The events took place on April 9, 1948, during the civil war in Palestine. At that time, the country was still under British authority, although the British had begun their withdrawal from the region in February, with a full retreat scheduled for May 15.
By the end of March, the road warfare led by Abd al-Kader al-Husseini and the Jaysh al-Jihad al-Muqaddas had proven effective: Jerusalem, home to 100,000 Jews—one-sixth of the Palestinian Jewish community—was under siege and could no longer be resupplied.
In early April, Zionist authorities decided to respond, and their paramilitary force, the Haganah, launched an offensive. They initiated Operation Nahshon on the night of April 2–3. The operation aimed to break the siege and resupply the city by allowing convoys to retake the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem road. The operation quickly succeeded and continued until April 20. On April 8, the Palestinian commander Abd al-Kader al-Husseini was killed in the fighting. Plan Dalet called for the clearing of the Deir Yassin area to secure the Tel Aviv–Jerusalem route
Considered strategic by the Haganah, and with the approval of the Haganah’s Jerusalem sector commander, David Shealtiel, the Irgun and Lehi assembled 120 fighters to attack the village. Fighters from the Haganah and Palmach also later joined the operation due to the difficulties encountered by the Irgun and Lehi.
Eliezer Tauber, an Israeli historian and professor at Bar-Ilan University, presents a controversial and revisionist perspective on the Deir Yassin massacre in his book The Massacre That Never Was (2021). His argument challenges the widely accepted narrative that a deliberate massacre of Palestinian civilians took place at Deir Yassin in April 1948. Here’s a detailed explanation of Tauber’s point of view:
1. Rejection of the Massacre Narrative
- No Systematic Killing: Tauber argues that what occurred at Deir Yassin was not a premeditated massacre of civilians, but rather a battle between Jewish militias (Irgun and Lehi) and Arab villagers, some of whom were armed and resisted the attack
- Exaggerated Death Toll: He claims that the commonly cited death toll of over 100 or 254 Palestinians is greatly exaggerated. According to Tauber, most of the Arab villagers were killed in the crossfire or during combat, not executed after surrender. He suggests that the actual number of civilian casualties was much lower and that many of the dead were combatants
2. Critique of Witness Accounts
- Unreliable Testimonies: Tauber questions the reliability of witness accounts, both from Palestinian survivors and from Jewish fighters. He argues that many testimonies were given years after the event, influenced by political motivations, trauma, or external pressures.
- Propaganda and Mythmaking: He suggests that the narrative of a massacre was promoted by Arab leaders and later by Palestinian and left-wing Israeli historians to serve political agendas, such as delegitimizing the State of Israel or portraying the Zionist movement as inherently violent
3. Context of the 1948 War
- Military Operation: Tauber frames the attack on Deir Yassin as a legitimate military operation aimed at securing a strategic location near Jerusalem. He argues that the Irgun and Lehi were acting in the context of a broader war, where both sides committed acts of violence.
- No Evidence of Atrocities: He disputes claims of widespread atrocities, such as the killing of women and children, the mutilation of bodies, or the parading of survivors. Tauber asserts that such stories lack credible evidence and were likely fabricated or embellished over time
4. Political and Historical Implications
- Defense of Zionist Legacy: Tauber’s revisionist account is seen by some as an attempt to defend the reputation of the Irgun and Lehi, whose leaders (Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir) later became prime ministers of Israel. By denying the massacre, Tauber seeks to counter narratives that portray the founding of Israel as rooted in violence and ethnic cleansing.
- Academic Controversy: His work has sparked significant debate among historians. Critics accuse Tauber of selective use of sources, ignoring well-documented testimonies and archival evidence, and of being motivated by ideological rather than scholarly objectives. Supporters, however, praise him for challenging what they see as a one-sided and politically motivated historical narrative