Deir Yassin was a village on a hill west of Jerusalem that sat along the road connecting Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. On April 9th in the midst of the 1948 war, Deir Yassin was assaulted by the IZL and LEHI, two Jewish paramilitary groups. When the dust of the assault cleared, there were approximately 110 dead. Estimates range from as low as 46 (from an Arab source) to as high as 250 though both extremes are equally unlikely, most concluding around 110. Nothing about a battle resulting in 110 casualties in a full-fledged war is in and of itself particularly noteworthy. Relative to other wartime casualty statistics, it is a rather low number. The controversy swirling around the battle at Deir Yassin is the claim that the 110 casualties were innocent civilians mowed down by Jewish forces in cold blood.
Deir Yassin "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."1
Popular critics of Israel have done all they can to portray the assault on Deir Yassin as one of the most heinous crimes against humanity in recent history. It is presented to readers and audiences as a textbook case of massacre without dispute. Anti-Israeli authors will have you believe the Jews stormed into a peaceful, civilian village, lined up the inhabitants, and began systematically executing unarmed men, women, and children with machine guns. Even if this claim were entirely true, the fact it is often referred to and used to blacken Israel's record as a flagship atrocity in the modern history of the Middle East while similar slaughters by Arabs before and after it go largely unmentioned should elicit some concern about bias.
Most accounts of Deir Yassin admit there is a degree of confusion about what actually happened that day in the village. Conflicting testimonies and accusations are common. A mutually agreed upon account of the events there can not be presented, so the absolute claim there was a massacre is a bit of a historic circus trick right from the start. Massacre is defined as "individual events of deliberate and direct mass killing, especially of noncombatant civilians or other innocents that would qualify as war crimes or atrocities."2 So there is a distinct connotation when labeling an event as a massacre, implying a ruthless and unnecessary murder of many otherwise innocent or defenseless people. The next logical question would obviously then be, was Deir Yassin a village of innocent or defenseless people?
An Unpeaceful Past
To be thorough, the answer to this question should not only consider the immediate circumstances on April 9th, 1948, but what behavior this village exhibited prior to the assault as well. As you will see, Arabs from Deir Yassin were notoriously violent in the recent past:
A factor in the controversy about Deir Yassin is that it had a peace agreement with nearby Jewish villages which the Jews had to break in order to assault it. Evidence is put forth that the residents of Deir Yassin prevented Syrian and Iraqi troops from settling in Deir Yassin to honor this ceasefire. However much resistance the inhabitants of Deir Yassin may have exerted against allowing their village to be used for hostilities against the Jews, it wasn't enough to preserve whatever peace agreement they initially had:
The Jews were able to get their accurate intelligence thanks to having a contact on the inside. "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."15
The Instigation
As already mentioned, Deir Yassin was in an elevated position along the only road connecting Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. During the first phase of the 1948 war, the battle for Jerusalem was raging and this road was the only chance a population of 100,000 Jews living in Jerusalem had at being kept alive and defended from the Arab's illegal war. Convoys of trucks hauling desperately needed supplies to sustain a besieged civilian population were attempting to use this road to reach the residents of Jerusalem. Using the inherent strategic value of Deir Yassin, the "peaceful" villagers took advantage and often attacked the vulnerable Jewish convoys causing many casualties. As there was no other road and no sign of relenting hostility, the Jews decided to attack and neutralize the threat this village posed so they could get supplies through. In fact, "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."16
The Loudspeaker
Forfeiting sound military strategy, the Jewish attackers began the assault on Deir Yassin with a loudspeaker announcing the attack was coming, completely destroying the element of surprise and the advantage that comes with it. The loudspeaker was attached to an armored vehicle and in native Arabic by an Iraqi-born Jew, instructions that the road to Ein Karem was safe and available for anyone who wished to remove themselves from the imminent battle. Much debate over whether this armored vehicle with loudspeaker made it to the village exists. Some say it never made it, some say Palestinian Arab gunfire forced it into a ditch (which means the Arabs were attacking before they knew what was happening, supporting the fact it was a hostile village). The Arabs themselves admit, however, the loudspeaker did its job,
The Red Cross reported that 200-250 civilians from Deir Yassin were safely escorted into Jerusalem. 19 This refutes the ridiculous claim that the Irgun and Stern soldiers "killed every Arab man, woman, and child they could find in the village. A few escaped by hiding and then slipping away during the night, but most of the inhabitants of the town, 245 persons, were slaughtered."52 Over 200 people in Deir Yassin made the choice to safely leave the village, drastically increasing the ratio of hostile to non-hostile villagers choosing to remain behind and fight.
Welcome to the peaceful, civilian village of Deir Yassin
Not bad ... for "civilians"
After the fighting
The villagers who made the wise choice to leave as well as all of the prisoners of war were promptly turned over to Arab forces once Deir Yassin was secured. An Irgun commander led a member of the Red Cross through the village immediately after the attack. A press conference was held. 33 Pictures were allowed to be taken. Villagers being warned of the attack, prisoners of war being taken and given back, humanitarian groups being toured around, press conferences given, pictures being taken ... people, this is not the typical behavior in the aftermath of an authentic massacre.
Jack and the Beanstalk, and the atrocity
Once the Arabs caught wind of the Deir Yassin attack, a significant amount of creative energy was diverted from how to win the war into how to manufacture a huge lie. A Palestinian named Hussein Khalidi is attributed with starting the lie of massacre and atrocity. Khalidi's accusations were accepted as gospel truth by New York Times correspondent Dana Schmidt on April 12th, 1948, just a few days after the attack. Because it is the New York Times, it must have been true, and Schmidt's reporting is often referred to as proof a massacre took place. The problem with this is that Khalidi's claims were invented propaganda.
Indeed, "... the Red Cross, which was called in to assist the wounded and civilians, found no evidence of a massacre. In fact, even the most recent review of the evidence (July 1999), by Arab scholars at Beir-Zayyit university in Ramallah, indicates that there was no massacre, but rather a military conflict in which civilians were killed in the crossfire."50
The effects of the Arabs fabricating a lie about the behavior of Jewish forces during their assault on Deir Yassin proved to be counter-productive. Instead of strengthening resolve by uniting Arabs with a sense of outrage and yet more hatred toward the Jews, it caused them to pack up and leave town. Palestinian Arabs fled cities in a panic all over Palestine after hearing of this lie and it could legitimately be viewed as a catalyst explaining the Palestinian Arab refugees.
The success of an assault against a strategically valuable target can be measured by the improvement in circumstance afterward. It can be validated as having been necessary the same way. The next question is, after Deir Yassin was attacked and neutralized, was there any tangible gain? Remember that prior to the attack, Jewish convoys were being hammered by Arab fire and largely prevented from reaching Jerusalem to alleviate the civilian population. The very next day after the assault, "the situation improved somewhat for the beleaguered Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem. A convoy of 131 vehicles carrying five hundred tons of food finally reached the city from Tel Aviv. Two days later, 250 trucks – out of 280 that began the journey – made it through with an additional one thousand tons of supplies, including flour, sugar, milk, fruit, and vegetables.”42 Most people would probably agree if 100,000 people are at risk of starving to death, something should be done to secure the way to rescue them.
Some claim the battle of Deir Yassin was unnecessary and the Jews only attacked because they were busy with their attempts to empty the land of Arabs through fear. Hence, they went out of their way to fight. The evidence presented above already refutes this allegation for the most part, but if any doubt remains, the issue of Latrun must be considered. Latrun had an elevated position above the road connecting Tel Aviv with Jerusalem just as Deir Yassin was. The Arabs were in control of Latrun and were using it to attack Jewish convoys attempting to re-supply Jerusalem just as was happening at Deir Yassin. A plan was in the making to take Latrun from the Arabs. However, a bypass road was discovered that allowed the Jewish convoys to travel to the south of Latrun, out of range of their weapons, which was named “Burma Road”. When Yitzhak Rabin informed Ben-Gurion they would be using this road in place of attacking Latrun, Ben-Gurion was furious. Demanding to know why he wasn’t informed of this change, Rabin replied: “I don’t know. I have been charged with submitting this proposal on behalf of Allon and Stone. Latrun is not sacred. The purpose of taking it is to safeguard our link with Jerusalem. If that purpose can be gained by other means, why must we shed blood over Latrun?”43
Latrun and Deir Yassin were very similar strategically, geographically, and demographically. Both were elevated positions above the main road, both were being used to attack Jewish convoys. The only reason the imminent attack against Latrun was aborted was because a way to go around the obstacle instead was found. Deir Yassin was different, there was no bypass road to take. Taking the bypass road around Latrun instead of shooting their way through it significantly discredits Israel's accusers of ethnic cleansing so Israel would be more Jewish. If the Jews’ goal was to forcibly evict Arabs, what better pretext to do it than the situation at Latrun? Why go around them? Had Deir Yassin been an obstacle they could go around, they would have gone around it, just as they went around Latrun. Deir Yassin was not an example of Israel’s tactics or intention to expel Arabs.
This information is not intended to sweep any unnecessary killings under the rug or suggest that Jews are incapable of killing out of aggravation or anger. There is some testimony by soldiers who participated in the battle of Deir Yassin who claimed such a thing did happen, though there is no idea how many people may have been killed purely out of anger. In fact Hazem Nusseibeh cited above debunking the lie of rape in the village also said the Irgun lined up 14 villagers and shot them after the major fighting died down. Considering the ferocity of the fighting and a total dead of 110, to say these killings were very many would be a giant stab in the dark. More likely, the situation described by a LEHI fighter was closer to the truth as he admits, "It was impossible to attack the enemy without hurting their families, it was difficult. It was painful and I'm sorry we had to do it, but we had no choice."44
Women or children could have easily been killed considering the only way to stop the gunfire from many houses was to throw in grenades and blow off the doors with explosives. That there were dead women found at Deir Yassin could have been used as evidence of massacre had the dead women not been lying on the ground with guns in their hands; clear evidence they were participating in the attack. 45
"... the Iraqis had disguised themselves as women -- it is easy to hide weapons beneath the flowing robes of the burqa -- and had hidden themselves among women and children in the village. So, when the Irgun fighters entered, they encountered fire from 'women'! ... Then, while they were in a group, still dressed as women, having surrendered and agreed to be taken prisoner, some of the Iraqis opened fire again with weapons concealed beneath their women's clothing. Irgun fighters were caught off guard, more were killed, and others opened fire into the group. Iraqis who had indeed surrendered were killed along with those who had only pretended to surrender and had then opened fire."49
Suggesting that youngsters were fighting as well is not absurd considering the hundreds of pictures of Palestinian Arab kids as young as 8 or 9 carrying assault rifles and chanting "Death to Israel". Those making a conscious effort to perpetuate the myth of massacre at Deir Yassin only work against themselves, proving their irresponsible, one-way mindset against Israel. These critics rarely, if ever, speak of the genuine and uncontested massacres the Arabs committed against the Jewish population in the 20's, 30's and not even a full week after Deir Yassin in which a Jewish convoy full of doctors, nurses, and patients was attacked by Arabs, killing 77:
“Then, at 9:30A.M. on April 14, 1948, a ten-vehicle medical convoy bound for Hadassah Hospital – located on Mount Scopus, in the Arab section of Jerusalem – was attacked. The vehicles included two ambulances, several armored buses, and three trucks loaded with hospital supplies. All were clearly marked as belonging to the Magen David Adom – the Jewish version of the Red Cross. In the vehicles were mostly civilians – doctors, nurses, and patients, as well as some Hebrew University personnel. Although there had been isolated incidents previously, the medical people did not really expect trouble, since the hospital had received an assurance from the British high commissioner that any medical traffic going to Mount Scopus would be protected by British soldiers and police.
Nevertheless, a mine in the roadway exploded, disabling three of the first four vehicles, including an ambulance and two buses. Six vehicles turned and fled, but rifle fire, grenades, and Molotov cocktails rained down upon the hapless occupants of the first four. It was a one-sided battle. Only the escorts in the lead vehicle had weapons; the doctors, nurses, and patients were all unarmed. The British did little to help. By the time the Highland Light Infantry came to the assistance of the beleaguered convoy, some six hours had passed, and seventy-seven people were dead, including the director of the hospital, the head of the Cancer Research Department, and some of the foremost medical practitioners in the land. Some had died inside the burning busses. Afterward, the Arab Higher Committee issued a statement praising the attack and noted that if the British had not interfered, the Arab attackers would have been able to kill all of the Jews, not just seventy-seven.”46
Or how about
"... when the Arab Legion's Sixth Battalion conquered Kfar Etzion, they left no Jewish refugees. The villagers surrendered and walked, hands in the air, into the center of the compound. Morris reports that the Arab soldiers simply 'proceeded to mow them down.' The soldiers massacred 120 Jews; 21 of them were women. This was part of a general Arab policy: 'Jews taken prisoner during convoy battles were generally put to death and often mutilated by their captors.'"47
Portraying the battle at Deir Yassin as a ruthless and brutal massacre despite all the evidence is an example of the desperation anti-Zionists cling to. Every effort is made, including the continued dissemination of known lies, to at least equate the behavior of Jews and Arabs on all fronts. If these efforts are unsuccessful, the justification for criticism disappears (at least aside from old fashioned bigotry) so no lie, no distortion is too grand when it comes to turning reality on its head as long as the result is a negative opinion of Israel.
The massacres, race riots, and other various atrocities the Arabs repeatedly participated in are so numerous they generally blend together with no single event that stands out unique among others. If we were to ignore all the evidence presented here and that which can be found elsewhere (which anti-Israeli scholars make an art of), a massacre at Deir Yassin makes such large waves precisely because it is not the nature of the Jewish state of Israel. Assuming the accusations were entirely true, Deir Yassin should be heralded as an anomaly, not as the norm. On the other hand, Arab atrocities, massacres, and human rights violations that have no shadows of doubt accompanying them are simply par for the course, so the same undying condemnation that clings to reports of Jewish atrocity (however false they are) are absent when Arabs in reality do what Jews are only accused of.
"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."48