Again you have offered no proofs that my contentions are unreasonable let alone "preposterous".

Let me ask you point blank. Why do you think the countries who voted for partition did so? And why do you think that way?

Are you saying that the Jews who established settlements in Israel were conquerors? You already admitted that much of the land was sold to them!

Are you saying that the reason arabs have been out to destroy Israel is not do to religious hatred? If that's not the reason, then what do you think it is and why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Again you have offered no proofs that my contentions are unreasonable let alone "preposterous".

Let me ask you point blank. Why do you think the countries who voted for partition did so? And why do you think that way?

Are you saying that the Jews who established settlements in Israel were conquerors? You already admitted that much of the land was sold to them!

Are you saying that the reason arabs have been out to destroy Israel is not do to religious hatred? If that's not the reason, then what do you think it is and why?

---

The Hebrews, as a British colony, won their independence just as Americans won theirs; no one gave either a snow balls chance in hell- they each threw the British out against all odds. To say that either was given anything would be a gross misrepresentation of fact. The UN has no authority to grant anything beyond recognition. So the reason why any country voted for recognition is moot.

No, I am not suggesting the Hebrew came as conquerors. I am flatly stating that the colonist who came to America did not come as conquerors, any more that the Hebrews did. In both cases they came as settlers of land- farmers for the most part.


Jews and the inhabitants of Palestine lived as neighbors for 5 thousand years; so no, religious hatred came with the British.

EDIT: As I said, your premise is wrong, and now I see why: It is based on the false assumption that Israel was established by the UN and not by the effort of the Jews.

Boy do you have a twisted view of history. While its true that not all colonists of America came here with the thought of conquest, some did not consider living peacefully with the natives. But the shame of America's treatment of native Americans is not from the initial colonization, but the settlement of the west.

Palestine was not a British colony in the same way that India or the US was, it was a protectorate left over from WW I ans the dissolution of the Ottoman empire.

And yes all the UN granted was recognition, but you seem to have a false idea of the importance of that recognition. Without it there probably would not be a State of Israel.

I'm not, in anyway, trying to diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees in fighting for, both militarily and politically, the establishment of an Israeli state. But, unlike you, I recognize that there were other factors that contributed. If you want to ignore those factors, be my guest, but I won't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Boy do you have a twisted view of history. While its true that not all colonists of America came here with the thought of conquest, some did not consider living peacefully with the natives. But the shame of America's treatment of native Americans is not from the initial colonization, but the settlement of the west.

Palestine was not a British colony in the same way that India or the US was, it was a protectorate left over from WW I ans the dissolution of the Ottoman empire.

And yes all the UN granted was recognition, but you seem to have a false idea of the importance of that recognition. Without it there probably would not be a State of Israel.

I'm not, in anyway, trying to diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees in fighting for, both militarily and politically, the establishment of an Israeli state. But, unlike you, I recognize that there were other factors that contributed. If you want to ignore those factors, be my guest, but I won't.

---

I’ll not get into the anti-American sham of the shame of America's treatment of native Americans, it is too far off topic. Whatever the case, it has nothing to do with the topic of the establishment of an Israeli state, or America.
I know you’re not trying to “…diminish the efforts of the zionists and other refugees”. You just ignore them completely by attributing the establishment of the State of Israel to the pity of the UN.

Thank you for the conversation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Finally, you have to be kidding, a terrorist is a terrorist no matter what side they fight on. Yes, the Irgun were fighting for jewish freedom and a jewish state. But they did it by bombing both military and civilian targets. That's terrorism!

---

Whoops!! I agreed with you 100% right up until this statement, Scott.

The bombing of the King David Hotel, which is what you are referring to, was not a terrorist act for several reasons.

1) The King David Hotel was a military and government installation, and thus a legitimate military target.

2) There was a bomb-threat warning called before the bomb went off. There was ample opportunity to evacuate the entire installation of all civilian and military personnel. Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and he had insisted that nobody leave the building. A sepperate warning was sent at the same time to the French consulate and another to the Palestine Post in an effort to make sure that the British would listen to the warning. They didn't.

3) After placing the bombs, the Irgun men quickly escaped and detonated a small explosive in the street outside the hotel to keep passers-by away from the area. The Arab workers in the kitchen were told to flee and they did. At all levels, the Irgun attampted to minimalize casualties, including British military casualties and casualties among the Arab civilian population.

The bombing, therefore, does not constitute a terrorist attack. It was political violence, it was guerrilla warfare, and if whoever planted the bomb had been caught, they could have been tried as unlawful combatants for not being in uniform as they fought. But it wasn't TERRORISM.

Elliot

Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

---

Hello Scott:

While we have certainly had some differences of opinion and I hope that in no way influences future dialogue. I think we wore out our arguments on the previous differences.

That said I have a question.

Isn’t what you say here, “They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.” the very essence of the difference between a terrorist action and guerrilla action?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dark_crow

While we have certainly had some differences of opinion and I hope that in no way influences future dialogue. I think we wore out our arguments on the previous differences.

That said I have a question.

Isn’t what you say here, “They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.” the very essence of the difference between a terrorist action and guerrilla action?

---

Well, I appreciate the sentiment.

And no, I don't think that is the difference. I still feel that they Irgun was willing to go beyond what I would consider guerilla actions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Yes the attack on the King David is the most well-known of the Irgun's activities, but it was far from the only one. Doing some more research, confirms, in my mind, that the Irgun did commit terrorist acts in their fight for Israel's freedom. As terroists go, however, that were a lot more moralistic then the terrorists of today. They did have a code of conduct meant to limit civilian casualties.

---

I'm sorry, Scott, but I have to disagree with you yet again. In fact, if anything, the Irgun was the victim of terrorism by its own "allies" in Hagganah. The "Saison" (Hunting Season) in which approximately 1,000 members of Irgun and Lechi were arrested by Haganah and turned over to the British for "justice" and the sinking of the Altalena by Hagganah were clearly unprovoked attacks against them, and probably border on terrorism. But that is arguable.

As a general rule, Irgun attacked police, military and government targets under the British Mandate. They fought against restrictions to Jewish immigration. There are very few, if any, attacks by Irgun that can be argued to have been against civilian targets. The only one I can come up with is Deir Yassin (currently called Har Nof). But what most reports fail to note is that there were Iraqi military forces stationed in Deir Yassin, which made the village a legitimate military target. Furthermore, breaking Deir Yassin was absolutely necessary to break the siege of Western Jerusalem, since Deitr Yassin covered the only road into and out of Western Jerusalem at the time. This made attacking the village of Deir Yassin to relive the road absolutely critical from the military perspective. And finally, witnesses (including Arab witnesses) have stated that most of the deaths in Deir Yassin were not the result of Irgun & Lechi targeting civillians, but rather collateral casualties as a result of ongoing combat operations. All claims of rapes and torture of civillians and such have been dismissed as fabrications. And even the number of casualties reported (usually around 250) has now been found to have been exaggerated to make the Israelis look bad... the actual number of dead is somewhere between 107 and 120 according to a study published in 1987 by Bir Zeit University (a Paletinian University located near Ramallah). So what we have here is an attack that some claim was a terrorist act, but which was done because of military necessity, and in a way in which as much as possible was done to limit civilian casualties. I don't call that terrorism.

So I have yet to find a single non-contravercial case of terrorism performed by Irgun. Can you provide me with any such case where there is clear proof that terrorism by Irgun forces took place during the 1948 war or earlier?

Elliot

Well I'm not going to belabor the point. Mainly because I don't have the time to research this thoroughly enough.

I do remember that when Begin became PM, there were a lot hoopla about his alleged terrorist activities with the Irgun. If one googles Menachim Begin terrorism, there are a lot of hits. Though I was especially amused by the one that purported to be a scholarly journal about jewish issues, but seemed clearly being used to do a hatchet job on jews.

P.S. to Dark Crow. I'm curious as to what your background is here. Have you lived in Israel or are you an Israeli? I'm not asking to show bias, just curious because your knowledge of events seems to be very in depth.

Comments on this post

Morganite agrees: There are those who say that the State of Israel was a reward for terrorism. Do you have any thoughts about that?


Yes, it's a pack of baloney.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottGem

Comments on this post

Morganite agrees: There are those who say that the State of Israel was a reward for terrorism. Do you have any thoughts about that?


Yes, its a pack of baloney.

---

It seem to me that if we were to allow that Israel became a State as a reward for terrorism, it would appear to follow that all States were a reward for terrorism, which would dilute the concept of terrorism to a common violence.

We could have course discard the slippery concept of terrorism in general, and just stick with human rights violations. After all, Walter Laqueur, in 1999, counted over 100 definitions and concluded that the "only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence".
Terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The most often use of the term appears in a Pejorative sense.

P.S. I’m neither Israeli nor Jewish; I’m just a simple Philosopher who enjoys History.

Anti-British following here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jiser

Anti-British following here?

---

Against the famine and the Crown

I rebelled, they shot me down:)

I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but I just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually referring to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture that's being fulfill

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marily

I know that this does not fit in anywhere concerning politics but i just had the urge of mentioning it. ' Did all of you know that the parable of the fig tree in the bible is actually refering to Israel? The answer to this post is only scripture thats being fulfill

---

So you support Israel because you believe its existence is fulfilling scripture. From that it appears to follow that you believe you are helping God with his plan?

I never said that I support Israel, all I said was that scripture is being fulfill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marily

I never said that i support Israel, all i said was that scripture is being fulfill.

---

You responded to a Question, “Why support Israel”? If you are not answering the question why are you positing on this Board?

Spot on excon spot on!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marily

Spot on excon spot on !!!

---

As your signature says, “but God doesn't give merits on good intensions”-especially when your behavior dissuades potential converts rather than draws them towards good Christian behavior.


You are not spreading the Gospel, you just have that intention

Edit: If you want to discuss the parable pose an appropriate question on a new thread..