Israel guilty of stealing Palestinian money because they were accepted into UNESCO

[molly bloom]

The King David Hotel was a military target and warnings were sent to the hotel staff which they decided to ignore.

Only part of the hotel was being used for government purposes, but how reassuring for the civilian Jewish workers who were killed.

Bombing a hotel (with enough explosive to demolish seven stories) in a built up area is hardly the same as attacking an army base or an army patrol.

[DinoDoc]

Bombing a hotel (with enough explosive to demolish seven stories) in a built up area is hardly the same as attacking an army base or an army patrol.

It was Britain's decision to place a valid military target (it housed British military command and their Criminal Investigation Division along with their intelligence records on Irgun, the Hagana, Lehi, and other Jewish paramilitary groups) in a civilian area. Probably an attempt to use the civilian populace as human shields.

[molly bloom]

It was Britain's decision to place a valid military target (it housed British military command and their Criminal Investigation Division along with their intelligence records on Irgun, the Hagana, Lehi, and other Jewish paramilitary groups) in a civilian area.

And it was the terrorists' choice to bomb a target which was not wholly military.

Probably an attempt to use the civilian populace as human shields.

Poor (and predictable) troll.

It's interesting that the I.R.A. were also embarrassed by worldwide revulsion at their bombing of Harrods, and similarly 'disowned' the action after the event.

[dannubis]

... a valid military target ...

True colors are showing: only when "brownie" or "goat ****ers" bomb a hotel it is terrorism.

[DinoDoc]

And it was the terrorists' choice to bomb a target which was not wholly military.

Given the fact that it served as one of the nerve centers of British rule in the mandate, how could they not consider it a target?

Poor (and predictable) troll.

How else would you describe the placement of a military and colonial HQ within what is supposed to be a wholly civilian building other than attempt by the British to use the civilian populace as a shield to protect them?

[dannubis]

[QUOTE=DinoDoc;6061544]Given the fact that it served as one of the nerve centers of British rule in the mandate, how could they not consider it a target?[QUOTE]

I seem to remember that flying a plane into the pentagon was considered a terrorist act.

[molly bloom]

Given the fact that it served as one of the nerve centers of British rule in the mandate, how could they not consider it a target?

So government offices are a legitimate target ? Thanks for that.

How else would you describe the placement of a military and colonial HQ within what is supposed to be a wholly civilian building other than attempt by the British to use the civilian populace as a shield to protect them?

Leaving aside the grotesque anachronistic comparison between the British Mandate in Palestine and Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the British used the hotel because it was there, convenient and it was going to be for a temporary period- and, oh then that thing happened. You know, World War II.


They were a bit busy then.

I'm sure your attitude might be ever so slightly different had the Zionists killed American civilians or soldiers.


But Brits ? Civilian Arabs ? Oh, and don't forget the dead civilian Jews too.

[Tupac Shakur]

**** the Brits. They're history's greatest monsters.

[MikeH]

HA! YES! **** YOU AMERICA, WE WIN!

[Sava]

i support andrew jackson

[regexcellent]

**** the Brits. They're history's greatest monsters.

I would go with the Belgians.

[Sava]

[Zevico]

Or in Menahem Begin's case, becoming leader of Israel. If a terrorist is as a terrorist does, then what were the bombing of the King David Hotel and the massacre at Deir Yassin ? Terrorist acts, it seems to me.

I disagree with the premises underlying your arguments. Firstly, Begin and Arafat could not be more different, for reasons to be explained below. Secondly, I do not argue that "a terrorist is a terrorist does," I argue that Arafat and Fatah have always possessed a political structure, ideology and culture that promotes the use of violence to achieve domestic and foreign political goals, such goals being the self-preservation of Fatah's ruling hierarchy and the accumulation of wealth, status and property in the senior members of that hierarchy. That ideology is basically Nasserism (pan-Arab nationalism, socialism, Arab racial supremacism) with Arafat in place of Nasser as god-figure and some attempt at cultivating a distinct "Palestinian" nationalism. Fatah regards the lives of everyday Palestinians, not to mention Israelis, as worthless cattle. It never changed any of these aspects of its politics or culture. Given that the destruction of the Jewish state remains its end-goal there is little point in discussing its "moderation"; the very term "moderate" is a furphy, a word that has been used to describe practically every political leader in modern history. Begin's ideology, and that of his group, was politically liberal. That ideology was a conscious copy of the model of the modern nation-state devised in the 19th century. It is no surprise that a classical liberal entered democratic politics in Israel with a view to preserving the existence of Israel as a democratic nation-state. Thirdly, the King David Hotel attack was the work of the Haganah; DinoDoc's explanation of it is quite adequate. Fourthly, there is no evidence that civilian deaths at Deir Yassin were ordered by Begin or resulted from a policy of killing civilians promulgated by Begin's group rather than as a result of poor training and the fog of war. The incidence of civilian death is not of itself proof of intent.

[molly bloom]

Begin's ideology, and that of his group, was politically liberal.

If you mean less extreme than the Stern Gang's, you'd be right. But 'liberal' ? No. He based his ideology on that of Jabotinsky- who by no means could be construed as moderate or liberal.

That ideology was a conscious copy of the model of the modern nation-state devised in the 19th century.

Nation states that extended civil rights to Jews in Europe, for instance ? Jabotinsky didn't seem to have much interest in the civil rights of non-Jewish inhabitants of Palestine:

The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did. Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement.

You cannot have two competing nationalisms in the same territory without there being a conflict.

Thirdly, the King David Hotel attack was the work of the Haganah

I've seen footage of members of Irgun discussing their role in the bombing. Unless they were forced to do it at gunpoint by the Haganah, I'd say this indicates that Irgun carried it out.

Fourthly, there is no evidence that civilian deaths at Deir Yassin were ordered by Begin or resulted from a policy of killing civilians promulgated by Begin's group rather than as a result of poor training and the fog of war. The incidence of civilian death is not of itself proof of intent.

Oh I see. Killing unarmed combatants, including children, is the 'fog of war' and 'poor training'. Are you seriously suggesting that members of the Irgun couldn't distinguish between an unarmed child and an adult man with or without a gun ?

The purpose of terrorism and acts of terror is to instill terror and act as a warning- as the Mongols knew, as the Romans knew, as Timur Lenk knew, et cetera, et cetera.

What these acts say is, is that these are the extremes the perpetrators will go to, to publicize and to achieve their aims.

[Sirotnikov]

Molly this

You cannot have two competing nationalisms in the same territory without there being a conflict.

Sums up your Jabotinski quote well.
But his quote doesn't prove disregard for the civil rights of any Palestinian inhabitant. His quote only proves awareness of the conflict between both nations political ambitions, and says nothing about denying civil rights, once the question of a future Jewish state is assured. Infact he explicitly mentions equality, freedom from deportation and national autonomy for the Palestinian inhabitants in the very treatise you quote from.

If anything, his acknowledgement of the Palestinian national aspirations and his acceptance of them as equal to the Jews' aspirations, is a remarkably unique.

Re: King David's hotel - it was indeed a military target. As other people quoted, it was an active military command at the time. There's no such thing as a "not wholly military" target. Even by Geneva conventions things are more or less boolean - an area is "protected" only if it is completely civilian.

So yes, targeting the Pentagon (and it alone) would have been a guerilla attack, rather than a terror attack. If anything, the attack on King David's is more akin to an attack on a US command post in Kabul / Iraq, than to an attack on US soil.

Re: Deir Yassin - More than one eyewitness account I read talks of Irgun fighters going berserk after being ambushed by combatants who hid behind a woman accomplice , dressed in woman's clothing (which was common tactics at the time). Their response is indeed a war crime, but is more rightly attributed to poor discipline, rather than a pre-meditated attack.

I've read about it in previous arguments, and I haven't yet seen evidence for pre-meditation.