I could give two hoots whether you take me seriously or not but in your fervent bias you havent been paying attention. I earlier described the likes of Hamas as psycopathic thugs which should make my feelings concerning their tactics plain. My instinctive sympathies for the Palestinians have been pretty much extinguished through their mass murder. But I see no compelling reason to favour the other pack of homicidal fanatics over them, and I wont glibly gloss over morally identical Israeli actions as ‘insignificant’ or only ‘lower grade terrorism’. Those were real bombs, and real people that the Irgun murdered.
By the way Eolbo? Great to see you posting here again. Where ya been?
**How about the King David Hotel bombing, when it was crammed with civilians? Is the difference really so great if it is a suicide bombing or leaving a bomb behind, knowing that it will kill large numbers of civilians? Or, for that matter, the US firebombing of Japan during World War II? All nations will do horrible things to establish or defend themselves.
I don’t admire or condemn Israel for its actions, either in establishing itself as a nation-state or in defending itself as such today. It acts in its own self-interests as all nations have, and has done both very admirable and very deplorable things in order to ensure its own survival. It’s done better than some, but entirely white-washing the past and claiming that Israel has acted in a fashion above and beyond what anyone else has ever done is rhetoric, pure and simple.
To second it, it’s good to see you posting here again, Eolbo.
Not to justify the King David Hotel bombing, but I just wanted to point out that the Irgun bombed the south wing of the hotel, which wasn’t full of civilians. The south wing was the headquarters of CID and a military headquarters, and in fact, almost everyone injured or killed either worked for CID or the British Military. So, the Irgun effectively blew up a government target, not a civilian one.
Also, Irgun notified the British Police that a bomb would be going off in the King David (somewhat a la IRA in London twenty or so years ago). The British chose to disregard this warning and did not evacuate the building.
So the King David incident is an all-around bad analogy. I won’t go so far as to say that it nullifies all claims to prestate Jewish terrorism (it doesn’t, and there was some), but it is telling that this patently guerrilla incident is always cited as a prime case of terrorism (which it wasn’t). There just wasn’t as much terrorism being performed by the Jewish community as some of you seem to want to believe, and it was almost completely abhored, condemned and fought against (the 1944-1946 saison) by the main-stream of the community.
Now where is that main-stream treatment of fringe Palestinian terrorism again? Oh…
Dani
I firmly stand by the point I made on page 1. Arguing about history does not considerably advance the current debate.
But for sake of argument, here’s how I see it. In 1947, the British were the occupiers. Zionists presented a diverse front of peaceful and armed resistance. The situation was ended by the British when they withdrew and sent the matter to the UN. The resistance negated any political, military, or economic benefits used to justify the occupation. That was the only purpose of resistance, not to establish a military victory.
The same could be true of Palestine. Resistance in the occupied territories, much like resistance in the Lebanese buffer zone, has turned a former security asset into a security risk. In this sense, resistance has succeeded, as almost all plans call for at least partial Israeli withdrawal from the territories.
In Zionist resistance, there were lines drawn for the resistance. They were crossed by the Irgun and the Stern Gang and there can be no reasonable defense of these actions. Killing innocents is always wrong. Luckily, the resistance had a clear goal of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. When this goal was realized, cooler heads won out, and the views of the Stern Gang and Irgun were marginalized. Just like many other places in the world (Sinn Fein, anyone?), though, their leaders were recycled into mainstream politics. Some of them even turned into Israel’s biggest peacemakers. This doesn’t excuse their deeds going unpunished. But in all wars and struggles, crimes are left unpunished and are eventually forgotten or forgiven. This is either done implicitly or explicitly, like in South Africa and Northern Ireland.
The issue is with ends. I have maintained it is Israel’s responsibility to unilaterally withdraw, because occupiers always make the decisions. After this, though, will the cooler heads, whose goal is a homeland, prevail as they did in Israel? Will future policy be determined by people like Yasser Raboo and Hanan Ashrawi who only seek to end the occupation? If so, the resistance will have no political support, and will die out. Or will it be people like Sheik Yassin and the leaders of Hamas and the PFLP whose goal is to destroy Israel? Because then resistance will continue.
Now that unilateral separation and a Palestinian homeland is on the horizon, there has been a shift to the view that a two-state solution is not the goal. A one state solution with the dissolution of a Zionist entity in Palestine seems to be the new goal. Is this a view being pushed by pan-Arabists and Islamists in their presses? Is it percolating up through the ranks of the UN General Assembly, NGOs, and European liberal media, such that now Israel will not satisfy anyone with a two-state solution? I honestly don’t know, but it is the worst nightmare imagineable for Israelis and those who support Israel.
Feel free to provide cites to my “fervent bias” (hint: recognizing and condemning violence on both sides does not qualify).**
No idea which straw man you’re attacking here, but I have never said anything of the sort.
Nice to see you decrying Hamas terrorism. If only you could acknowledge that it has roots in Arab terrorism in pre-Israel Palestine.
Personally I haven’t mentioned the King David bombing because I think, for reasons not too different from yours actually, that its a bad example. There were mitigatating circumstances in that it could reasonably be classed as a military-political target, and even though it was denied by the British for many years, there were unsuccessful attempts at warning. So the intent on this occasion clearly wasnt the large loss of life that was the result.
However I also think that the King David bombing has received a disproportionate amount of attention due to the fact that it was the most conspicuous attack on the British, and the British made a great deal of fuss about it, so its always highlighted in English language sources. But there’s nothing really ‘telling’ in the attack other then our selective bias in focusing our attention on an attack on people that are like ‘us’. Indiscriminate bombings of arab buses, cafes and marketplaces, and there were a great many, have received much less attention, and my suspicion is that a number of the pro-Israeli posters here have only a hazy understanding of their extent and nature. Were we to focus our collective attention on say the bombing of the Semiramis Hotel, the campaigns against Arab buses, or the Jaffa vegetable market bombing an entirely different picture would emerge. In particular the notion that the Irgun were largely ‘clean’ guerilla fighters rather then terrorists is simply ahistorical nonsense.
To comment upon the “saison” again as a number of posters have made much of it, this occurred between November 1944 and March 1945 ie while the Second World War was still in progress. It was primarily a response to anti-British attacks by Irgun and Lehi NOT terrorist attacks on arab civilians, and in particular it was a response to the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo and the attempted assassination of High Commisioner MacMichael. It should be obvious that attacks on the British while the British were still struggling against Nazi Germany were highly damaging politically to the Israeli cause and suppressing the miscreants was a strategic priority rather then a moral one. I will also point out that indiscrimate attacks on arab civilians had occurred for years before the “saison”, and that after the “saison” was over Haganah patched up its differences with Irgun and Lehi, allied with them, and they conducted many joint operations. This is despite the resumption of widescale indiscriminate bombings of arab civilians by Irgun in 1947-1948. So I really cant attach the mitigating weight to the “saison” that you seem to do. A few months of “policing” the terrorists doesnt outweigh year after year of overlooking or co-operating with them in my eyes. Not to mention that a number of terrorist attacks were perpetrated by the Haganah itself (Semiramis Hotel bombing for one). Seems to me that the reality is that this was a dirty little ethnic conflict that was fought with great brutality and wanton slaughter by both sides, and while there are many devils there are no angels in that story.
Aw you guys :o
Just been busy, knowing well that Dissonance could safely wave the “left wing military buff” flag while I was gone.
My apologies. No strawman intended. The quotes are pertaining to the general discussion rather then to you specifically, ‘lower grade terrorism’ was the term used by adaher for instance. I did not mean to imply it was your term.
Well, given that Eolbo has referenced Benny Morris, the following two cites should be of interest.
http://www.meforum.org/article/466
is a critical review of Benny Morris’ book, which also goes to the primary source matrial and documents selective editing of that material and outright misrepresentations of that material as well. Which isn’t to say that early Zionist terrorism did not occur, including by the Irgun (I did say “in the main”), but that these acts while henious, were both always in retribution for Arab acts and were generally more condemned by leadership then Morris’ book makes it appear. (It must also be noted that Morris himself did not believe it was ever official Jewish policy to carry out massacres or other atrocities against Palestinians.)
An example of the selective quoting is illustrated as follows:
(bolding mine)
Just for an example.
But speaking of Morris’ beliefs, his more recent thoughts about his past conclusions and the current situation may be worth a perusal:
Unfortunately this is what it has come to. Morris may be wrong. Some, like Malley, believe he is, that Arafat’s rejection was just as much the fault of bungling by Clinton and Barak, as Arafat’s greed or desire to have it all. And that the Palestinian side can bring real negotiation to the table.
But here we are: Israel exists; Palestine doesn’t; no Israeli is going to be so naive to believe that the PA will deliver security no matter what deal gets signed, and no action by the PA is likely to occur to convince them otherwise. No matter who was at fault, the chance to build that trust has slipped away and it will be many years for that to ever have a chance to rebuild. Geneva is a nice practice for real peace, but as I said before, without security there can be no peace. If the PA shows no interest in providing that security then Israel must disengage and barricade itself off from its then newborn sister state. Final borders and other issues can be discussed once cooler heads do prevail and both sides recognize the value that true peace can bring to their own selfish interests. It is true that a Palestine will be hard pressed to thrive without an Israel to partner with. Maybe the country of Palestine would realize that you can’t partner with a country that you allow your citizens to attack with impunity, and actually do something. But no doubt they’d get more in the deal if they negotiate now then later.
I have to ask if you read your cite? It’s not at all a review of Morris’ book by which presumably you mean “Righteous Victims”. His book is a. not the topic of your cite, and b. isn’t even mentioned in it. Which is not surprising given that the book had not yet been published at the time your cite appeared. Your cite is discussing primarily an article Morris published in 1995 in a historical journal in which he alleged early zionist leaders were deliberately falsifying the historical record. Which is fine and dandy I guess, and may be either true or false but its not the theme of his book.
Nonetheless your cite makes some substantial accusations against Morris as a scholar which I am going to spend some time digesting before I form my considered opinion concerning them (hey I enjoy this stuff!). My initial impression on first read however is that your cites’ author appears to have an ideological difference with Morris and is attempting to justify it with some hair splitting.
For instance the extract from the article you quoted:
quote:
Morris writes that "Machnes went on to enjoin the Haganah to retaliate against Arab provocations ‘with strength and brutality,’ even hitting women and children."36 Morris withholds from his readers, however, that “strength and brutality” refers here not to indiscriminate attacks against Palestinian society as a whole, but as a means of last resort and to pinpoint retaliation against specific and well-identified perpetrators of armed attacks on Jews. Here is the full citation of Machnes’s words from the meeting’s original protocol:
I think that today there is no question whether or not to respond. But for the response to be effective, it must come in the right time and the right place and take the form of a strong punishment. Blowing up a house is not enough. Blowing up a house of innocent people is certainly not enough! The response must be strong and harsh because it must create the [right] impression, must punish [the perpetrators of violence] and must serve as a warning. If our responses are not impressive—they will create the opposite impression. These matters necessitate the utmost precision—in terms of time, place, and whom and what to hit … If we operate against, say, a specific family in a known place, a known village [i.e., identified perpetrators of violence], then there should be no mercy! But only a direct blow and no touching of innocent people! We have already reached a position that necessitates a strong response. Today one should not even avoid hitting women and children. For otherwise, the response cannot be effective.37
Whereas Machnes recommended a highly discriminate response, Morris misquotes him as suggesting precisely the opposite.
Now we are getting into textual nuances but I think your cites’ author is quite distorting things here himself. For instance he attempts to introduce the notion of ‘last resort’ as a mitigation for the original writer however its not a concept that appears at all in the original text, so it appears your author is attempting to ‘improve’ the original text. And I have to wonder how genuine the original speaker was when a mere two sentences after stating one should not touch innocent people he writes that one should not avoid hitting women and children. Morris’ interpretation of the passage appears to be a reasonable one to me. Not necessarily the only possible interpretation but certainly a legitimate one.
I also note here another article by the same author:
http://www.meforum.org/article/207
In which this passage appears:
It will be noted that his conclusion does not logically follow from his evidence. Morris stated that new evidence (ie the archives) he had since seen tended “to confirm and reinforce the major lines” of his book. Your author renders this as Morris confessing to “having a preconceived view of what his archival findings would be” which is such a blatant distortion that it raises a concern in my mind over your author’s basic honesty.
With regard to Tom Hurndall.
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3360149.stm
Lots of links to news stories can be found here http://www.tomhurndall.co.uk/media.asp
Yes, I actually heard the news here, and I was going to come back and acknowledge the case… you robbed me of a really good mea culpa performance! Oh well…
Anyway - unless you subscribe to conspiracy theories - a soldier acting on his own, not an Army/State “strategy”. State actually goes after perpatrator… A rotten apple in the barrel, hopefully removed. Not exactly “State Terrorism” as was implied earlier.
I realize this doesn’t make Mr. Hurndall any less comatose. It is certainly a tragedy. But I think it is fairly clear that he was basicly shot by a common criminal, not by a Decision of State.
While vengeance and retribution are not always the best recipes for an inproved future, I still do hope the shooter remains in prison for the rest of his life. For what it’s worth 
Dani
Eolba,
Indeed my mistake. That should have read “Benny Morris’ work” and I hadn’t differentiated his book from his body of work in general in my mind. Sloppiness on my part. Truth be told I was searching for some on-line documentation of the cases that you cited to see the context in which he reported them. Were these (per Morris) targets that had some strategic value but killed uninvolved civilians along the way (not so bad) or entirely retaliatory along the lines of gang warfare (bad) or intended as first attacks to drive people away (worse yet)? What percentage of Irgun attacks targeted civilians who were not percieved as perpetrators? I do not have a copy of his book and it will be a bit before I can get to the library to borrow it, or to the store to scope it out at least. My understanding remains (and justified by that first link in this thread) that only a small fraction of Irgun attacks were terroristic and that they were guerrilla in the main and I am fairly confident that Morris is not saying that Jewish leadership had a policy of committing atrocities. He just wanted to cut back some of the mythologizing early Zionists as heros through and through. I’ll trust you to answer my questions about what Morris states as you seem to be an honest broker of information. I was surprised to find that his scholarship itself has been called into question by someone who actually documented from primary source material. No doubt that someone had a particular POV to support but if he does it with actual data then it is believable still.
To me the sample quote is quite illustrative. To me the quote sets the precedence for Israel’s “targeting killing” policy to date (which I do not think is a good one): Attack back and attack back hard; target your attacks against those responsible, not against others uninvolved (don’t kill a village because they did); but if some innocents will be killed in the effort of hitting your target then so be it because effective counter-attacks are going to have to take out some innocents in the process. A debatable policy to be sure, but not quite so bad as the presentation of it by Morris. Not hair splitting but a substantive difference. It was not the same as advocating the targeting civilian populations. Not the same then, not the same today.
I certainly agree with some of your statements and have said so before. Both sides had good and not so good reasons to fear each other and each had elements that acted upon that fear with violence. The fact that Arab massacres of Jews in the region and calls for their slaughter predate any examples of Zionistic violence doe not justify it. I may disagree with your portrayal of the early Zionists as devils but angels they weren’t either. They were real people who had good reason to believe that many in the world wanted to exterminate them and as Arab leaders were joining that call, some felt justified in violent responses. Truth be told, if I was there I may have myself. I’m no better of a person than most. (Not only do I bleed if you cut me, I’ll cut you back, punk! - for those who get the reference.) Like I said before, not a pretty time.
And again, the question remains, where to go from here?
Morris’ context for the 1930’s attacks I listed was that nationalism among the arab population was then on the rise (in part stimulated by Jewish immigration and fears that they were going to lose their country) and in 1936 the ‘Arab Revolt’ broke out to try and throw off British rule. It was as much an arab civil war as a genuine independence revolt and different arab factions devoted as much effort to killing each other as they did killing the British. More importantly for the zionists there were many attacks on Jewish settlers, mainly sniping. It was initially considered desirable to not respond in an aggressive manner, as retaliation would only inflame the situation, and as it was clear the British were going to be successful in crushing the revolt it was thought best to just let them do it. This policy was known as ‘havlaga’ (restraint). The policy was unilaterally abandoned by the Irgun who initiated a wave of massive bombs placed in public places, and at the same time a campaign directed at buses. Morris comments that this introduced a new dimension into the conflict as it was a major escalation and worsening from the type of terrorism both sides had previously perpetrated. The attacks weren’t targeted at particular individuals, they were simply indiscriminate bombings designed to kill random arabs. The first Haifa market bombing for instance was two large milk cans full of TNT just being left in the middle of the crowded market resulting in 73 dead and wounded. So to answer your question no the attacks per Morris had no strategic value but were random slaughter of random passerbys or in your analogy gang warfare.
Cant give you a percentage, and not sure its a meaningful question. Once an organisation gets into the business of repeated major terrorist attacks against civilians are they any less a terrorist organisation if they also commit guerilla attacks? Hizbullah and Fatah and possibly even Hamas are ‘only’ guerillas ‘in the main’ if we play that game. Seems to me a mathematical exercise that overlooks the enormity of what they have done.
Jewish leadership wasn’t monolithic, and Morris does point out that many Jewish leaders were appalled by the Irgun’s atrocities. But the Irgun leadership most certainly had a systematic policy of committing atrocities.
Your source attacking Morris btw is from a right-wing organisation staffed by neo-conservatives such as William Kristol, Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes that states on its ‘About the Forum’ page that its objective is “to promote American interests in the Middle East”. Its a partisan body with an agenda not one interested in objective scholarship.
Despite the hatchet job from your cite, Morris comes across to me as a serious historian, who presents a much more nuanced view then your source would indicate. He is also perhaps rather less sympathetic to the Palestinians then you might imagine and Palestinian “all or nothing” intransigence is one of the themes of his second book (Righteous Victims) and possibly gave rise to its title.
Yep. My own view is that the sum total of human misery would have been less if instead of the hopeless romanticism of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine it had been placed in say Tasmania. Life for Israelis could have been pretty sweet there. But what’s done is done. I’d like to see Israel unilaterally withdraw from the occupied territories and wall itself up. I dont imagine it will magically bring peace but it will at least eliminate an ongoing catalyst and major injustice.
I admit my mistake and agree that it is a bad analogy, and it is my fault for forgetting that Britain eventually did admit that they received warning of the bombing beforehand after denying it for decades. However, one doesn’t have to look very far to find the IRA’s actions described as terrorism, though as always one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. To me at least though, providing prior warning doesn’t completely absolve the consequences of civilian casualties, as well as casualties whose entire action as combatants amounted to being government secretaries.
True, Ben-Gurion went as far as to declare that the Irgun was “the enemy of the Jewish people,” though he did benefit from their actions whether he approved of them or not. I do however give him the benefit of the doubt for having the courage to publicly deplore their actions.
You have my absolute agreement on this. The sooner the Palestinian leadership pulls its collective head out of its ass and does so, the better. Had they chosen the path of non-violent opposition thirty-some years ago, the region would be a much better place today.
Though sadly I don’t see much chance of it happening, my best wishes to all that the New Year will bring an improvement to the situation and peace to all.
This is absolutely awful!
Polite respectful concession of points from “both sides” as data are presented? What kind of conversation about Israel and Palestine is this?!
Seems like the Irgun did more terrorism than I had appreciated. Their responses to Arab attacks against Jews did include inexcusable henious acts of violence against those uninvolved.
Seems like a fair amount of early Jewish leadership preferred a policy of restraint against Arab attacks and fought against those who used terroristic methods. Ben-Gurion was among those who fought against the use of terror. Some may question his motivations as political rather than heartfelt, but he did work to contain them nevertheless. Some Jewish leadership just looked the other way at best however. And Ben-Gurion was no angel either. Some of his decisions were ugly ones too.
Under no stretch of the imagination was terror use in the 1920’s to 40’s a one sided affair. Before then history is more replete with unilateral Arab attacks against Jews. Although can go much farther back if one accepts Torah as a historical document and find Bible stories that revered terroristic techniques.
And most of us agree that any protrayal of Israel as a criminal terrorist nation against an innocent group of Palestinians just defending their rights is a bit simplistic and that many Palestinian tactics today are counterproductive to actually getting a functional country.
Hey, if a thread on this conflict can produce this kind of consensus, then maybe progress torwards peace in the region can occur this year!
Funny one that… I can just imagine the state of Tasmania lobby for, and getting, 3 billion US Dollars a year in aid! Hah!
Anyways, yes, the walling up option is the only way to go, it seems to me - for now. A bit like the East and West Germany scenario - for about 50 years I’d say. Neither side should be expected to leave, and neither side should be expected to allow themselves to further security encroachments - so Isreal should merely go back to the 1967 borders and simply lock herself up from the bad guys for 50 years. If, after that 50 years, the Palestinians can show no discernible progress in terms of civil institutions and human rights and industrial capacity, ultimately no one will be to blame but themselves.
Almost everyone agrees that Israel walling itself up and withdrawing will be a good thing. Many agree that the security fence, which will enclose 10-15% of the West Bank according to current maps, is a near enough starting point for this.
But I predict that this will just mean criticism for Israel will shift to a new thing. Even after a two-state solution, Israel is too convenient a scapegoat to toss aside. So, do you see Israel being criticized for
(a) Whatever scraps of lands it still occupies, even if it eventually swaps land east of the Green Line to make up for it, as the Geneva Accord proposes
(b) The fence itself, saying that disengagement is illegal or unhumanistic
© Relations with the new State of Palestine
(d) Continued insistence that it is Israel’s responsibility to fully repatriate all refugees into Israel proper
(e) Something else entirely – white slave trade, Russian mafia connections, Arab Israeli civil rights, etc.
or do you see Everyone Living Happily Ever After?
I see (b) happening – we already see it in the Arab press, the UN General Assembly, and several European media sources. This, coupled with clinging to (d), which is something Palestinian moderates have given up on. I see a movement arising which will call for the reunification of Palestine, creating a happy multicultural state where everyone will live in harmony, despite all history to the contrary.
Edwino,
The Fence is not a solution, it is a Band Aid. It may give better security but it does not give peace. The hope is that with security a real peace, perhaps along the lines of the Geneva accords and more (all the real issues that states with permeable borders must deal with) can be agreed upon. But it will be awhile. Israel will be roundly attacked for not exactly following the Green line. And insofar as Sharon goes needlessly without regard to the effect on Palestinian towns he will give them justification. The bizzare argument that cutting off Palestinians from jobs in Israel and from Israeli investment is inhumane will be made. The Right to Return will be a continued insistence. Until peace is made. Then more mature arguments about interstate relations and unequal treatment of Arab Israeli citizens will come up. Israel will fight amongst itself over how to balance secularism with a Jewish identity and a large Arab minority.
Happy ever after? Nah. But eventually getting to a point where different difficult issues can be addressed, ones that are on hold til such a future time as peace exists.
Peace takes two.
Seperation can be done by one. Israel is just choosing the least bad option that it has available.
One not so minor point about this from a PR perspective. A couple of years after this is carried out, if Palestine is an independent state, it changes the dispute from one of occupation to a mere border dispute. Under those circumstances, Israel can go back to winning the PR war the way it did prior to 1967.