Gee, it’s like you’re rebutting something nobody said! What’s the technical term for that?
Can you actually refute the fact that up until the fall of the Third Reich there was an alliance with Arab nationalists, or that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was allied with the Nazis? Do you dispute the facts? Or is this quibble just that I am indeed correct, there was Arab terrorism as I stated, there was an alliance with the Nazis, the Grand Mufti did ally with the Nazis in order to try to wipe the Jews from the face of the Earth… but there wasn’t Nazi backing after the Nazi regime fell?
Is your quibble, really, really “Yes Finn, you are 100% factually correct and accurate, but you should’ve added the addendum that those alliances ended in 1945 even though the Arab forces still went on to try to commit genocide in 1948.”
Really?
Here, why don’t you respond to what I posted above and you didn’t respond to:
Or if you really, really want to quibble, I suppose I could point out that Nazi officers and troops were among the Syrian forces in such numbers that the truce specified that “European Nazis will be delivered to [the British] Military [authorities].”
I think you’re misunderstanding. The alliance between the Nazis and the Grand Mufti was during World War II, when he tried, with Nazi help, to unite the Arabs against the British and the Jews of Palestine. He also tried to recruit Arabs and Muslims to fight for Germany in World War II.
Now, there’s no denying there were some pro-British Palestinian Arabs also, but the Grand Mufti wasn’t one of them.
But nobody’s making the legitimacy of Israel’s existence contingent on its actions either. The UN and most of the world’s nations accept Israel’s existence as a state (and its territorial control at least up to the 1967 boundary) as an absolute geographical and political given, irrespective of what its actions are. Nobody in the international community is saying to Israel “We accept that you’re a country like any other country, but if you don’t change your behavior with the Palestinians then we won’t consider you a country anymore.” (Many are saying “If you don’t change your behavior with the Palestinians then we’ll do our best to oppose and harass you”, but that’s not the same thing.)
Sure, there are some organizations and nations that deny the legitimacy of Israel’s existence altogether, based on the claim that Israel is, and has been from the start, an illegally and unjustly established entity usurping territory that rightfully belongs to others. But this ideological refusal to accept Israel’s existence is not contingent on Israel’s actions.
The arguments of these extremist anti-Zionists in denying Israel any legitimacy whatsoever as a political entity would be just the same even if Israel implemented a policy of providing free ponies and chocolate to every Palestinian man, woman and child.
I’m not quite sure I understand your scenario for “proto-state” formation here. Is Israel in favor of establishing an armed Palestinian military force at present? If not, what pre-conditions would need to be met for Israel to support it?
I would regard the introduction of American troops into this with grave doubt. If I truly believed that American troops could impose a lasting peace upon the region, I might be tempted. But that way lies madness.
The back-and-forth shifts do blur the issue somewhat. The “Hunting Season” was indeed a concerted effort by the Haganah to curb the violent resistance movement, but the curbing effect wasn’t permanent, as your second link notes:
It’s not quite as simple as saying that the legitimate Jewish ruling body put down the hot-headed terrorist radicals in the Hunting Season and that was it for Zionist terrorism. (Yes, I know you yourself weren’t actually claiming that, but I think that’s the narrative that’s often implied as the model for what the Palestinians are expected to do.)
I think the point was that it was never “Zionist” terrorism in the sense of seeking the establishment of a state, but a very stern form of negotiation over immigration policy. An assertion I find, as I said, “extraordinary”. This was offered in support of a carefully crafted definition of “terrorism”, centering on a definitive distinction whether or not such actions were “official” or not.
I find that argument sophistic and self-serving, but that’s just me. And a couple others.
It isn’t that simple, but you’re also not mentioning a lot of the actions of the Resistance. For instance, it was initially engaged in actions against valid military targets of the British (who, remember, we busy capturing and/or imprisoning Jews in concentration camps behind barbed wire and snipers.) While it’s obvious that some would like to act as if “preventing Jews from being imprisoned in concentration camps, again” is a matter of “immigration policy”, it’s rather clear that preventing the British from capturing and imprisoning Jews trying to flee Europe is a bit different than a simple ‘immigration’ debate.
When the JRM existed, it did so for a very short time and it coordinated attacks against British military positions and their governmental administration and dual use targets like bridges and trains which were used to keep the British forces supplied (and which are legal targets under the 4th GC). In point of fact, the JRM was dissolved after the King David Hotel bombing which, likewise, was an action against a military target (and thus also a legal activity under the 4th GC and not terrorism). So the JRM existed for only about a year in any case, and then disbanded.
Due to the fact that such an argument exists nowhere outside your claims, I’m not surprised. So many errors you seem to have made… the definition of terrorism was not over whether or not it was “official”, nobody said it was a form of negotiation over anything at all. You should address the actual arguments that have been made.
You might also want to give proof of your denial of an Arab-Nazi alliance or retract your dismissal of it too, while you’re at it.
I think you’re misunderstanding. There wasn’t terrorism by the Haganah. There was terrorism by smaller groups like Lehi, and arguably the Irgun, but both the Irgun and Lehi were splinter groups that didn’t represent the mass of the Jewish community in mandate Palestine, and weren’t the official representatives of the Jewish community.
Why we’re debating 65 year old actions by dead people before Israel even existed in the context of a city council’s decision to grant building permits is beyond me, but that’s another question.
Sure, I’m not trying to equate all “violent resistance” with terrorism per se, nor do I deny that the same organization can include both people committing illegal acts of terror and people conducting legal paramilitary operations against legitimate military targets. (This also applies to present-day Palestinian violence, which includes both illegal terror attacks and attacks on Israeli military targets.)
True, although that didn’t mean the end of the activities of Irgun or Lehi at that time. In fact, Irgun and Lehi weren’t officially banned by the official Jewish governing body under the Prevention of Terrorism Ordinance until after the assassination of Folke Bernadotte in September 1948 (though they had been formally disbanded and assimilated into the new Israeli Defense Forces in May 1948).
I think it’s because it bears on a general question concerning the obligations of present-day Palestinians, as follows:
To what extent is an official governing body required to disassociate itself from or to suppress terrorist activities on the part of its political allies, in order to be considered eligible to participate in political negotiations with its adversaries?
And speaking of building permits (and I apologize for hogging the conversation recently, but I won’t be on the boards for a bit after this so I’ve tried to get in all my questions and comments at once), what’s the general opinion as to the Israeli reaction to the alleged “sharpening of the crisis” as of Wednesday?
Huh. Okay, is this in fact a “crisis” at this point?
That’s up to its adversaries. It’s not like there’s some great big rulebook in either international negotiations or suppression of internal opposition.
At a guess, to the extent that they make a good faith effort to police their own terrorist element, to publicly and forcefully disassociate themselves from both the terrorist groups (operating from withing their territory) and publicly and consistently condemn and disavow such attacks and do everything in their power to curtail future attacks.
No, it isn’t.
My “claim” would be that it should be more publicized, in an official “we mean business” way, and that if necessary, more police be employed on both sides of the line. As I understand it now, whenever the police do show up, both sides of the fight turn on them. The “perps” need to be taught that it won’t be tolerated anymore. And, there must be support from the courts, in convictions. The law must draw the line in the sand. You get busted in Palestine, you stand trial under Palstinian law. You get busted in Israel, you stand trial under Israeli law.
Added on edit: And BOTH sides stand together on this. That removes the idea of “I will start some shit and hop over the border again”, because there will just be more cops on their asses.
There did recruit Muslims to fight for the Nazis.
