King David Hotel Bombing - Terrorist Attack or Not?

[NeverAgain]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_David_Hotel_bombing
I think it was, but Netanyahu says otherwise. What do you think?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

If it wasn't terrorism, then the term 'terrorism' has no meaning.

[Zioneer]

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Then it's a terrorist attack.

[Sumner 1868]

Yes, there is no honest reason for claiming otherwise.

[dead0man]

On one hand:
it was a military target
they called ahead

On the other hand:
non-govt actors using violence against civilians (even if not your intention) to try to make a political change is terrorism to a T



It wasn't as horrible as shooting up a daycare or walking on to a city bus and blowing it up, but it's terrorism.  You'd have to really bend the definition of the word to make it not.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Yes, there is no honest reason for claiming otherwise.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

Of course it was.

[/]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

D:

[Zioneer]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Okay, but why was it fine? Serious question.

[SATW]

Nope it wasn't, and even if it was it was justified.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nope it wasn't, and even if it was it was justified.

Lol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, killing 90 civilians to cover up evidence of your past crimes is totally justified. Because Hitler.

[SATW]

My Justification for it: The British blocked passage of hundreds of thousands of Jews from entering the region, and sent them back to Europe (aka to their deaths)  and also this didn't help at all either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha

The British started playing games with both the Jews and Arabs, which, in my opinion, became a major catalyst of the Israel-Arab (and later Israeli-Palestinian) conflict. An accumulation of horrible decisions by the UK allowed for this attack to be even possible.

I think Irgun went too far in a lot of it's attacks, but this one was perfectly justified.

British military forces had no intention of having any actual solution to the mess they created in the Mandate of Palestine.

[SATW]

Nope it wasn't, and even if it was it was justified.

Lol.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, killing 90 civilians to cover up evidence of your past crimes is totally justified. Because Hitler.

I forgot, trying to have a homeland after thousands of years of persecution is a "crime." Zionism wasn't a thing "because Hitler" you clown.

[Miles]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Call me crazy, but I don't think terrorism is ever acceptable...

[SATW]

I'm not expecting to be in the majority here, nor am I trying to convince others of my opinion. But, to brush this off as "crazy people being crazy" is historically inaccurate.

There's a reason this happened and that reason is British incompetence and dishonesty. Of course, the civilian lives were tragic and a stain on Irgun and it's leaders. But, the stain on the UK for how many more Jews died in the holocaust because of British restrictions on immigration or because of destructive rule over the mandate is ten times the size.

[Mr. Reactionary]

... and also this didn't help at all either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha

hmmm ...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So some terrorists kidnapped British soldiers, British soldiers responded by arresting some of the terrorists and confiscating documents which clearly incriminated several of the terrorists, therefore the terrorists were completely justified in blowing up an occupied building in response?

I mean, the US government burned a church filled with women and children to the ground over a tax dispute in 1993 and in response a man who was justifiably angry about this miscarriage of justice blew up a daycare filled with children in revenge. Clearly that was not justifiable. Can't you differentiate between justifiable anger and unjustifiable actions?

[Blair]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Considering my grandad was staying in the building, can you tell me why someone who served in France and Germany to stop the holocaust is a legitimate target? Real question

My Justification for it: The British blocked passage of hundreds of thousands of Jews from entering the region, and sent them back to Europe (aka to their deaths)  and also this didn't help at all either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Agatha

The British started playing games with both the Jews and Arabs, which, in my opinion, became a major catalyst of the Israel-Arab (and later Israeli-Palestinian) conflict. An accumulation of horrible decisions by the UK allowed for this attack to be even possible.

I think Irgun went too far in a lot of it's attacks, but this one was perfectly justified.

British military forces had no intention of having any actual solution to the mess they created in the Mandate of Palestine.

See the above, my granddad served in WW2 and if it wasn't for him going out to a market on the day of the attack he most likely would have died.

It was a British mandate, meaning that the British had every right, and a moral responsibility to police it. No doubt if we just cleared out after 1945 you'd attack us for not intervening, and helping

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Call me crazy, but I don't think terrorism is ever acceptable...

South Africa?

[SATW]

Considering my grandad was staying in the building, can you tell me why someone who served in France and Germany to stop the holocaust is a legitimate target? Real question

Few British soldiers served in France and Germany in order to stop the Holocaust...

It was a British mandate, meaning that the British had every right, and a moral responsibility to police it. No doubt if we just cleared out after 1945 you'd attack us for not intervening, and helping.

No, the British had absolutely no right to be there in the first place. Not in 1929, not in 1936, not in 1945 and certainly not in 1948.

After WWI, Britain implicitly backtracked on its commitment to creating a Jewish national home in Israel, silently allowing Arabs to attack Jews all the time from the beginning of British rule over the Land, particularly in 1920, in 1929 and from 1936 onward. For instance, the Brits had allowed Arabs to attack the village of Rosh Pina for months, but when Shlomo Ben Yosef attacked Arabs who were preparing attacks on the village, he was hanged.

During WWII, some Jews managed to embark upon ships to the Land of Israel right after being saved from Auschwitz; the Brits rather let them die than had them enter the Land of Israel. For instance, the Struma carried almost 800 Jews; the Brits declined access to Israeli ports, and then the ship sunk.

The Brits were the ones who flogged Jews that didn't listen to them. The Brits were the ones who sent to the gallows Avshalom Habib, Meir Naqar and Yaaqov Weiss, among many other Jews who resisted their violent, anti-Semitic occupation of Israel. Violence should always be an option of last resort, but given the dire situation in Israel I fully support the Irgun's heroes in their efforts to liberate Israel.

(And the ones who disagree with this are generally the ones who do fully support, for instance, the Vietnamese people's and the Algerian people's right to resist French colonialism; I have yet to meet the first person who can convince me that this case is any different.)

Great post as usual. Israel and Jews are often held to a different standard by European elites when compared to other resistance movements.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Call me crazy, but I don't think terrorism is ever acceptable...

South Africa?

Crabcake, I didn't know you were a supporter of the white nationalist AWB.

[Supersonic]

Of course it was.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Of course it was. And that was fine.

Call me crazy, but I don't think terrorism is ever acceptable...

South Africa?

Crabcake, I didn't know you were a supporter of the white nationalist AWB.

Lol, definitely the anti-apartheid terrorism for me pls Seriously though, armed resistance is entirely acceptable when forces comspire to attack and cripple non-violent resistance (like the apartheid government did). That's why I would be supportive of civilians engaging in "terrorism" against PRC, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Assad, DPRK, Sisi, Omar al-Bashir, and all other such tyrants and despots. Of course, civilian deaths are not a good thing, but sometimes you unfortunately have to wage war against your government (and not to be overly "greater good" but it's not like the governments you're facing against will have any qualms for murdering civilians).

[Blair]

Considering my grandad was staying in the building, can you tell me why someone who served in France and Germany to stop the holocaust is a legitimate target? Real question

Few British soldiers served in France and Germany in order to stop the Holocaust...

It was a British mandate, meaning that the British had every right, and a moral responsibility to police it. No doubt if we just cleared out after 1945 you'd attack us for not intervening, and helping.

No, the British had absolutely no right to be there in the first place. Not in 1929, not in 1936, not in 1945 and certainly not in 1948.

After WWI, Britain implicitly backtracked on its commitment to creating a Jewish national home in Israel, silently allowing Arabs to attack Jews all the time from the beginning of British rule over the Land, particularly in 1920, in 1929 and from 1936 onward. For instance, the Brits had allowed Arabs to attack the village of Rosh Pina for months, but when Shlomo Ben Yosef attacked Arabs who were preparing attacks on the village, he was hanged.

During WWII, some Jews managed to embark upon ships to the Land of Israel right after being saved from Auschwitz; the Brits rather let them die than had them enter the Land of Israel. For instance, the Struma carried almost 800 Jews; the Brits declined access to Israeli ports, and then the ship sunk.

The Brits were the ones who flogged Jews that didn't listen to them. The Brits were the ones who sent to the gallows Avshalom Habib, Meir Naqar and Yaaqov Weiss, among many other Jews who resisted their violent, anti-Semitic occupation of Israel. Violence should always be an option of last resort, but given the dire situation in Israel I fully support the Irgun's heroes in their efforts to liberate Israel.

(And the ones who disagree with this are generally the ones who do fully support, for instance, the Vietnamese people's and the Algerian people's right to resist French colonialism; I have yet to meet the first person who can convince me that this case is any different.)

But again, why should it be fine for Israelis to kill brutish soldiers, but then I assume not fine for Palestinians to do the same to Israeli soldiers?

[Mr. Reactionary]

Lol, definitely the anti-apartheid terrorism for me pls Seriously though, armed resistance is entirely acceptable when forces comspire to attack and cripple non-violent resistance (like the apartheid government did). That's why I would be supportive of civilians engaging in "terrorism" against PRC, Saudi Arabia, ISIS, Assad, DPRK, Sisi, Omar al-Bashir, and all other such tyrants and despots. Of course, civilian deaths are not a good thing, but sometimes you unfortunately have to wage war against your government (and not to be overly "greater good" but it's not like the governments you're facing against will have any qualms for murdering civilians).

Well said.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A pretty classic case of old school terrorism (apart from the body count, but there are a bunch of controversies as to that) which is exactly what you'd expect from people who quite openly modeled themselves on the IRA.

Wrt to this thread David isn't actually being a hypocrite, he is being partisan (and on behalf of Irgun and its legacy as much as the then-soon-to-be State of Israel) which is a very different thing.

It was a British mandate, meaning that the British had every right, and a moral responsibility to police it.

I.e. a colonial possession masquerading (never even slightly convincingly) as something else. And a particularly appallingly mismanaged colonial possession at that.