I did some reading and Irgun claimed that it gave warnings about the bombings. This was denied by the British, but apparently some 30 years evidence came out that a British officer heard other officers joking about a threat. In any case, even if warnings were given shortly before the bombing that does not absolve Irgun of blame.
As for Israeli tolerance of their own "terrorists" that's a complicated thing , isn't it? Because Irgun at the very least arguably contributed towards the British ending their Mandate. But it is certainly fair to make sure the history of Irgun is not white- washed (particularly in order to differentiate the actions of Irgun from Palestinian terrorism )
On the other hand, British immigration policy as the result of the White Paper with regard to Palestine surely prevented some Jews from escaping from Nazi persecution.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939 (yes I know there is blame to go around here , including the United States). The actions of Irgun have to be put in the context of the time period.

freeman3

The actions of Irgun have to be put in the context of the time period

.

But not the actions of Palestinian terror groups? (Irgun called themselves a resistance movement. So do the various Palestinian organizations who are fighting for a Palestinian state.)

Freeman3

Causation, history, and ideology are critical here. You cannot just look at the present-day situation and decide that Palestinians are second-class citizens on the West Bank. That is how you get to such an inappropriate comparison as apartheid in South Africa

If you can split hairs about Irgun and decide that their actions were part of a legitimate resistance.
Then those who support Palestinian statehood can do the same for their terror (resistance) groups.And they do, don't they?

You think there is a justification for the current apartheid like conditions in the West Bank and the blockade of Gaza. If a parallel had occurred as a result of Irgun acts of terrorism the British would have set up ghettos for Zionists and restricted their movements, and denied them the rights that their Palestinian neighbors had.... Palestinian settlements and farmers would have received the majority benefit of resources, and enjoyed privileged access to services and public spaces.. Would that have been justified by the Irgun terror?

The only way out of the cycle of violence is to accept the past, and forgive. In order to start reconciling. In order to actually behave in ways that won't continue to create resentment, anger and rage. The Palestinians are second class citizens on th West bank and in their ghetto called Gaza. That some of them behave like Irgun did, doesn't justify in any way the continuance of policies that have not created security and which only fuel the conditions that wiill result in continued violence.

rickyp wrote:The only way out of the cycle of violence is to accept the past, and forgive. In order to start reconciling. In order to actually behave in ways that won't continue to create resentment, anger and rage. The Palestinians are second class citizens on th West bank and in their ghetto called Gaza. That some of them behave like Irgun did, doesn't justify in any way the continuance of policies that have not created security and which only fuel the conditions that wiill result in continued violence.

Great idea! So, Hamas and the PLO should forgive, begin living in peaceful cooperation, and then go to the bargaining table. Anything less "will result in continued violence." Good plan.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:The only way out of the cycle of violence is to accept the past, and forgive. In order to start reconciling. In order to actually behave in ways that won't continue to create resentment, anger and rage. The Palestinians are second class citizens on th West bank and in their ghetto called Gaza. That some of them behave like Irgun did, doesn't justify in any way the continuance of policies that have not created security and which only fuel the conditions that wiill result in continued violence.

Great idea! So, Hamas and the PLO should forgive, begin living in peaceful cooperation, and then go to the bargaining table. Anything less "will result in continued violence." Good plan.

Careful... Don't try that! I think forgiveness is only expected to be a one way street.

Fate

Great idea! So, Hamas and the PLO should forgive, begin living in peaceful cooperation, and then go to the bargaining table. Anything less "will result in continued violence." Good plan

Should they? And just accept that they are to be 2nd class, exploited peoples?
If it was appropriate that Zionists arm themselves and fight for a country, why isn't it right for Palestinians? ..

Although there were conflicts between Arab states and Israel, Palestinian organizations did not start to use terror to further their cause until the late 60's . Which means for 20 years, they depended upon either outside pressure or the Arab neighbors to help them achieve a nation.... But that didn't work and no one was interested in them at all until the terror started. Hell, no one paid any attention till they started hijacking planes in the 70s. ... The same way that the bombing of the King David Hotel and other Irgun terror gained attention for the aspirations of Zionists...

I think that non-violent means can be very effective in ending oppression. Mandela succeeded, where ANC violence didn't. But that was largely because the outside world understood the injustice of apartheid. And other than the US, acted. Maybe that's happening now, if the EU does go through with major sanctions.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Great idea! So, Hamas and the PLO should forgive, begin living in peaceful cooperation, and then go to the bargaining table. Anything less "will result in continued violence." Good plan

Should they? And just accept that they are to be 2nd class, exploited peoples?
If it was appropriate that Zionists arm themselves and fight for a country, why isn't it right for Palestinians? ..

The only way out of the cycle of violence is to accept the past, and forgive. In order to start reconciling. In order to actually behave in ways that won't continue to create resentment, anger and rage.

Although there were conflicts between Arab states and Israel, Palestinian organizations did not start to use terror to further their cause until the late 60's . Which means for 20 years, they depended upon either outside pressure or the Arab neighbors to help them achieve a nation.... But that didn't work and no one was interested in them at all until the terror started. Hell, no one paid any attention till they started hijacking planes in the 70s. ... The same way that the bombing of the King David Hotel and other Irgun terror gained attention for the aspirations of Zionists...

This paragraph is riddled with ahistorical garbage. Would you care to cite some sources for the Arabs negotiating with Israel in the 60's?

Does this help, or hinder?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/n ... ish-rights

The “Jewish nation-state” bill would recognise Israel’s Jewish character, institutionalise Jewish law as an inspiration for legislation and possibly de-list Arabic as a second official language. It is being promoted vigorously by the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and was approved by the Israeli cabinet on Sunday

Given that one of the victims of the attack on the synagogue last week was a Christian Arab policeman, it's ironic that had he lived, he might have become a second-class citizen.

danivon wrote:Does this help, or hinder?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/n ... ish-rights

The “Jewish nation-state” bill would recognise Israel’s Jewish character, institutionalise Jewish law as an inspiration for legislation and possibly de-list Arabic as a second official language. It is being promoted vigorously by the prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, and was approved by the Israeli cabinet on Sunday

Given that one of the victims of the attack on the synagogue last week was a Christian Arab policeman, it's ironic that had he lived, he might have become a second-class citizen.

The gentleman to whom you refer was Druze and he is being treated as a hero, as he should be. The President, many orthodox rabbis and thousands of Jews attended his funeral. He's reported to have loved his country, and his father served in the IDF. I'm under the impression that the vast majority of Druze feel very loyal to Israel.

I don't think the Jewish nation-state bill will help, of course. But I don't think it means 2nd class citizenship. It seems to be symbolic (not that that's a good thing) but I suspect the final legislation will not have any legal implications.

It also raises the question - why should anyone be told they have to recognise Israel as a "Jewish" state when Israel is only now arguing about whether to define itself as such.

It may or may not come into force, and it may or may not lead to changes in the legal rights of non-Jews in Israel, but at the very least and as part of a context in which we also have leading politicians (including in the government) proposing ideas like loyalty oaths for non-Jews, expulsions and land transfers, it will not seem to be rewarding the loyal Arab Israelis.

fate

Would you care to cite some sources for the Arabs negotiating with Israel in the 60's?

I didn't say they did. i said that the Palestinians didn't resort to terror until the late 60's .
Before the 67 war, the neighboring Arab states were confronting Israel.
Fatah did precede the PLO and PLA, and there was violence between Arabs and Israelis from 47 to 67 ... but it wasn't organized terror on the scale that Habash begat...
You'll note that I earlier blamed the neighboring Arab states for the failure to support the creation of Palestine. In particular Jordan confronted the PLA and Fatah as their goals were not aligned.... In fact most of the Palestinian military activity was aimed against Jordan in the late 60s....
But my contention that terrorism as an organized tool didn't start till after the 67 war, is supportable.
Because until 64, the Palestinians weren't organized to express Palestinian nationalism.

The Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in 1964. At its first convention in Cairo, hundreds of Palestinians met to, "call for the right of self-determination and the upholding of the rights of the Palestinian nation."[41] In order to achieve these goals, a Palestinian army of liberation was thought to be essential; thus, the Palestinian Liberation Army (PLA) was established with the support of the Arab states.[41] Fatah, a Palestinian group founded in the late 1950s to organize the armed resistance against Israel, and headed by Yasser Arafat, soon rose to prominence within the PLO. The PLO charter called for, "an end to the State of Israel, a return of Palestinians to their homeland, and the establishment of a single democratic state throughout Palestine."[42] The 1967 war convinced many Palestinians that only they could liberate their homeland. The military superiority of Israel led Palestinian fighters to employ guerrilla tactics from bases in Jordan and Lebanon.[42]

In the wake of the Six-Day War, confrontations between Palestinian guerrillas in Jordan and government forces became a major problem within the kingdom. By early 1970, at least seven Palestinian guerrilla organizations were active in Jordan, one of the most important being the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) led by George Habash. Based in the Jordanian refugee camps, the fedayeen developed a virtual state within a state, receiving funds and arms from both the Arab states and Eastern Europe and openly flouting the law of the country. The guerrillas initially focused on attacking Israel, but by late 1968, the main fedayeen activities in Jordan appeared to shift to attempts to overthrow the Jordanian monarchy.[16]

danivon wrote:It also raises the question - why should anyone be told they have to recognise Israel as a "Jewish" state when Israel is only now arguing about whether to define itself as such.

That's just false. Israel defined itself as Jewish and democratic from its founding.

"A Jewish and Democratic State" is the Israeli legal definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and ... atic_state

The question is why is it such a BFD to recognize Israel as a Jewish state? There are many states with various degrees of religious identity, including yours.

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

There are Islamic states with their religion as part of their name, which are recognized by nations throughout the world. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_republic

ray

The question is why is it such a BFD to recognize Israel as a Jewish state?

It would represent the abandonment of the Arabs (muslim or Christian) who reside in the territory called Israel. And an abandonment of Muslims and Christians who had lost their homes and not been allowed to return since 47.
And if you are inciting Arabs against an enemy every perceived injustice is magnified.

A comparable expression of outrage is often leveled against Islam... "Look how they treat Christians in.,...."

(Not that I agree one way or the other.)

Ricky, when I say that it is fair to make sure Irgun's actions are not white-washed in order to differentiate it from Palestinian terrorism what do you think that statement means? You responded as if I said that Irgun's actions were different from Palestinian terrorism when that was the opposite of what I posted.
I do think Irgun and Palestinian actions are different, however. Terrorism against colonial powers has been effective because they did not have vital interests at stake and terrorism made it too costly for the colonial power. Terrorism is a tool used by a weaker group to cause a stronger group from doing something. But terrorism used against a nation that is stronger to cause it cease to be is nihilistic. If Palestinians used terrorism to cause Israel to allow a Palestinian state on the West Bank, it could be at least justified in some sense ( if disfavored). But terrorism used to cause Israel to cease to be is senseless.
So the central question is what motivates Palestinian terrorism? I think the evidence indicates that the motivation of Palestinian terrorism is the end of Israel. So it is senseless and nihilistic as it is not focused towards any achievable goal. Irgun , by contrast, had the goal of a Jewish state which its acts helped create .

freeman3 wrote:I did some reading and Irgun claimed that it gave warnings about the bombings. This was denied by the British, but apparently some 30 years evidence came out that a British officer heard other officers joking about a threat. In any case, even if warnings were given shortly before the bombing that does not absolve Irgun of blame.

No, any more than it absolves the IRA. But at least when Sinn Fein and the UK came to terms, it was not on the basis that we forget about the terrorism.

As for Israeli tolerance of their own "terrorists" that's a complicated thing , isn't it? Because Irgun at the very least arguably contributed towards the British ending their Mandate. But it is certainly fair to make sure the history of Irgun is not white- washed (particularly in order to differentiate the actions of Irgun from Palestinian terrorism )

And as they appear to have been whitewashed, at least as far as Likud are concerned, does that mean that there is less of a difference than you'd like to think?

Sure, Israeli terrorism did hasten the UK relinquishing the Mandate (although the Attlee government was not really all that keen on holding on to colonial possessions, especially ones with uprisings). But that doesn't stop it being terrorism, it just makes it terrorism that worked, and that the supporters of it's motives see as 'freedom fighting' instead.

On the other hand, British immigration policy as the result of the White Paper with regard to Palestine surely prevented some Jews from escaping from Nazi persecution.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Paper_of_1939 (yes I know there is blame to go around here , including the United States). The actions of Irgun have to be put in the context of the time period.

Possibly - the outbreak of war a few months later did quite a bit to stop people getting to Israel as well. This was policy regarding immigration to the Mandate, not to Britain, by the way, and while it was wrong in the context of the events in Europe, it was aimed at trying to avoid a worsening of the situation in the Mandate.

King David was not a direct result of that policy though - it was in response to Operation Agatha, in which the British reacted to terrorism by arresting hundreds of Zionists and raiding the Jewish Agency in order to try forestall a coup (which Lehi and the Irgun were planning) and stop the Haganah and Palmach from moving towards the violent route. There were several British soldiers who had been kidnapped by the Irgun, and Irgun wanted to have two members who had received death sentences to be reprieved.

Agatha was aimed at dealing with the violent Zionists so that the moderate ones would be more able to come to a deal. It failed. It's a lesson from history - a firm response to terrorists does not necessarily weaken them and strengthen the moderates, it can often have the reverse effect. A lesson that is not being learned to this day.

freeman

You responded as if I said that Irgun's actions were different from Palestinian terrorism when that was the opposite of what I posted.
I do think Irgun and Palestinian actions are different, however.

oh.

freeman3

I think the evidence indicates that the motivation of Palestinian terrorism is the end of Israel.

For some.
For the Likud and Labout parties of Israel... its clear that there can be no Palestine.
So I wonder how much difference there is then.

Avi Shlaim had this to say in 94... Nothing has really changed has it? Just more violence, conflict and exploitation.
.. http://users.ox.ac.uk/~ssfc0005/Prelude ... nians.html