The Islamic Poppy Burn Party

 

Lake Shore creators apologize for anti-Jewish trailer | Posted Toronto | National Post

meet Robyn Perza...
the Jew on Lake Shore.
Stereotypical Monica Lewinsky
token Jewish Whore... I get it

Sibel Atlug told the National Post:
“I don’t hate Jewish people,” she said.
“I actually say I hate everybody equally.
I was just poking fun at it.”

The makers of a new Toronto reality TV show have apologized for a controversial online trailer in which one of the program’s characters expresses hatred for Jews, even as two former cast hopefuls allege they felt pressured to make racist and sexualized comments during the audition process.
“Our intention is to make provocative television,” said Maryam Rahimi, executive producer of Lake Shore, a reality series modelled on the successful format of MTV’s popular Jersey Shore. “On one hand, we received a lot of attention, but on the other hand it was not necessarily the kind of attention that we wanted. For the record, we are not a racist show. If we offended anyone in any way, we apologize.”
The show, which has yet to begin filming, became the centre of controversy this week when producers posted a trailer on YouTube in which one of the show’s main characters, 23-year-old Sibel Atlug, tells the audience, “I’m not racist because I hate everybody equally, especially Jewish people.”
Lake Shore will chronicle the lives of these eight twenty-something Torontontians as they live under the same roof, drink, party and sleep with each other. But instead of sharing a common ancestry like the Italian American stars of Jersey Shore, the cast of Lake Shore is multicultural, with each character labelled according to their ethnic backgrounds and who appear to play to cultural stereotypes.
Ms. Atlug joins a colourful cast of seemingly narcissistic loudmouths that includes Joey Violin (‘‘the Italian’’), Anni Mei (“the Vietnamese’’), Tommy Hollywood (“the Czech’’), Arber Dace (“the Albanian’’), Robyn Perza (“the Jew’’), Karolina Czaja (‘‘the Pole’’) and Salem Moussallam (“the Lebanese’’).

Kenyon Wallace  November 12, 2010 – 6:54 pm via news.nationalpost.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together

Do men do more work?

via telegraph.co.uk

The long night of modern feminism might be about to end. A glimmer of light is flickering in the encircling gloom. A study published this week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has found that men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together. This is the first time I can remember in 40 years that an authoritative study on a key issue of so-called gender politics has come out with a self-evident truth that runs directly contrary to orthodox feminist ideology. The fact that it has been written and published by a woman makes it even more delightful. Ever since the late Sixties, it has been an incontestable article of faith in the feminist creed that men are lazy, slobbish, barbaric, barely civilisable and incapable of switching on the vacuum cleaner without breaking it – and eternal shame on Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Miller for boasting about the fact that he lives up to that mould-encrusted cliché. It has been an essential tenet in the feminist catechism – endlessly repeated on Woman’s Hour and in the Guardian – that men exploit and oppress women at home and in their domestic arrangements in the same way that men put women down at work and in the wider society. Like every other tenet of modern feminism, this potty notion was always balderdash (or more frankly another word beginning with “b” – why be polite about so pernicious and poisonous a creed?). Not only did it run contrary to the evidence that British men work longer hours, for less pay, for more of their lives than any of their western European counterparts – and then spend their weekend mowing grass, cleaning cars and fixing shelves. It was, also, obvious that, as life changed so fundamentally for women in education, employment and sexual life, men changed, too. That much was transparently clear even 40 years ago when I was at university. Not one of the young men I knew expected or even yearned to marry a woman who would be a domestic serf. Every one of them – me included – wanted a more equal partnership than our parents’ marriages and looked forward to being more actively engaged in their children’s upbringing – just as they looked forward to hearing the happy chink of coins when their partner’s monthly pay-cheque landed in the joint account. Many of those men had lived alone, learnt to cook and run a home before they lived with women; and some of them – me included – have looked after children alone after marriages failed. More than 300,000 men in this country are the sole parents of children, fully responsible for every element of their domestic lives. Are they to be told – as Fay Weldon declared with majestic stupidity last year – that they are congenitally incapable of picking up a sock? All my adult life, I wanted to create a family life of equal partnership with a woman and, after many failures, finally achieved it in my 50s, with the mother of our two little daughters, now seven and four. In our home, I do most of the food shopping, more of the cleaning and some of the cooking. My wife sees to the laundry and is responsible for about 65 per cent of the childcare while I have been responsible for paying about 95 per cent of the bills. When she works, I do everything in the home and everything for the children. When I work, it’s the other way round. We share the gardening – incompetently. Our is not an unusual arrangement. Only a body of people blinded by ideology – as feminists have been – could fail to see that millions of men and women in this country are harmoniously working out their own domestic arrangements, and that men have been active, enthusiastic partners in these changes. What next? Might a respectable study soon reveal that, contrary to what we are always told, one in four men does not batter the woman he lives with? Or that not all men are rapists? Might the entire edifice of lies that comprises modern feminism now be about to tumble? Hasten the day. The long night of modern feminism might be about to end. A glimmer of light is flickering in the encircling gloom. A study published this week by Dr Catherine Hakim of the London School of Economics has found that men do slightly more work than the women they live with when employment and domestic work are measured together. This is the first time I can remember in 40 years that an authoritative study on a key issue of so-called gender politics has come out with a self-evident truth that runs directly contrary to orthodox feminist ideology. The fact that it has been written and published by a woman makes it even more delightful. Ever since the late Sixties, it has been an incontestable article of faith in the feminist creed that men are lazy, slobbish, barbaric, barely civilisable and incapable of switching on the vacuum cleaner without breaking it – and eternal shame on Alistair Campbell and his partner Fiona Miller for boasting about the fact that he lives up to that mould-encrusted cliché. It has been an essential tenet in the feminist catechism – endlessly repeated on Woman’s Hour and in the Guardian – that men exploit and oppress women at home and in their domestic arrangements in the same way that men put women down at work and in the wider society. Like every other tenet of modern feminism, this potty notion was always balderdash (or more frankly another word beginning with “b” – why be polite about so pernicious and poisonous a creed?). Not only did it run contrary to the evidence that British men work longer hours, for less pay, for more of their lives than any of their western European counterparts – and then spend their weekend mowing grass, cleaning cars and fixing shelves. It was, also, obvious that, as life changed so fundamentally for women in education, employment and sexual life, men changed, too. That much was transparently clear even 40 years ago when I was at university. Not one of the young men I knew expected or even yearned to marry a woman who would be a domestic serf. Every one of them – me included – wanted a more equal partnership than our parents’ marriages and looked forward to being more actively engaged in their children’s upbringing – just as they looked forward to hearing the happy chink of coins when their partner’s monthly pay-cheque landed in the joint account. Many of those men had lived alone, learnt to cook and run a home before they lived with women; and some of them – me included – have looked after children alone after marriages failed. More than 300,000 men in this country are the sole parents of children, fully responsible for every element of their domestic lives. Are they to be told – as Fay Weldon declared with majestic stupidity last year – that they are congenitally incapable of picking up a sock? All my adult life, I wanted to create a family life of equal partnership with a woman and, after many failures, finally achieved it in my 50s, with the mother of our two little daughters, now seven and four. In our home, I do most of the food shopping, more of the cleaning and some of the cooking. My wife sees to the laundry and is responsible for about 65 per cent of the childcare while I have been responsible for paying about 95 per cent of the bills. When she works, I do everything in the home and everything for the children. When I work, it’s the other way round. We share the gardening – incompetently. Our is not an unusual arrangement. Only a body of people blinded by ideology – as feminists have been – could fail to see that millions of men and women in this country are harmoniously working out their own domestic arrangements, and that men have been active, enthusiastic partners in these changes. What next? Might a respectable study soon reveal that, contrary to what we are always told, one in four men does not batter the woman he lives with? Or that not all men are rapists? Might the entire edifice of lies that comprises modern feminism now be about to tumble? Hasten the day.
I'd leave a comment about this... but from what I can see over the 36 years of my life: My opinion doesn't matter.

noahdavidsimon's posterous
image via comicsalliance.com 

Pamela Anderson attempts to take Chickens out of their cages in Israel. Serious

or at least that is what I understood: translate.googleusercontent.com

feel free to sign the Black Book if you want to jump this Shiksa right about now

wow... almost as good as porn! 

Anderson, the former star of "Baywatch" and a model, arrived Sunday in Israel and will participate as a guest judge on Israel's "Dancing with the Stars" on Monday and Tuesday. She also will dance each show with Australian partner Damian Whitewood.
Anderson visited the Western Wall on Sunday night, arriving with her head and shoulders covered, where she prayed silently as other worshipers tried to photograph her.

Earlier Sunday, Anderson said she would work to convince haredi Orthodox lawmakers to support an anti-fur bill proposed in the Knesset. The measure has been held up in Israel's parliament over the lawmakers' attempt to exclude the shtreiml, a sable-trimmed hat worn by some religious sects. Anderson is an honorary director of PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals.
via jta.org

CTV News reported that Anderson called Israel a "progressive" country because it had no fur farms, and said that it can serve as "an example for the rest of the world."

via virtualjerusalem.com

MK Zahalka: Committee must probe Arafat's death

Hundreds of people participated in a Balad rally in Umm al-Fham in memory of former Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat, who died six years ago.  Knesset Member Jamal Zahalka called for the establishment of an international committee which would probe the circumstances of Arafat's death. (Roee Nahmias) via ynetnews.com

If the doctors had had the slightest doubt, they would have referred it to the police. I note that permission was given for him to be buried," a government spokesman, Jean-Francois Cope, told reporters after the weekly French cabinet meeting, according to news accounts. He repeated France's refusal to release Arafat's medical records to anyone but his family, saying, "The public authorities can in no case violate this law, which touches on fundamental freedoms.

via washingtonpost.com

Hamas: No Place For Israel Among The Nations

Wed, Nov 10, 2010 | The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center

Khaled Mashaal speaking at the Al-Quds Institute in Damascus on October 30, where he rejected the negotiations with Israel and expressed hope for a renewal of terrorism (the "resistance") in Judea and Samaria (Al-Jazeera TV, October 30, 2010)

Hamas: No Place For Israel Among The Nations

Khaled Mashaal, head of Hamas’ political bureau, again proclaimed that “Palestine belongs to the Palestinians and there is no place in it for Israel.” He called on the Palestinian Authority not to rely on the United States because President Obama, especially after the midterm Congressional elections, “is weak and cannot do anything for the Palestinians.” He called for the “resistance” (i.e., terrorism) as an alternative to negotiations. He appealed to the United States, claimed that the “resistance” (i.e., the terrorist organizations) would not wait for the Americans, but “will restore Palestine with their own muscles, their strength and their reliance on Allah” (Al-Jazeera TV, November 5, 2010).
Senior Hamas figure Mahmoud al-Zahar gave an anti-Semitic speech entitled “The Jews have no future among the nations [of the world].”^[1] He claimed that the Jews were expelled from Europe because “they betrayed, stole and corrupted” the European counties and that “just as the European peoples tore the Jews up by the roots, so will the Palestinians expel the Jews from all their lands until they disappear.” He called on the Palestinians to close ranks and “together, with blood, we will be able to liberate our lands and holy places” (Al-Aqsa TV, November 5, 2010; Jerusalem Post, November 6, 2010).

via crethiplethi.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

At the time of his death Arafat was more popular in France, where almost half the population saw Arafat as a great national hero, than among his own people

In a June 2004 poll, only 23.6 percent of Palestinians named Arafat as the leader they most trusted.

Since Arafat’s death, most of the leadership of Fatah and the PA has made clear their interpretation of Arafat’s legacy was the need to fight on for total victory, no matter how long it took or how much suffering or lives it cost. One Palestinian leader recalled that when, in 1993, he had reproached Arafat for signing the Oslo accords, Arafat replied that by making the agreement, “I am hammering the first nail in the Zionist coffin. via rubinreports.blogspot.com


Like Edward Said and George Antonius--Yasir Arafat falsely claimed to be Palestinian Arabs when in fact they were born in Egypt:  On countless occasions, Yasir Arafat has regaled listeners about his Jerusalem birth and childhood. He fondly recalls his birthplace in a stone house abutting the Western Wall, then how he lived with his Uncle Sa'ud in Jerusalem. Like Said, Arafat presents himself as a victim of Zionism - someone who lost his wordly belongings and his place in the world due to Israel's coming into existence. But in fact, as two intrepid French biographers, Christophe Boltanski and Jihan El-Tahri revealed a few years, ago (in their 1997 book, Les sept vies de Yasser Arafat), "Mr. Palestine was born on the shores of the Nile."

The French researchers tell an amusing story of discovery.

They went to the University of Cairo and innocently asked for the registration of one Muhammad 'Abd ar-Ra'uf 'Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husayni at the School of Civil Engineering in 1956. This, Arafat's birth name means nothing to the Egyptian clerk, who "sits down behind a rickety wooden table, almost completely hidden by the pile of dusty files bound in black leather" and "blows off a layer of grime in a most professional way," then hands over the records. In a blue ink faded by time, the researchers find that their man, living at 24A Baron Empain Street, Heliopolis, "was born on August 4, 1929, in Cairo." With this information in hand, they dash over to the State Registry and find Arafat's actual birth certificate, which confirms the date and place.

Arafat then lived in Cairo until the age of 28 and identified as an Egyptian. His first political affiliation was an Egyptian student organization closed to Palestinians. He fought for an Egyptian group against Israel in 1948-49 and subsequently served in the Egyptian military. He first traveled to Moscow, in 1968, on an Egyptian passport. Arafat all his life has spoken Arabic like an Egyptian, something that has sometimes impeded his career; on first encountering him in 1967, a biographer recounts, "West Bankers did not like his Egyptian accent and ways and found them alien."

How is it that three men raised in Egypt decided at various points in the twentieth century - the 1920s, 1950s, 1970s - to become Palestinians? The answer probably lies in the fact that for a politically ambitious activist, Palestinian politics has far more to offer than Egypt's. An intellectual can raise his profile much higher; where would Said be today were he advocating Egyptian causes? And a politician finds the path to power far more open; had Arafat made Egypt his life's work, he might today be a retired deputy from that country's rubber-stamp parliament. Being Palestinian, in other words, is a good career move.

But Arafat did not create his own myth nor the myth of a Palestinian people all by himself--he had help. Ion Mihai Pacepa wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in September 2003 about Arafat. Pacepa was the highest ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc, and is the author of Red Horizons: The True Story of Nicolae and Elena Ceausescus' Crimes, Lifestyle, and Corruption

Before I defected to America from Romania, leaving my post as chief of Romanian intelligence, I was responsible for giving Arafat about $200,000 in laundered cash every month throughout the 1970s. I also sent two cargo planes to Beirut a week, stuffed with uniforms and supplies. Other Soviet bloc states did much the same. Terrorism has been extremely profitable for Arafat. According to Forbes magazine, he is today the sixth wealthiest among the world's "kings, queens & despots," with more than $300 million stashed in Swiss bank accounts.

"I invented the hijackings [of passenger planes]," Arafat bragged when I first met him at his PLO headquarters in Beirut in the early 1970s. He gestured toward the little red flags pinned on a wall map of the world that labeled Israel as "Palestine." "There they all are!" he told me, proudly. The dubious honor of inventing hijacking actually goes to the KGB, which first hijacked a U.S. passenger plane in 1960 to Communist Cuba. Arafat's innovation was the suicide bomber, a terror concept that would come to full flower on 9/11.

In 1972, the Kremlin put Arafat and his terror networks high on all Soviet bloc intelligence services' priority list, including mine. Bucharest's role was to ingratiate him with the White House. We were the bloc experts at this. We'd already had great success in making Washington--as well as most of the fashionable left-leaning American academics of the day--believe that Nicolae Ceausescu was, like Josip Broz Tito, an "independent" Communist with a "moderate" streak.

KGB chairman Yuri Andropov in February 1972 laughed to me about the Yankee gullibility for celebrities. We'd outgrown Stalinist cults of personality, but those crazy Americans were still naïve enough to revere national leaders. We would make Arafat into just such a figurehead and gradually move the PLO closer to power and statehood. Andropov thought that Vietnam-weary Americans would snatch at the smallest sign of conciliation to promote Arafat from terrorist to statesman in their hopes for peace.[emphasis added]

Read the whole thing.

Needless to say, the then-Soviet Union, as with so many pro-Palestinian apologists, have read the American public--and the West in general--very well.

And they continue to do so, as we see on a daily basis.

Originally posted on  daledamos.blogspot.com and Hat tip to Soccer Dad, from whom daledamos.blogspot.com found this article by Daniel Pipes, written in September 1999.
image via darrengarnick.wordpress.com

sex with infants

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants: “A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby. However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life. This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives. The man will not be eligible to marry the girl’s sister.”
Arab Muslim Arrested in Perth With Images Depicting Sexual Acts With Children as Young as Three

Waleed Hassan Rashid Alnaqbi is facing a maximum 10-year jail term after being arrested at the airport on July 29 and charged by Customs officers with importing child pornography.

via sheikyermami.com

Posted via email from noahdavidsimon's posterous

The Arab Refugee Illusion

Arab 'refugees' in camp in Gaza. The control in the Gaza Strip was until 1967 in the hands of Egypt. The Egyptian authorities maintained a strict separation between "refugees" and the ordinary population of the area. Martha Gellhorn wrote in 1961 (when Gaza was in the hands of Egypt): the Gaza Strip, "is not a hell-hole, not a visible disaster. It is worse. It is a jail." (Atlantic Monthly, October 1961)

via crethiplethi.com

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1947, there were approximately one million Arabs in the whole of western Palestine. (British figures, certainly inflated, put the number at 1,200,000; independent calculations claim 800-900,000). Of these, the total number actually living in that part of Palestine which became Israel was, according to the British figure, 561,000. Not all of them left. After the end of hostilities in 1949, there were 140,000 Arabs in Israel. The total number of Arabs who left could not mathematically have been more than some 420,000.
At the time, before the policy of inflation had been conceived, these were the commonly stated proportions of the problem. At the end of May 1948, Faris el Khoury, the Syrian representative on the UN Security Council, estimated their number at 250,000.
The even more authoritative Emil Ghoury (who twelve years later talked of two million) announced on September 6, 1948, that by the middle of June, at the time of the first trace, the number of Arabs who had Red was 200,000. “By the time the second truce began (July 17),” he said, “their number had risen to 300,000.” Count Bernadotte, the UN Special Representative in Palestine, reporting on September 16, 1948, informed the United Nations that he estimated the number of Arab refugees at 360,000, including 50,000 in Israeli territory (UN Document A/1648). After July 1948, there was a fourth exodus of some 50,000 Arabs from Galilee and from the Negev.
The inflation may at first have been accidental. The United Nations at once provided the refugees with food, clothes, shelter, and medical attention. There was no system of identification; any Arab could register as a refugee and receive free aid. Immediately a large number of needy Arabs from various Arab countries flocked to the refugee camps, were registered, and thenceforth received their rations.
Already by December 1948, when their total could not yet have reached the maximum of 425,000, the Director of the United Nations Disaster Relief Organization, Sir Rafael Cilento, reported that he was feeding 750,000 refugees. Seven months later, the official figure had increased to a round million in the report of W. de St. Aubin, the United Nations Director of Field Operations.
The inflation of the numbers was helped not only by the understandable readiness of needy and greedy people to take advantage of free upkeep. The International Committee of the Red Cross pressed the United Nations Relief headquarters to recognize as refugees any destitute Arab in Palestine and to let him have refugee facilities in his own home.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“The refugees were confident that their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two. Their leaders had promised them that the Arab armies would crush the ‘Zionist gangs’ very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile.” [Sada at Tanub, August 16, 1948]

The exodus was indeed common knowledge. The London weekly Economist reported on October 2, 1948:

“Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to quit….It was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades.”

And the Near East Arabic Broadcasting Station from Cyprus stated on April 3, 1949:

“It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees’ flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa, and Jerusalem.”

Even in retrospect, in an effort to describe the deliberateness of the flight, the leading Arab propagandist of the day, Edward Atiyah (then Secretary of the Arab League Office in London), reaffirmed the facts:

“This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boasting of an unrealistic Arab press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of some weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re-enter and retake possession of their country.”

Kenneth Bilby, one of the Americans who covered Palestine for several weeks during the war of 1948, wrote soon afterwards on his experience and observations:

The Arab exodus, initially at least, was encouraged by many Arab leaders, such as Haj Amin el Husseini, the exiled pro-Nazi Mufti of Jerusalem, and by the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine. They viewed the first wave of Arab setbacks as merely transitory. Let the Palestine Arabs flee into neighboring countries. It would serve to arouse the other Arab peoples to greater effort, and when the Arab invasion struck, the Palestinians could return to their homes and be compensated with the property of Jews driven into the sea. [New Star in the Near East (New York, 1950), pp. 30-31]

After the war, the Palestine Arab leaders did try to help people –including their own– to forget that it was they who had called for the exodus in the early spring of 1948. They now blamed the leaders of the invading Arab states themselves. These had added their voices to the exodus call, enough not until some weeks after the Palestine Arab fighter Committee had taken a stand. The war was not yet over when Emil Ghoury, Secretary of the Arab Higher Committee, the official leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, stated in an interview with a Beirut newspaper:

I do not want to impugn anybody but only to help the refugees. The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the action of the Arab States in opposing Partition and the Jewish State. The Arab States agreed upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem, [Daily Telegraph, September 6, 19481]

In retrospect, the Jordanian newspaper Falastin wrote on February 19, 1949:

The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies.
The Secretary General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and of Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade…He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean…Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes, and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down.

As late as 1952, the charge had the official stamp of the Arab Higher Committee. In a memorandum to the Arab League states, the Committee wrote:

Some of the Arab leaders and their ministers in Arab capitals…declared that they welcomed the immigration of Palestinian Arabs into the Arab countries until they saved Palestine. Many of the Palestinian Arabs were misled by their declarations… It was natural for those Palestinian Arabs who felt impelled to leave their country to take refuge in Arab lands…and to stay in such adjacent places in order to maintain contact with their country so that to return to it would be easy when, according to the promises of many of those responsible in the Arab countries (promises which were given wastefully), the time was ripe. Many were of the opinion that such an opportunity would come in the hours between sunset and sunrise.

Most pointed of all was the comment of one of the refugees:

“The Arab governments told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in.”

When the onslaught of the local Arabs had been in progress for over four months, and a month before the planned invasion by the seven Arab states, about half the population still remained in the area mapped out by the United Nations as the Jewish state. Now began the fantastic phase of the exodus. A large part of the population panicked. Suddenly the countryside was filled with rumors and alleged reports of Jewish “atrocities.”
A highly colored report of a battle near Jerusalem became the driving theme. At the village of Dir Yassin, one of the bases of the Arab forces maintaining pressure on the Jerusalem-Tel Aviv road, an assault by the “dissident” Irgun Zvai Leumi and the FFI (Stern Group) had continued for eight hours before the village was finally captured, and then only with the help of a Palmach armored car, which arrived on the scene unexpectedly. The element of surprise having been lost, the Arab soldiers could turn every house in the village into a fortress. Jewish casualties amounted to one third of the attacking force (40 out of 120). The Arabs, barricading themselves in the houses, had omitted to evacuate women and children, many of whom were thus lolled during the attack.
The Arab leaders seized on the opportunity to tell an utterly fantastic story of a “massacre,” which was disseminated throughout the world by all the arms of British propaganda. The accepted “orthodox” version to this day, it has served enemies of Israel and anti-Semites faithfully.
The effect of the story was immediate and electric. The British officer who had done most in the years before 1948 to build up the Transjordanian Army, General Glubb Pasha, wrote in the London Daily Mail on August 12, 1948:

“The Arab civilians panicked and fled ignominiously. Villages were frequently abandoned before they were threatened by the progress of war.” And the refugee from Dir Yassin, Yunes Ahmed Assad, has soberly recorded that “The Arab exodus from other villages was not caused by the actual battle, but by the exaggerated description spread by Arab leaders to incite them to fight the Jews” (Al Urdun, April 9, 1953).

via crethiplethi.com