King David Hotel Bombing - Terrorist Attack or Not?

[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

[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?