Jerusalem's hotel with terrorism history to greet Bush

[Scurrilous]

US president to say in King David Hotel, previously blown up by Jewish terrorist Irgun militia.

<snip>

"Jerusalem's famed King David Hotel, which will host US President George W. Bush on his landmark visit this week to Israel and the Palestinian territories, is pulling out all the stops.

Awaiting Bush in his suite -- reportedly costing 2,600 dollars a night -- will be a terry bathrobe embroidered with his name, the Maariv daily quoted hotel sources as saying.

His secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, will also receive a similar garment.

Bush joins a long line of world leaders, dignitaries and celebrities to stay at the decades-old King David with its dramatic views over the domes, minarets, and spires of Jerusalem's Old City.

The hotel's place in history is assured in a city steeped in centuries of confrontation. For decades it has been at the heart of the Middle East conflict."

more


From the archives:

British Anger at Jewish Act of Terror Celebration

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=138399

[Parche]

1. Give Condoloser

A gold plated front tooth..................:hi:

[Tom Joad]

2. the originators of MidEast terror blew up the hotel

Eventually they founded Israel.

I suppose since they will be servicing olmert, Rice and Bush won't have much time for each other.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Errr excuse me...

Israel was *not* founded by the Stern Gang. If anything, their actions probably impeded statehood.

And while the Stern Gang were a nasty bunch of terrorists, they hardly *originated* terror in the MidEast. That had been going on for centuries, on many sides, not least at the hands of the Christian Europaean Crusaders.

[msmcghee]

5. Yeah, but if it wasn't for the Jews spreading anti-Muslim hatred . .

. . while in exile in all those European countries during the middle ages - the Christians never would have been tricked into fighting the war against the Arabs for them.

:sarcasm:

[kayecy]

10. Not founded by the Stern Gang?

Correct - but it did vote to make a Stern Gang leader (Shamir) a prime minister.

[LeftishBrit]

15. Shamir was a very bad and right-wing leader IMO...

but you can't really say his election had much to do with the founding of Israel. He was elected in 1983, 35 years after Israel was founded.

[kayecy]

17. True but it says a lot about ..........

True, but it says a lot about how the 1983 and probably 2008 Israeli voter thinks about terrorism. (Remember tho old adage - A terrorist is the other guy's hero?)

[Shaktimaan]

27. I don't know about that.

Shamir and Begin were terrorists but they were also leaders. Leaders who ceased terrorism for the best interests of the state of Israel, when they were called upon to do so. Sho while they did commit terrorism early in their lives, it was hardly the thing that defined their identities. Israel is hardly the only country whose politicians committed war crimes when they were in the army. The US has plenty. The thinking is not so much that the public condones the past actions of these people, but rather that they try to place them in context with everything else they've done with their lives. There is a difference between a man who kills during wartime when he feels he must, even if it is terrorism, and the man who makes killing his stock in trade. Begin is not Ahmed Yassin after all.

Israel was willing to negotiate with Arafat and respect him as the leader of the Palestinian people, despite his own terrorist past. It doesn't mean they condone his past actions, but that they support his turn away from them.

[kayecy]

30. The US has plenty of terrorist leaders?????

Israel is hardly the only country whose politicians committed war crimes when they were in the army. The US has plenty.

In the army, yes. As leader of a terrorist group - I don't think so.

Have I missed something? Shamir and Begin were terrorist leaders under occupation in pretty much the same way as Araft and Yassin were.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. He was a fair bit more than a very bad and RW leader...

The man was a terrorist, after all...

[LeftishBrit]

19. He was a terrorist in the 1940s and a very bad and RW leader in the 80s!

Begin was also a terrorist in the 1940s, and an RW leader in the 70s, but he had SOME redeeming features (the Camp David agreement!). Shamir had none that I can see. Nonetheless, his election had little to do with the early founding of Israel. Many of his voters were not even born in 1948.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I've been reading about Begin and Camp David today...

I don't think too much credit can be given to him for that. Any Israeli leader (apart from Golda Meir) would have gone for that agreement. The one person in it all who truly stood head and shoulders above the others and really was a visionary and a statesman was Sadat...

[LeftishBrit]

22. I doubt that Netanyahu, for example, would have agreed to it (I could be wrong)

It's difficult to predict what any leader will do in advance.

I agree about Sadat's role, especially as he must have realized he was risking his life. He and later Rabin paid the ultimate price for doing something toward peace.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. The Stern Gang weren't the only group involved...

While the Stern Gang played a part in carrying out the attack, they were working together with the Irgun, and the order to attack the hotel came from one of the Haganah leaders....

[eyl]

60. self-delete n/t

[Lurking Dem]

6. "Originators of MidEast terror?"

Where does the word "assassin" come from again?

[Shaktimaan]

25. wow, your views just keep getting more and more extremist.

So, the JEWS invented ME terrorism? Just... wow.

What was the first terrorist attack in the history of the Middle East then, in your opinion? Was it perpetuated by Zionists or were you referring to the Jewish people in general as "the originators of MidEast terror?"

I tend to think of terrorism as something that pre-dates history. It's a pretty old tactic. But I don't doubt that you truly believe nothing could be considered terrorism until the Zionists did it. It's not the act, after all, right Tom? It's who perpetuates it. :sarcasm:

[Englander]

64. Open goal -

Your views couldn't get any more extremist. (sic). :)

[Shaktimaan]

68. whose? Mine?

[pelsar]

66. getting interesting around here..

i actually like when the true beliefs come out....when the mantra of "non violence" turns out to be conditional, when the definition of israel becomes a "colonialist racist state" and now the "zionists" are the originators of the mideast violence......

well, sure leaves me speechless, knowing that my relatives are not just racists but the originators of the terrorism in the middle east.....(and these are socialists)

[Violet_Crumble]

71. Just curious, but do you find views that support celebrating the bombing to be extremist?

Also, I still don't know what definition of terrorism yr using. I posted one and asked yr opinion of it further down in this thread, and I would be interested in seeing yr reply...

[cali]

33. what?

that's simply not true. And it's simplisitic to a ridiculous degree. As LB noted those responsible did NOT found Israel, nor were they the origninators of terror in the ME. Talk about letting your bias proudly fly.

not a surprise.

[Englander]

72. Henry Ford Never Envisioned This

Henry Ford Never Envisioned This:
A Review of Mike Davis' Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb (Verso 2007)
by Ron Jacobs

April 02, 2007

There's a novel by Russian author Ilya Ehrenburg titled The Life of the Automobile that chronicles humanity's relationship with that form of transportation. As any critical observer knows (whether they drive a car or not) the automobile has forever changed the world in which we live, for better and worse. This is an essential point of Ehlenburg's witty and underhandedly sarcastic novel. Mike Davis's newest offering, Buda's Wagon: A Brief History of the Car Bomb, could be considered a bloody sequel to Ehlenburg's novel. It is, of course, not a novel but a disheartening recitation of incident after murderous incident of death and mayhem caused by lots of explosives packed into automobiles by numerous different groups with just as many agendas.

The title is taken from the carriage bomb set off by the anarchist Marco Buda on Wall Street in protest of the arrest of Sacco and Vanzetti. According to Davis, this bomb was the genesis of the "poor man's air force"--a weapon that killed as indiscriminately as the explosives dropped from airplanes in almost every war since the Wright Brothers. The comparison between air war and car bombs is not made lightly here. Indeed, Davis refers to the morality involved in both and constantly reminds the reader of the moral high ground car bombing removes from a group claiming to fight for justice. At the same time, he asks the reader why the same moral outrage the media reserves for car bombings is not displayed when a superpower carpet bombs an opponent with considerably less resource: the US Air Force versus Vietnam, for example.

In what is certain to be a revelation for many supporters of the state of Israel, Davis explains the car bomb's modern origins in the tactics of the Zionist terrorists known as the Stern Gang. This group, composed of men-some who went on to help rule Israel--was ruthless in its application of car bombs. They genuinely did not seem to care who died in the explosions they caused, although they preferred them to be Arab. It was the success of their terror campaign that helped "cleanse" Palestine of Palestinians so that Israelis could take the lands. The Stern Gang's success would also prove to cause what we nowadays call blowback. Indeed, car bombs set off in civilian spaces have been a favorite tactic of the Palestinian resistance to Israel ever since its founding. Davis relates this story, too.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=12474

[Howardx]

3. interesting choice of hotel!

considering its past.

[henank]

8. It's nothing to do with the hotel's "past"

The King David Hotel is THE hotel in Israel, the top of the creme de la creme. 5 star plus. It's where all important diplomatic guests stay. It's beautiful and well run. End of story.

No conspiracy theory, no winking at "terrorism", no secret code. Just a beautiful hotel.

[aranthus]

7. It wasn't a terror attack

Obviously, the British didn't like it; it was their soldiers who were killed. That doesn't make it a terror attack, no matter what the British said and say. I also know that civilians were killed. That doesn't make it a terror attack either. The King David Hotel was the headquarters of the British military in Palestine, and that is the part of the hotel that was attacked. An attack on a military target in time of war (including a guerrilla war to eject a foreign occupation) is not terrorism. Also, the purpose of the attack was to disrupt the British military, and not simply to kill people, which is the sine qua non of terrorism. The charge of terrorism in this case is just propaganda.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. Great. Another fan of the 'it's not terrorism if I support it' routine...

The tortured attempt in yr post to write off what was one of the first instances of modern political terrorism is the only propaganda that's jumping out...

The Stern Gang was a terrorist group every bit as much as the more modern groups nowadays. The hotel was the headquarters of the British govt in Palestine, and what was attacked was a building housing a lot of civilians which wasn't a military base, but where administrative day to day running of things was carried out. If they wanted to disrupt the British military they should have gone and attacked an actual military base....

As for the ridiculous claim that it's not terrorism if the intent is not simply to kill people, what do you think terrorism is? Or were suicide bombings not terrorism? According to yr logic they wouldn't be as the intent was not simply to kill people, but to disrupt the Israeli govt. Gosh, using that argument of yrs, we could sit here and pretty much rule out most IRA attacks in England as not being terrorism....

[Shaktimaan]

26. This is interesting.

To determine whether or not it was terrorism we really have to define exactly what terrorism is. This attack was not the same as recent suicide bombing or qassam attacks at all, and I think it is ambiguous as to whether or not it qualifies as "terrorism" because of both the Irgun's motives and the details of the event.

First off, it wasn't a non-military building. The hotel at the time being used as the base for the British Secretariat, the military command and a branch of the Criminal Investigation Division. So in terms of it being a military target, it certainly qualified.

Next, the intent was not, as you say, "not simply to kill people," as that implies killing people WAS one of several goals. I would agree that any plan which includes killing civilians qualifies as terrorism. But I'm not so sure that we can consider an event terrorism unless said killing is, in fact, at least one of the objectives. If the attack specifically tries to limit and/or prevent any casualties, and only seeks to inflict material damage, does it still qualify as terrorism? Does the answer change if the attacker's precautions fail, as happened in this case, and many civilians are unintentionally killed?

It's an important distinction because the King David bombers did take several precautions to try and limit, (if not eliminate) casualties. So killing people was NOT one of their goals, it was something they actively tried to avoid. The plan's tactics centered around preventing casualties, which is generally speaking, the exact opposite of terrorism.

A warning message was delivered to the telephone operator of the King David Hotel before the attack and also delivered to the French consulate and the Palestine Post newspaper. According to Irgun sources, the message read "I am speaking on behalf of the Hebrew underground. We have placed an explosive device in the hotel. Evacuate it at once - you have been warned."

Irgun representatives have always claimed that the warning was given well in advance so that adequate time was available to evacuate the hotel. Menachem Begin writes (p. 221, The Revolt, <1951> ed.) that the telephone message was delivered 25 - 27 minutes before the explosion. The British authorities denied for many years that there had been a warning at all, but the leaking of the internal police report on the bombing during the 1970s proved that a warning had indeed been received. However, the report stated that the warning was only just being delivered to the officer in charge as the bomb went off (Bethell). According to Begin, the British had been warned of the bombing but refused to evacuate the building because "We don't take orders from the Jews" <3>. However, according to Shmuel Katz, in his book Days of Fire, "The Haganah radio later broadcast a report that on receiving the warning Sir John Shaw, the Chief Secretary of the British administration, had said: "I give orders here. I don't take orders from Jews," and that he had insisted that nobody leave the building. Katz says that this version may be dismissed because it probably developed from the fact that while some of Shaw's close colleagues and subordinates were killed, he himself was unscathed, and gained credence when Shaw was transferred from Palestine a month later. It is more likely that the British did not take the warning seriously because they did not believe Etzel could infiltrate their HQ that was guarded so well.

The French Consulate did open their windows from fear of a possible blast, and the operator of the Palestine Post called the police after the warning. When the bombing occurred, there were already several reporters in the area because of the leaked warning.

<snip>

Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the British did not evacuate and so there were casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy. One of the dead was Jewish and Etzel sympathizer Yulius Jacobs.

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

[breakaleg]

28. It's so interesting that anyone will actually attempt to defend this act. nt

[Shaktimaan]

29. I've yet to see anyone defend it though.

Discussing whether or not this act qualifies as "terrorism" is hardly the equivalent of endorsing it.

I hope that isn't what you're accusing me of, which would be not only intellectually dishonest but a truly disgusting attempt at shutting down discourse you disagree with.

[breakaleg]

31. Defend may have been the wrong word. But it does seem you are trying to play down what it was.

It's as if, Palestinians participate exclusively in terror attacks and Israel is always and only ever, defending themselves.

[Shaktimaan]

34. No, I am not trying to play it down.

But I am trying to accurately portray what it was. It certainly wasn't self-defense, I am not insinuating that it was. But just because the attack was morally reprehensible and had such a hideous outcome does not mean that it was terrorism. It's important to talk about this history honestly, especially when describing events we vehemently oppose.

The US legal system has different levels of murder for a reason. In both manslaughter and first degree murder the result is the same, a dead individual. But the law recognizes that a moral difference exists between someone who kills in a purposeful and planned manner and one who does so out of negligence or accident.

The King David Hotel bombing was wrong, and many people died as a result. But it was not nearly as wrong as an event like the Passover Massacre during the second intifada. I do not say so because one was perpetuated by Jews and the other by Arabs. I say so because in the first example there was an attempt to avoid death while in the latter casualties were maximized as much as possible. There is no ethical comparison. One is tragic, the other evil.

There are examples of such evil on the side of Jews as well. Look at Baruch Goldstein. He is no less evil than any suicide bomber. I am sorry if you find it distasteful that there are so many fewer examples of terrorism like this perpetuated by Jews as opposed to Arabs. But that is not because anyone is using a double standard to evaluate the events. There just truly are far fewer instances of Jewish terrorism than Arab.

[breakaleg]

35. I'm sorry, but making a phone call warning of a bombing is not enough of an effort to

minimize casualties. Although giving warnings of impending attacks seems to be Israel's way of letting itself off the hook. Isn't that what they do when they carry out assassinations in the OT?

Very recently, there was a case of two Israelis murdered in the OT. That was called terrorism. But the attack that followed by the illegal settlers in the area, in which they literally terrorized the entire town in retribution was somehow not terrorism. You see, it's all a little too convenient for my taste.

[Shaktimaan]

36. letting itself off what hook?

In the Hotel bombing, the perpetrators did it during a time when there would be less people there, they detonated a smaller explosive in the lobby first to make sure no one would enter and they gave a warning to evacuate. Since the French embassy heeded the warning and reporters were on the scene I would say they did a reasonable job of trying to limit casualties. Compare this with Hamas' practice of setting off two suicide bombs. One initial one and a second to hit the rescue workers who arrive on the scene afterwards. Do you see the difference?

I don't know about the case in the OT you speak of. During the retribution, how many Palestinians were killed?

Not every example of people destroying property qualifies as terrorism. Would you say that all of those Palestinian youths who throw rocks at cars are terrorists? I wouldn't. Even though people have died as a result, I do not think rock throwing qualifies. Neither would a riot. I don't think the riots following Sharon's visit to the temple mount were examples of terrorism, do you?

What exactly is your definition of terrorism?

[breakaleg]

42. You are missing the point. They set off a bomb!! Who gives a shit if they phoned first or "timed"

it such that "less people" would be there. Bombs kill people.

[Shaktimaan]

49. I'm not missing any point.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are drawing a moral equivalence between modern Palestinian terrorism and this particular bombing, right? I'll explain why there is a tremendous difference between the two.

"Who gives a shit if they phoned first or "timed" it such that "less people" would be there. Bombs kill people."

Yes, they do kill people. Which is precisely why it is important that they took precautions to try and prevent casualties. That doesn't make setting off a bomb OK, especially if there's a fuck-up and 91 people die as a result. The Irgun is responsible for those deaths, they caused them. No one questions that.

But there's a simple difference that's impossible to escape from. The Hotel bombing deaths were an unintended consequence that the Irgun did not want and took pains to avoid. Obviously they did not try hard enough, but that's besides the point I'm making here. Hamas, by comparison, takes pains to maximize the death tolls. Setting off a bomb to destroy property and make a political statement is not the same thing as setting off a bomb to try and kill innocent people.

It's the difference between manslaughter and murder. Motive and actions matter, both in terms of ethics and the law. And in practical terms there's a big difference in the amount of suffering caused. If the Irgun had a Hamas motive instead of their own and instead tried to bomb the hotel in order to kill as many people as possible then the death toll would probably be far higher than 91. Just as IDF precautions to limit civilian casualties are anything but foolproof, no one would say that they are irrelevant or pointless.

Do you honestly not see the difference between groups who see deaths as a success and those who see them as a tragedy?

[breakaleg]

50. A common theme around here is

that if someone is going to set off some form of arms that have the ability to kill a lot of people, then giving a warning of some kind somehow lessons their responsibility. I don't buy that when it's put forth as a defense for the IDF, nor do I buy it in this case.

If a guy were going to rob a bank with a gun, and that gun accidentally went off, he'd be charged with murder. Why? Because carrying a gun into that situation, it is foreseeable that it could kill someone. I think this scenario is closer to what goes on in Israel. You set off bombs, or you fire onto an apartment building, it's foreseeable, even likely, that civilians will get hurt. The intent happened when they went ahead with the assault.

My point here, is that it seems because of the "we tried to warn them" excuse, no matter how many civilians are killed by Israel, it's never intentional and therefore always "less" than what is done by the other side.

[pelsar]

51. a really stretched scenario.

the IDF f a guy were going to rob a bank with a gun, and that gun accidentally went off, he'd be charged with murder

the comparable jihadnikim: going into a bank with a machine gun, and the second he walks in the door, opens up and shoots everybody, than walks over to the wounded and kills them as well.....

____

those two events are hardly comparable..... (even though your bank scenario isnt perfect)

[breakaleg]

53. I was thinking more along

the lines of the IDF dropping a bomb on an apartment building. But hey, you knew that.

[pelsar]

54. to go back to your original comment..

we believe that even in war its best to keep the reduction of people killed and hurt to a minimum when ever possible.....those on the other side simply believe the opposite. The endless attempts to show just how "evil" we are because we are imperfect, our weapons are imperfect our decisions imperfect, is shown here to the point of the absurd...... and we do prefer our imperfect democracy as opposed to the alternative as its simply the best of the options available.

we drop bombs on apts,blow up bridges, bulldoze homes, close our borders, attack villages, assassinate people.....a very very long list.....it wont take much for us to stop it either, egypt and jordan proved just how easy it is......and that is what it comes down to.

[kayecy]

32. Was Begin 'saddened' by Deir Yassin????

Menachem Begin reportedly was very saddened and upset. He was angry that the British did not evacuate and so there were casualties, which was against the Irgun's policy

Was he 'very saddened and upset' after he commanded the Irgun at Deir Yassin?

[Douglas Carpenter]

37. the British were adamant that there was no warning:

"In particular they demanded the removal of the plaque that pays tribute to the Irgun, the Jewish resistance branch headed by Menachem Begin, the future Prime Minister, which carried out the attack on July 22, 1946.

The plaque presents as fact the Irgun’s claim that people died because the British ignored warning calls. “For reasons known only to the British, the hotel was not evacuated,” it states.

Mr McDonald and Dr Jenkins denied that the British had been warned, adding that even if they had “this does not absolve those who planted the bomb from responsibility for the deaths”. On Monday city officials agreed to remove the language deemed offensive from the blue sign hanging on the hotel’s gates, though that had not been done shortly before it was unveiled last night."

link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

.

[Shaktimaan]

38. refute

For decades the British denied they had been warned. In 1979, however, a member of the British Parliament introduced evidence that the Irgun had indeed issued the warning. He offered the testimony of a British officer who heard other officers in the King David Hotel bar joking about a Zionist threat to the headquarters. The officer who overheard the conversation immediately left the hotel and survived.

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/King_David.html

From your link, the British did not seem to have an issue with the amended version of the plaque. I don't see why the call would not have been made, considering we know that the other two warning calls, to the french consulate and the palestine post, had certainly occurred. All evidence seems to point to the fact that the call was made. The only thing indicating otherwise is a British denial, which would make sense considering that had the call been made to them, they bear much of the responsibility for the deaths.

The original wording:

The Hotel housed the Mandate Secretariat as well as the Army Headquarters. On July 1946 (sic) Irgun fighters at the order of the Hebrew Resistance Movement planted explosives in the basement. Warning phone calls had been made urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately. For reasons known only to the British the hotel was not evacuated and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded, and to the Irgun’s regret and dismay 91 persons were killed.

The amended version

. . .Warning phone calls had been made to the hotel, the Palestine Post and the French Consulate, urging the hotel’s occupants to leave immediately.

The hotel was not evacuated, and after 25 minutes the bombs exploded. The entire western wing was destroyed, and to the Irgun’s regret 92 persons were killed.

[msmcghee]

57. Maybe it's just me, but this seems pretty amazing .

. . Think about it. You have the choice to believe factual evidence from several independent sources with mutually corroborating stories that over time have become better connected and have never been refuted - or you can believe the British officers - even though an eye-witness who was there testified that they had purposely ignored the warning.

These are officers who, if it was true, would have been ethically if not legally responsible for 91 deaths of British citizens. These are officers who would have been disgraced and could have been court-marshaled or at least lost their military careers if they told the truth.

And you choose to believe the officers who had everything to gain and nothing to lose by lying.

But beyond the event itself and the lie, I'm sure the event colored British attitudes towards Israel and the Jews for many years after and probably resulted in hundreds of large and small decisions in Parliament and votes in the UN - and antisemitic attitudes toward Israel and the Jews - caused by those lies - that are probably still being felt today by some. And this was all caused by a self-serving lie that libeled the Jewish people at a time when they really needed as much help from the world as they could possibly get.

Who knows if there's a direct link but we do know that help never came from England. Instead the Brits trained, financed and provided the officers to lead the Trans-Jordanian army in their attacks on the new state of Israel just a few months later.

And instead of being outraged at the lies and the preventable cause of those deaths and the many hardships that were suffered by Israel as a result of the lie - which was caused the arrogant decision of the British officers on duty that night - you choose to condemn a group of Israelis for memorializing the event. An event that, despite the regrettable deaths, was a significant milestone in Israel's history.

I think one can learn as much about human nature in this forum as about history.

[Douglas Carpenter]

62. Mainstream Israelis do NOT celebrate this event. ONLY the rightwing

extremist, hardliners and rejectionist celebrate this event.

Perhaps I give ordinary Israelis some credit.

I don't personally have an opinion about exact details of the bombing or what warnings may have been given. I was just stating the British position. I have not investigated it enough to have a firm opinion.

All I know for sure is that David Ben-Gurion and the mainstream Zionist leadership at least publicly condemned it. Just as mainstream Israelis would condemn it today.

[Violet_Crumble]

58. What do you think of this definition of terrorism?

It's from a book called 'Global Terrorism' by James M. Lutz and Brenda J. Lutz. I have one or two minor quibbles with parts of it, but mostly it's one of the better definitions that I've seen:

Terrorism involves political aims and motives. It is violent or threatens violence. It is desinged to generate fear in a target audience that extends beyond the immediate victims of the violence. The violence is conducted by an identifiable organization. The violence involves a non-state actor or actors as either the perpetrator, the victim of the violence, or both. Finally, the acts of violence are designed to create power in situations in which power previously had been lacking (i.e. the violence attempts to enhance the power base of the organization undertaking the actions.

But I'm not so sure that we can consider an event terrorism unless said killing is, in fact, at least one of the objectives.

If that was the case, many past hijackings of planes wouldn't qualify as terrorism. In many of those cases, there's been no objective to kill the passengers, but to use them as bargaining chips to try to gain support or concessions for a political cause...

Given the history of the Irgun with its attacks on civilians and their clear intent to kill in order to advance their political goals, I could only think they were restrained and wanted to limit civilian casualties if I thought the same thing of the IRA and its tactics. The IRA used to give warnings before their attacks, but whether or not warnings are given isn't what makes something terrorism or not. Attacks on England carried out by the IRA were terrorism regardless of the warnings they gave. The same goes for the Irgun....

Did the King David Hotel qualify as a military target? I don't believe that administrative buildings like that do qualify as military targets. Of course having worked for Department of Defence here, I'd have a major issue with anyone arguing that the buildings I worked in were legitimate military targets and therefore if someone came along and blew the building up with me inside it, it wouldn't be terrorism. But here's two to think about when it comes to things like defence headquarters. Was the Pentagon a legitimate military target on Sept 11? If a Palestinian group were to ever blow up the Israeli defence headquarters would that be seen as terrorism or not?

[bemildred]

67. I gotta disagree with the bit about state and non-state actors.

It is perfectly possible to have terrorism between any two state or non-state actors. For instance terrorism against opposing populations is a common tactic in war. And in any case where political power is based on fear, some moiety of "terrorism" is at work.

But I really don't like the term at all, since it is used primarily as a propaganda term. Heck, frequently we cannot even get agreement on whether organized violence is "war" or a "police action", with the entailed legal requirements of each, so governments throw the terms around with abandon, keep the situation muddled, and do whatever they think is expedient today.

Terror is or has been used routinely by both sides in the I/P situation, for example.

In other words, I think arguments about definitions and principles are empty when the political actors and perpetrators are unprincipled and care little about consistency.

[aranthus]

40. Please don't read in things I didn't say

It's amazing how, if you challenge even a small aspect of the anti-Israel mantra, people accuse you of supporting all sorts of evil. So let's first deal with what I didn't say:

1. I didn't say that I supported the King David attack; only that it wasn't terrorism. You'll see another post in this thread where I was asked if Hamas attacks on Israeli soldiers is terrorism. I certainly don't support those attacks, but I consistently stated that they weren't terrorist attacks either.

2. I didn't say that the Stern Gang wasn't a terrorist group. I only discussed one incident. There had to have been hundreds, if not more. If people really wanted to prove that Stern was a terrorist group (as opposed to just scoring propaganda points with what appears to be a splashy example), they should have no trouble finding a view legitimate examples of Stern Gang terrorism.

Now for your critique of my position. The fact that the Hotel was not a military base is irrelevant. What matters is whether it was a military target. If you put a military headquarters in a hotel that makes it a legitimate target. Of course the Jews would want to disrupt the administrative headquarters of the the British military presence, including destroying the records the British had of the identities of Jewish militants. It would have been a prime target.

Second, suicide bombings obviously have as a larger purpose the disruption of the Israeli state. The terrorists do that, however, by attempting to indiscriminately kill as many people as possible. That is what makes it terrorism. The King David attack was not intended to kill as many people as possible, but to disrupt the British headquarters by physically damaging or destroying it.

[Violet_Crumble]

61. Since when has viewing the bombing as terrorism been part of an 'anti-Israel mantra'?

Yep, if someone believes that the bombing was terrorism, then it's all part of the 'anti-Israel mantra'. That's ridiculous, and involves believing that if someone doesn't share whatever yr idea of the definition of terrorism is, then their views aren't legitimate. I don't support any 'anti-Israel mantra' stuff, but thanks for accusing me of all sorts of evil. But my apologies to you if you do think that Palestinian attacks on Israeli military targets aren't terrorism, coz that's showing a consistancy that I do appreciate...

I'm reading yr second point as you believing that the Stern Gang were a terrorist group who committed more than a few acts of terrorism. I can very easily find a few legitimate examples of their terrorism, but there seems no point unless someone's arguing that they weren't terrorists....

Shakti got to the crux of things when he said to work out if something's terrorism we have to define exactly what terrorism is. What do you think of the definition I used in my reply to him in this post? http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x195529#195690

Indiscriminately killing people is not what makes something terrorism. There's many examples of terrorism that don't involve killing or even the intent to kill. What makes something terrorism is the use of, or the threat of violence by non-state actors to try to further their political goals.

Same goes for warning of an impending attack. The IRA used to warn of impending attacks, but those attacks were still terrorism. Which is why I think the many posts arguing about warnings are irrelevent to any discussion of whether or not the bombing was an act of terrorism. I did spot one poster unwittingly admit to what her motivation was for focusing on warnings - it's to blame someone else other than the perpetrators of the bombing for the casualties. Which when used in the context of IRA warnings, shows very clearly what a disgusting and distorted view that is. I'm not saying that anyone else but that poster has that motivation, of course. When it comes to the crunch the bottom line is if someone is worried about not causing harm to civilians then they really shouldn't go bombing buildings...

As to whether the King David Hotel was a legitimate military target, I've discussed that in the post I gave you a link to. I also happen to believe that Israeli defence headquarters in Israel isn't a legitimate military target due to the (if it's anything like over here) large number of civilians working in those buildings. And of course an argument over what is and isn't a legitimate military target opens up the question of whether settlements in the Occupied Territories are military targets. There's been quite a few people argue in this forum that the settlements are part of Israel's defense and have a military reason for being there. So, if I were to believe that bombing an administrative centre of govt like the King David Hotel was the bombing of a legitimate military target, then I'm going to have to change my mind about settlements and decide that they're also legitimate military targets. And seeing I don't believe the settlements are (I do believe that there are extremist and violent settlers in some of those settlements who by their own violence are combatants rather than civilians), and I don't believe the King David Hotel was either...

[LeftishBrit]

20. Would you also say that a Hamas attack on IDF targets that also risked and killed civilians...

was not terrorism?

I think the usual view is that any organized violent attack that risks civilian lives and is politically motivated, and not part of a formally declared war, is terrorism. It is worse if it targets civilians or is totally indiscriminate; but I don't think it has to do so, in order to be considered as terrorism.

[aranthus]

39. Yes I would, and I have

Any attack on a military target risks civilian casualties. I don't think you can limit the definition of military activity to formally declared wars (that leaves out Korea for example). Second, all war is politically motivated; that is, it is intended to compel an enemy to comply with one's will. So simply saying that the attack is politically motivated doesn't define the act enough. What political terrorism has been is a an attack directed at civilians which seeks to compel a government to do something simply because people are being killed. What makes terrorism evil is that it is killing for killings sake. Also most terrorists have goals that a reasonable person would not accede to but for the terror. Hamas, as the government of Palestinian Gaza, is at war with Israel (rightly or wrongly is irrelevant). If they attack Israeli soldiers, it's an act of war. To Israel's credit, when Hamas kidnapped Israeli soldiers last year, the Israelis didn't call it terrorism. Same for the kidnappings by Hezbollah. They correctly called them acts of war.

[Lurking Dem]

24. You can have terror attacks

against military targets.

See Beirut Barracks Bombing.

That said, their warning ahead of time and the fact they were only active for 2 years puts them way down on the list of things to have historical conniptions about.

[aranthus]

41. Now we get into a grey area

Was the attack on the barracks a terror attack? I am thinking about that. If it was, then it has to be because either there was something illegitimate about the organization that carried it out, or the attack was not part of a legitimate military operation (the perpetrators did not have a "right" to engage in war). While I hate what happened, if, for example, the attack was part of a legitimate guerrilla war to repel invaders, I don't think it would be terrorism

[Scurrilous]

9. Bush requests meeting with Netanyahu during visit

"US Ambassador to Israel, Richard Jones, called opposition leader MK Benjamin Netanyahu Wednesday morning on behalf of US President George Bush, in order to arrange a meeting between the two Thursday at the "King David" Hotel in Jerusalem."

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3492111,00.html

[kayecy]

11. Bring back the Stern Gang! n/t

[henank]

14. What are you implying?

That Netanyahu is a member of the Stern Gang? That he's a terrorist because he holds opposing views to yours?

[kayecy]

16. Sarcasm n/t

[Douglas Carpenter]

23. Netanyahu attended 2006 celebration of the bombing of Jerusalem Hotel

From The TimesJuly 20, 2006

British anger at terror celebration
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence

link: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

"The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.

They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.

Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.” "

link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article690085.ece

----

[msmcghee]

43. Are you aware of the Fourth of July . .

. . when we celebrate our Independence from the British whom we defeated in our Revolutionary War? I think some Brits are still a little miffed over that one too. But, when people use military force against a people (or support others who do that) - then people are likely to die on both sides.

Instead of being angry over this - maybe the Brits should have a holiday for their great victory helping the Arabs destroy the new state of Israel in 1948. (Google the Allenby Division)

Oh wait, they lost that one too.

[bemildred]

44. I tried googling "allenby division", and some variations, and got nothing.

Well, I got a lot of biographical and historical stuff about Allenby, but he died in 1936, so I assume you are not talking about him. But would appreciate it if you could provide a link to whatever it is you are talking about, as I am curious.

[msmcghee]

45. I'll check it out. I did pull that from memory only. So probably wrong. n/t

[msmcghee]

46. I found this:

Transjordan's Arab Legion was considered the most effective Arab force. Armed, trained and commanded by British officers, this 8,000–12,000 strong force was organised in four infantry/mechanised regiments supported by some 40 artillery pieces and 75 armoured cars. Until January 1948, it was reinforced by the 3,000-strong Transjordanian Frontier Force.<94>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab-Israeli_War

I'm not sure where I came upon the "Allenby Division". It could have been an honorary name of a Transjordan division - named for the dead offcier. I'll keep looking because it did seem like a clear memory.

[msmcghee]

47. OK - here it is.

It was the "Allenby Brigade" which seems to have been an all-Jewish brigade that fought under Allenby against the Turks during WWI.

I guess those things can get mixed up in old memories that get full of related stuff.

The full article is at: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9503EED91531E433A25750C2A96F9C946996D6CF

[bemildred]

48. Here is some interesting stuff from a Marine Corps guy:

The Jewish Company of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps Compared With Other Jewish Diaspora Fighting Units

I have been asked to compare the Jewish Company of the Shanghai Volunteer Corps with other Jewish Diaspora fighting units. That is easily done, for the disparity between them is rather apparent once one knows their histories. Quite simply, the Jewish Company, which existed for nearly 10 years, from 1932 to 1942, never had a shot fired in anger at its members, and never smelled the smoke of battle except that which wafted over the International Settlement of Shanghai from the Sino-Japanese War swirling around the Settlement in the Chinese sectors of the city. On the other hand, the other Diaspora units --the Zion Mule Corps and the Jewish Legion in World War I; the Botwin Company in the Spanish Civil War; and the Jewish Brigade in World War II -- were all engaged in heavy combat, sometimes only for short periods during each of their relatively brief lives. In describing each unit, how and why they were formed, their membership, what they did, and how and in what way, if any, their Jewishness affected their fortunes, their individual roles in history will become apparent. One common thread runs through all of these military organizations -- with the exception of the Jewish Company, they were all units explicitly comprised of Jews and organized by non-Jews for service outside of Eretz Israel. Also, there was one man, Jabotinsky, who directly and indirectly played a role in the genesis of the military units about to be discussed.

It will be difficult to relate the history of the Zion Mule Corps, the Jewish Legion, and the Jewish Brigade without first discussing the role played by Vladimir Evgenevich Zhahotinskii or Ze'ev Jabotinsky, who is well-known to the students of the Zionist Movement, and his unceasing effort to establish Israel as the Jewish national homeland. Similarly, one cannot investigate the Jewish Company of the SVC without first telling of its founder and only commander, Noel Jacobs, whom we will examine later in this paper.

Briefly, Jabotinsky was born in Odessa in 1880, educated in Russia, and in 1898 went to Berne and then Rome where he studied law and was, as well, a correspondent for two Odessa newspapers. He returned to Odessa in 1901 and in 1903 became deeply involved with the Zionist movement, influenced to do so in reaction to due Kishinev pogrom that year. An accomplished Russian, Hebrew, Yiddish, English, French, and German linguist, he drew large crowds all over the world wherever he appeared. to speak He was a particularly effective and magnetic at Zionist congresses. Early on, he strongly advocated settlement of Jews in Palestine and their involvement in political and educational activities in the Diaspora. At the outbreak of World War I, the Odessa newspaper he was working for sent him west as its correspondent. When Turkey entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, Jabotinsky foresaw the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, the "Sick Man of Europe," and he became convinced that the Zionist movement -- neutral in the war to that point -- had to align itself with the Allies in order to achieve its aims in Palestine after the war.

When he went to Alexandria, he met Joseph Trumpeldor, who, with about 12,000 other Jews, had been deported from Palestine when they refused to become Turkish citizens. Trumpeldor was a well-decorated Russian veteran of the Russo-Japanese War, in which he had lost an arm. He advocated the formation of a Jewish legion comprised of the Jewish deportees, who would offer their services to the British and help liberate Eretz Israel from the Turks. Such a unit would be the first solely Jewish military organization since the days of the Maccabees. Jabotinsky realized that unless Jews were involved in the fighting to free Palestine from the Turks, they would have no strong claim to the redemption of Israel as the promised land of the Jewish people. Jabotinsky met with Trumpeldor and convinced the refugees that they "should form a Jewish Legion and propose to England its utilization in Palestine." A petition was signed on 22 March 1915 and presented to the commander of British forces in Egypt, General Sir John Maxwell. He told the petitioners that a future offensive in Palestine was doubtful, and besides, British army regulations did not permit recruitment of foreign nationals. He recommended instead that the volunteers form a mule transport unit for service in some other sector of the British front. Jabotinsky and other members of the Legion committee rejected the proposal, but Trumpeldor remained firm in his conviction that "any anti-Turkish force would 'lead to Zion,'" and that this could possibly be the first step leading to the formation of a wholly Jewish combat unit which would free Eretz Israel.

http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/svc.htm

[msmcghee]

69. Damned interesting read.

It's long so I'll have to read it again after a while. But thanks.

[bemildred]

70. I thought so.

Made me think in some respects of the Nisei battalions in the US military in WWII, though in other ways that is not a good match. Some interesting factual bits in there too.

[Douglas Carpenter]

52. the fourth of July was the signing of a document not the destruction of a hotel and

the death of a large number of British civilians - carried out by an extremist faction - an action which was at least publicly denounced by the mainstream leadership and is celebrated today by only the extremist right-wing and rejectionist.

hardly comparable. :eyes:

[msmcghee]

55. Perhaps, but . .

. . I was showing that most people honor significant military events in their history like we do the landing at Normandy or the dropping of the atom bomb. Those are somber remembrances. We also sing the Star Spangled Banner and shoot off fireworks while the Blue Angels fly overhead on July Fourth which is really celebrating our declaration - that was made possible by a successful war. For a nation to honor a militarily significant day in their history is not unusual or a bad thing to do. Unless of course, it's the "evil Jewish empire" - in which case they must have been "celebrating . . death of a large number of British civilians" as you put it.

I'm not sure but from the history I've read I suspect the event marked the day when the Jews realized they might have a possibility to survive against very great odds. I guess I can understand why you'd find that offensive.

[LeftishBrit]

56. I fully agree; but your own words...

'an action which was at least publicly denounced by the mainstream leadership and is celebrated today by only the extremist right-wing and rejectionist'

show that this celebration was not - and never has been - officially sponsored or approved by the Israeli government, and that the event is not considered as linked to the founding of the state. The Fourth of July is an official holiday in America (BTW, I have never come across a Brit who is bothered by the Americans celebrating this holiday); this was a group of people, of rather nasty opinions, celebrating as private citizens. It probably wouldn't have attracted any attention overseas if Netanyahu hadn't participated (presumably in a private capacity). Thus, this does not in any way reflect Israeli policy, though it does put Netanyahu in a bad light. But then, for me at least, practically everything that Netanyahu does puts him in a bad light!

[Douglas Carpenter]

59. I agree the mainstream Zionist leadership disassociated themselves

and still will not celebrate it.

I did actually did meet one British person once who took great offense at a Fourth of July celebration when I was working in an Anglo/American project North of Yemen -- but he was a bit of a nutter as they say. The other Brits seemed quite happy for any party for whatever reason.

[Englander]

63. From the Times July 23rd, 1946

(pdf)
http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/king_david_2.pdf

[Englander]

65. Profiles of Ollie & Zippi;

(Not that this means much, apart from "omg, your dad was a terrorist!")

Last Updated: Wednesday, 29 March 2006, 11:37 GMT 12:37 UK

Profile: Olmert now centre stage

>snip

His ideological roots, though, are on the political right.

Youngest MP

Son of a founder of the militant Zionist group Irgun, Mr Olmert was born into political royalty in 1945, just three years before the establishment of the Jewish state itself.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4596172.stm

Tzipi Livni: Israel's 'Mrs Clean'

>snip

Ms Livni hails from a prominent nationalist family - her father was a key figure in the Jewish underground movement, the Irgun, which fought British rule in Palestine before Israel was founded in 1948.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6615687.stm