need to turn this opinion into something more by using clever questioning to cast doubt on Asad’s version of events.

Redcarpet

A death march is a death march. Doesn't matter who does it.

A death march doesn’t actually have a real definition from my understanding. It is language taken from the holocaust as far as I’m aware. If that’s the case, then a death march must have certain factors that make the act identical to the act committed by the Nazis. If there is one significant difference, then the term in inappropriate.

Unless, of course, you would be so kind as to tell me what you think is meant by “a death march”?

Therebedragons

What do you think is meant by a death march then?

Asad

When I referred to it as a death march, the holocaust was never even on my mind. I never said it with the intent of comparing it to the holocaust, I simply called it a death march, because thats how it appeared to me.

I can accept this. However, I have noticed the Palestinian side trying very hard to use holocaust language to describe their suffering. It may be that you used this language because some influence on you encouraged you to do so specifically for the purpose of creating that comparison. It’s a language trick that you don’t always have to be aware of. This is called “discourse”.

It may also be a lesson for you on the sensitivities of the other side. If you didn’t know the emotive meaning that “death march” has for Jews, you do now.

This is exactly what happened, not only based on my grandparents experiences, as it has been well documented.

Did you grandparents specifically tell you they saw people drinking their own urine to stay alive? What other sources have you seen that can support this contention?

Im not trying to do anything other than describe my grandparents story. I never had the intent of comparing their situation to the holocaust.

It is my view that you are indeed doing what you say. I have found you quite honest so far, which does influence the strength of your evidence.

Armed jewish militia forced them out of their homes, I cannot tell you accurately what exactly they said, so I will not speculate.

What I’m interested in is the mechanism of how Jewish forces caused Arabs to flee. Please tell me as much as you know about how this expulsion of your grandfather from his home was actually carried out.

My understanding so far is this.

1) Jewish soldier asked your grandfather to leave, without ever entering the house or threatening your grandfather in any way.
2) Your grandparents obeyed and left.

Please do correct this version of events where you feel appropriate.

As far as I know, there was some Jordanian forces present early on in the confict.

Okay, so we know that the Jewish forces may have had legitimate military reason to target the town. Please let me know as much as you can about what military threat the town of Lod may have posed to Jewish forces.

Al-Lydda, or Lyd, many possible ways of spelling it. I think it is currenty called Lod in Israel.

Your story is consistent with my research.

They feared they would be killed. Massacres of civilians had occured in the town, and word from other villages suggested the sae was goin on there. So when armed forces, which have apprently killed civilians approach you, and tell you to leave, I doubt you would say no.

Did your grandparents ever actually see any civilians, friends, neighbours or strangers, being killed by Jewish forces on the grounds that they refused to leave their house?

Also, did your grandparents ever actually see evidence that a massacre of civilians had infact occurred in the town?

The actual forced march was till they reached the arab frontline. I can't give you a precie length. However, most marched longer than this, and all the way to Jordan. This would have been basically the entire width of Israel. Obviously this aspect of the march was not forced, however, most people had no where to go, and refugee camps in Jordan seemed the only option.

Is 15 to 20 miles a fair estimate in your view?

I cannot tell you anything accurate in this regard.

This is unfortunate, but I guess we can’t do anything about that.

DOES ANYBODY KNOW FROM RESEARCH WHETHER OR NOT THIS MARCH WAS RUSHED OR AT A LEISURELY PACE?

However, I believe that this march can be acurately described as a death march.

Please explain why you think the term “death march” is an accurate description.

[redcarpet]

It is perfectly respectable in my view to regard inappropriate comparisons to the holocaust as anti-Semitism

Lol, for something to be 'respectable' most people need to agree. You're the first person I've read to oppose comparisons. There's only one way to engage in antisemitism; make generalised statements that imply prejudice. EG; all Jews are dumb. There, that's antisemitism. No such statement was made.

A death march doesn’t actually have a real definition from my understanding

Wikipedia has one;

A death march is the extermination by a state of an ethnic group or prisoners of war by forcing them to walk over long distances and for an extremely long period of time. The marchers were supplied with little or no food and water. The result was that the weakest of them died primarily due to exhaustion and dehydration. Those who refused to walk further, stopped to rest or passed out were executed or tortured.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_march

[danholo]

Death March... I wonder how many Jews on horses oversaw the operation.

They were prevented from returning, The State of Israel was founded on the massive dispossession of a large segment of the population solely on the basis of race. All the claims that the "jewish homeland" welcomed arabs is just so much piffle. The so called partition plan only included so many arabs in order to maximize the land, and arab interests and rights were to be marginalized. The proof is the dispossession, if any of zoinist really planned to respect others rights this was the moment and they choose not to.

Idiotic; Tensions between two people's boil over and it leads to war and you call it an act of dispossession. Learn what war is. It's a matter of protecting yourself. The proof is that Israel accepted for Arabs to have a big part of Israel, yet the Arabs chose to attack which led to their dispossession. You start a war, and lose; tough break. Arabs had plenty of rights and power; they had several states and wanted one more, while the Jews had almost nothing. Your ridiculous assertions and ignorance of the times in the 40's for Jews in Palestine and Europe is quite appalling.

Do you want me to continue my emotional rant or will you hit the books and stop the stupidity?

This is already getting old.

[kraychik]

I'll make another post addressing the inappropriate use of the term "death march" by Abas when describing the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes as a result of Israel's war for independence. Without question, the term "death march" is associated with the Holocaust. This cannot be debated. The Holocaust is arguably the most well-documented tragic historical event, and has come to own the term. With respect to Tailz mindless listing off of other marches that 99% of people are unaware of, who cares? A similar point can be made towards therebedragons challenging my perspective of the term, as if to imply that my perspective of the term "death march" is mine and mine alone. People with a rudimentary understanding of history associate the term "death march" with the Holocaust. To suggest otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.

It is possible that there have been other situations in history where comparable suffering that was imposed on Jews during the death marches of the Holocaust happened to another group. But these other stories are obscure and unknown. The unique nature of the Holocaust's prominence AND its extreme persecution of Jews has lead the Holocaust to take ownership of certain terms. For example, the word "holocaust" has evolved to become THE Holocaust. "Death march" is another example of a term that has been automatically associated with this event. So when Asad claims that the events of the Holocaust never even occured to him when using the term to describe his grandfather's expulsion, he is either lying or painfully ignorant. Neither option is endearing. That being said, there is no way that the circumstances of the Palestinian expulsion can be compared to the horrors of the Holocaust's death marches in freezing cold temperatures to death camps. The culture of hate that the Nazis had towards their victims... can anyone think for a second that Israel's earliest soldiers treated Palestinians in this manner? To imply anything this ridiculous is absolutely anti-semitic as it plays down the horrors of the Holocaust by drawing parallels between events where there are none to be drawn.

Do yourselves a favor and don't plead ignorance with respect to the prominence of the Holocaust and its automatic association with certain terms.

Lastly, to sebby, you cannot honestly believe that Palestinians were starving to death and drinking their own urine (which makes dehydration WORSE, not better) during their MASSIVE trek of oh... tens of kilometres? Israel is 40 kilometres wide, and over 400 kilometres long. do you think Israeli soldiers took Palestinians along the scenic route? It isn't a long walk to the nearest Gaza or West Bank from virtually any point of Israel. With respect to Asad claiming that the horrific nature of these treks is well-documented, let's see the documentation. Show us all clear evidence that the expulsions of Palestinians can be accurately described as death marches. Now, I'm not trying to imply that these walks were a picnic, but they cannot be described as death marches.

Oh, one last thing, sebby: Are you or are you not agreeing with me that the expulsion of Palestinians from their homes resulting from Israel's independence was a justifiable and necessary measure? What was Israel supposed to do, ABSORB the people who were supposed to move to the newly designated Palestinian territories? Of course Israel was not going to accept them, and they had to go. Israel's Zionist foundation is incompatible with such a huge number of Palestinians. Therefore, they had to go. And they'll never come back.

[kraychik]

Well said, Danholo. By reading many of the posts in these forums, one would be left with the impression that the Palestinians were the only people in history to suffer as a result of war. Pick up ANY history book and these types of stories are endless. One would also think that Israel's foundation is the only story of independence that dispossessed people. Ridiculous.... or as you put it: IDIOTIC.

It really is quite simple, they started a war and wanted ALL of the Middle East (pride's a bitch, eh?), and they lost. And they've never stopped whining (whining is too light a term, actually) about it. If anything, they've made things much worse for themselves when there have been many opportunities for them to make it better.

[redcarpet]

With respect to Tailz mindless listing off of other marches that 99% of people are unaware of, who cares?

The point is that death marches are not unique to the Holocaust.

Without question, the term "death march" is associated with the Holocaust. This cannot be debated

Same with many, more notorious, conflicts.

The Holocaust is arguably the most well-documented tragic historical event

In your opinion

and has come to own the term

Again, your opinion.

When I read or hear the phrase, I usually first think of either Australians, US and British POWs of the Japanese in WW2 or the hundreds of thousands of Russian POWs of the Germans(that being probably the biggest in scale and numbers). The death marches of Jews by the Nazis and SS in the 1940s are neither the most documented, well known nor worse on record.

People with a rudimentary understanding of history associate the term "death march" with the Holocaust.

Maybe in Israeli education only the death marches of Jews are taught about in Israel's history classes, elsewhere people are more well informed.

The culture of hate that the Nazis had towards their victims... can anyone think for a second that Israel's earliest soldiers treated Palestinians in this manner?

I can, Israeli racism towards Arabs/Palestinians is widespread;

Youth believe Arabs dirty, uneducated

Recent poll reveals 75 percent of Jewish students believe Arabs uneducated, uncivilized, unclean. Similar stereotypes found amongst Arab students toward Jews, but in lower percentages
Ahiya Raved

A Haifa University survey investigating Arabs and Jews' views on one another reveals disturbing results.

The poll showed that 75 percent of Jewish students believe that Arabs are uneducated people, are uncivilized and are unclean.

On the other hand 25 percent of the Arab youth believe that Jews are the uneducated ones, while 57 percent of the Arab's believe Jews are unclean.

Over a third of the Jewish students taking part in the survey confirmed that they are afraid of Arabs.

The poll was conducted by Dr. Haggai Kupermintz, Dr. Yigal Rosen and Harbi Hasaisi of Haifa University's centre for Research on Peace Education.

The data was presented at a bi-lingual conference held in Haifa. The study, titled "Perception of 'the Other' amongst Jewish and Arab Youth in Israel" included 1,600 students studying in 22 high schools around the country.

"We have found a serious expression of stereotypical thinking on the Jewish students' part regarding the Arab youth," said Dr. Kupermintz, who pointed out that 69 percent of the Jewish students think that Arabs are not smart.

Willingness to meet with Jewish students

"These students come in with firm stereotypical baggage regarding the other, and in this case, this is the Arabs," said Kupermintz.

According to the survey, the Arab youth views the Jewish society with fewer reservations: 27 percent of the Arab students believe Jews are uneducated, while 40 percent say they are uncivilized, and 47 percent believe they are not smart.

"We were not surprised with the outcome of the research," Kupermintz told Ynet.

"Anyone who is familiar with the field knows that these warped perceptions exist, but these findings are at the most severe extreme of a disturbing phenomenon. Also, up until now, I don’t think such a high level amongst the Jewish students' population – over a third – who admit that are afraid of Arabs, has ever been recorded."

Kupermintz further stated that the survey was conducted in October 2004, and that if it was to be held today, he believes the results would be much more extreme.

He also added that, contrary to stereotypes, the Arab public in Israel shows more willingness of integration in the Jewish sector, than Jews do in the Arab sector.

Data from the survey also showed that 75 percent of Jewish students feel Arabs are violent, as opposed to 64 percent of Arab students.

Over 50 percent of Arab students showed understanding towards the feelings of the Jewish students.

75 percent of Arab students showed willingness to meet with Jewish students as opposed to less than 50 percent willingness amongst Jewish students.

http://www.ynetnews.com/Ext/Comp/ArticleLayout/CdaArticlePrintPreview/1,2506,L-3350467,00.html

This is just after similar polls of Israeli adults:

http://www.abudis.net/poll_reveals_israelis_racism.htm
Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live near Arabs

The politician's response are better, like the Arab MKs:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3248807,00.html
Arab MK: Israel world's most racist state - Israel News, Ynetnews

Though school textbooks permitted by the Ed. Min. are rife with racist prejudice:

http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/0999/9909019.html
Israeli Textbooks and Children’s Literature Promote Racism and Hatred Toward Palestinians and Arabs

To imply anything this ridiculous is absolutely anti-semitic as it plays down the horrors of the Holocaust by drawing parallels between events where there are none to be drawn.

(My emphasis).

Wow, you're denying non-Holocaust death marches. Shame on you.

[ThereBeDragons]

By reading many of the posts in these forums, one would be left with the impression that the Palestinians were the only people in history to suffer as a result of war.

This is a thread in the fucking Israel-Palestine forum; what do you expect?

Without question, the term "death march" is associated with the Holocaust. This cannot be debated. The Holocaust is arguably the most well-documented tragic historical event, and has come to own the term.

With respect to Tailz mindless listing off of other marches that 99% of people are unaware of, who cares?

But these other stories are obscure and unknown.

People with a rudimentary understanding of history associate the term "death march" with the Holocaust. To suggest otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.

"Death march" is another example of a term that has been automatically associated with this event.

So when Asad claims that the events of the Holocaust never even occured to him when using the term to describe his grandfather's expulsion, he is either lying or painfully ignorant.

Do yourselves a favor and don't plead ignorance with respect to the prominence of the Holocaust and its automatic association with certain terms.

Just because you are too uninformed to know about them does not mean that everyone is. Google ranks highest what most people searching for the term are looking for it - the more people who click on it, the higher the result. The highest result is the one that most people are looking for - and the first result is the Bataan Death March. In fact, there are six results pertaining to the Bataan Death March in the top ten results, and one pertaining to the Nazi death marches. If not ironclad evidence, it is at least debatable that the term "death march" is not exclusively associated with the Holocaust. The death marches I am most familiar with are the Japanese death marches of Allied prisoners. The same is true for redcarpet, and the same is true of the general internet-using English-speaking populace.

Tell me, does nobody care about the "obscure and unknown" fact that the Japanese killed 18,000 people during the Bataan Death March, more than the number that perished during the evacuation of Auschwitz? Or does the fact that the Bataan Death March is the one I am most familiar with demonstrate that I am "painfully ignorant" or do not possess even a "rudimentary understanding of history" (your statement was stronger; you actually said that to even imagine that people who associated the term "death march" with Bataan existed was actually unthinkable)?

You overstate your case in the extreme.

To suggest otherwise is either dishonest or ignorant.

So am I a liar, or am I an idiot?

[pugsville]

I reject that the Arabs started the war, the declaration of the state of israel with the intention of imposing jewish rule by force was the starting point. The exsistence of other arab nations is no justification, the facts are that a bunch of extremely recent mostly illegal immigrants through a population of their land which they had been on for centuries by force. There had not been a significant jewish presence in palastine for more than a thousand years.

[danholo]

I reject that the Arabs started the war, the declaration of the state of israel with the intention of imposing jewish rule by force was the starting point. The exsistence of other arab nations is no justification, the facts are that a bunch of extremely recent mostly illegal immigrants through a population of their land which they had been on for centuries by force. There had not been a significant jewish presence in palastine for more than a thousand years.

There was a significant Jewish presence in 1948 and that is all that matters. You are correct, though; Arab belligerence to grant Jews independence over their own land was the starting point and still continues to be the sole reason for the conflict today. Do understand that people live in real time and they will act according to what they know presently. The Arabs invaded the nascent Israel with the attempt to destroy the country and subjugate or massacre its population. Palestinian Jews had every right to break away from their Arab brethren, as they did not see eye to eye to what should become of their future. The fact is that when you are living somewhere now, it is your home and most likely then not, you will do everything in your power to protect it. Palestinian Jews owned their homes and lands. In that instance you won't be using your history or theirs to justify your defense. Historical realities do not change that fact. "Oh, I won't protect my home and children because you've lived here for centuries." Idiotic, faulty reasoning that will just get you killed. Did you know that suicide is not acceptable? Well, we won't commit it because of you seeing eye to eye with Arab sensitivities. Jews chose not to lay down and die, but create their own fate in their own land? Criminal? Maybe. Necessary? Definitely.

[redcarpet]

with the attempt to destroy the country and subjugate or massacre its population

Bold claim, any proof?

[danholo]

Well, they did state that they would drive the Jews into the sea. I can't interpret it any other way. Frankly, with my previous assertion I was being more lenient, as subjugating the population is "nicer". Thankfully, we never found out.

[Arthur2sheds_Jackson]

ThereBeDragons wrote:

Just because you are too uninformed to know about them does not mean that everyone is. Google ranks highest what most people searching for the term are looking for it - the more people who click on it, the higher the result. The highest result is the one that most people are looking for - and the first result is the Bataan Death March. In fact, there are six results pertaining to the Bataan Death March in the top ten results, and one pertaining to the Nazi death marches. If not ironclad evidence, it is at least debatable that the term "death march" is not exclusively associated with the Holocaust. The death marches I am most familiar with are the Japanese death marches of Allied prisoners. The same is true for redcarpet, and the same is true of the general internet-using English-speaking populace.

Tell me, does nobody care about the "obscure and unknown" fact that the Japanese killed 18,000 people during the Bataan Death March, more than the number that perished during the evacuation of Auschwitz? Or does the fact that the Bataan Death March is the one I am most familiar with demonstrate that I am "painfully ignorant" or do not possess even a "rudimentary understanding of history" (your statement was stronger; you actually said that to even imagine that people who associated the term "death march" with Bataan existed was actually unthinkable)?

I love it when a poster on here is firmly put in his place like Kraychik was here, well done ThereBe.

Particularly when the poster in question has repeatedly spouted off about how 'ignorant' everyone else is.

Classic


.

[redcarpet]

they did state that they would drive the Jews into the sea

You got a url link or quote for that?