Bombing hotels - legitimate targets?

Sixty years ago, on the 22nd of July, 1946 the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was bombed, killing 91 people.

The mastermind was Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Who incidentally made the first peace treaty with an Arab state on behalf of his country. Binyamin Netanyahu and other right wingers are celebrating the act with a plaque, despite the protests of the British whose people were killed and who are supporting the Israeli state in its actions in Lebanon.

Were he and his Irgun ever terrorists, and when did they stop being so and become statesmen? How did we know they had changed?

Link (wikipedia unfortunately, as most of the other sites are biased one way or another).

Celebration link.

:inquisitive:

Hmm, well, the Wikipedia link says they warned the british and tried to keep people away from the hotel with a small explosive outside. That sounds like they only wanted to destroy the building. My huge, neverending knowledge about the conflict tells me that, erm, well...bombing a hotel is always dangerous, even with warnings and so on. Putting people in danger is always bad, now whether that was a terrorist attack, I´m not sure, they aimed at british officials/a building and not directly at civilians.

And keep in mind, dear Banquo, governments are always right...:sweatdrop:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Hmm, well, the Wikipedia link says they warned the british and tried to keep people away from the hotel with a small explosive outside. That sounds like they only wanted to destroy the building. My huge, neverending knowledge about the conflict tells me that, erm, well...bombing a hotel is always dangerous, even with warnings and so on. Putting people in danger is always bad, now whether that was a terrorist attack, I´m not sure, they aimed at british officials/a building and not directly at civilians.

And keep in mind, dear Banquo, governments are always right...:sweatdrop:

---

The interesting point for the discussion is that the British maintain there was no such telephone call, and the Israelis maintain there was, at least twenty-five minutes beforehand.

Would the British authorities deliberately have left the hotel unwarned? :inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

The interesting point for the discussion is that the British maintain there was no such telephone call, and the Israelis maintain there was, at least twenty-five minutes beforehand.

Would the British authorities deliberately have left the hotel unwarned? :inquisitive:

---

What I find more intriguing is that wiki says there was a shooting because some guards were suspicious and then the Israelis gave the british 27 mins to leave. So those guards were suspicious enough to shoot but not suspicious enough to check the milk cans or evacuate the building?:inquisitive:

But as I said, the government is always right, in this case, the British are right and the Israelis are. Governements never lie, you know, they are both right. If you don´t know why, 42 is the answer.~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

What I find more intriguing is that wiki says there was a shooting because some guards were suspicious and then the Israelis gave the british 27 mins to leave. So those guards were suspicious enough to shoot but not suspicious enough to check the milk cans or evacuate the building?:inquisitive:

---

The British were given around 30 minutes to evacuate the building, but the warning call was made in a hurry and was not corroborated (the IRA were much slicker at such operations). After the threat was further assessed, the British carried out an evacuation, but the bombs went off 5-10 minutes early, while the evacuation was still taking place.

Reminds me of Omagh, where the Real IRA also gave a warning call, but the information given was similarly accurate, and similarly useful.

For more on this episode, watch the BBC series "Empire Warriors", which looks at British counter-insurgency in Aden, Palestine, Malaya and Kenya.

Whatever the distasteful arguments about whyfores and wherefores, and who did what, where and when, it was still a terrorist act, and I find it abhorrent that they can actually celebrate such an act. It's like spitting on the graves of the dead.
Luckily for them, their 'God' is a jealous and vengeful deity so they can count on his forgiveness at least.

This was an act of terrorism and should have been responded to as such.

Insufficient effort was made to minimize civilian casualties. A guerilla strike targeting key components of the opposing forces is one thing, planning and indiscriminately bombing a hotel where a large percentage of the casualties are guaranteed not to be involved participants is wrong.

Well, it's basically known that in the years leading up to the 1948 Arab/Israeli war, the terrorist attacks and targeted massacres of civilians were carried out by the Jewish zionist settlers much more often than the Arabs...

I find the placing of a plaque to celebrate an act of terrorism to be beyond the pale. But then Israel has always been a two-faced country.

Treason cannot prosper, for if it prospers, 'tis not treason.

It was a terrorist act against a civilian target. A phone call in no way mitigates that. Isreal was founded through terrorism, the objective being to get the British out so they could have a war.

Get real people, there's a reason a lot of Arabs hate Isreal, and it isn't just a land issue.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

It was a terrorist act against a civilian target. A phone call in no way mitigates that. Isreal was founded through terrorism, the objective being to get the British out so they could have a war.

---

I agree, but the essence of what I'm asking of those who condemn the terrorists of today is: at what point do terrorists change into statesmen? How do we facilitate that change? How do we measure its success or failure?

Clearly it cannot be through the renunciation of violence nor of killing civilians, as Israel continued to fight its corner through warfare after establishment.

Ireland, Israel, Kenya and South Africa (and no doubt more that one can think of) all achieved statehood through terrorism and all had heads of state who were former terrorists.

What's different now?

:inquisitive:

Ah, the relativist viewpoint BQ. Well, on a practical level, I believe that you should try to treat terrorists as terrorists and statesmen as statesmen as far as possible. It's not so black and white of course, but the practicalities of life demand some kind of eventual settlement of differences or modus vivendi.
However, in this case, why glorify an act of murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Sixty years ago, on the 22nd of July, 1946 the King David Hotel in Jerusalem was bombed, killing 91 people.

The mastermind was Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister of the State of Israel. Who incidentally made the first peace treaty with an Arab state on behalf of his country. Binyamin Netanyahu and other right wingers are celebrating the act with a plaque, despite the protests of the British whose people were killed and who are supporting the Israeli state in its actions in Lebanon.

Were he and his Irgun ever terrorists, and when did they stop being so and become statesmen? How did we know they had changed?

---

Ben Gurion knew about the hotel bombing, but withdrew his support when he realised the scale of civilian casualties it would involve (the KDH was a popular meeting place, and the bombs were placed beneath the extremely fashionable cafe). Not for the first time, the extremists ignored the advice or orders of the moderates and went ahead with the violence anyway.

He later declared Irgun and the Stern Gang (the killers of Folke Bernadotte) to be terrorist groups, and stopped shipments of arms destined for these groups. But these proclaimed terrorists were not prosecuted once they had been neutralised, but were integrated into the political mainstream.

On a topical note, Begin invaded Lebanon in 1982, pushed by the Defence Minister Ariel Sharon. The Haaretz newspaper accused Sharon of misleading Begin about the war's initial objectives, and of continuing to mislead him about the progress of the war. Sharon sued Haaretz for this slur. Sharon lost the court case.

At this point I will add that an act of terrorism is an act of terrorism if targeted at a non-military structure, no matter if there was an advance warning or not.

But Israel has been, and is Israel. At that time, they were riding on the card of being the wronged victims of the Nazis and a fair bit of other totalitarian regimes in Europe ... at that time, they could get away with it because nobody would dare accuse them, fearing that the media would turn him into another Hitler.

For years that sort of behaviour was standard ... we were attempting to make up for all the wrong things we've done to them. Now, Israel has gotten used to that kind of treatment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

... what I'm asking of those who condemn the terrorists of today is: at what point do terrorists change into statesmen? How do we facilitate that change? How do we measure its success or failure?

---

Nothing really. A terrorist can be statesman and a statesman can be a terrorist, the two are not mutually exclusive. There is no possible way to change that ... you can take the trash out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter out of the trash, as the saying goes. As far as measuring success goes ... it is an artificial measure. A terrorist makes it into the goverment, or even suceeds in founding his own state. Does that make him sucessful? Yes it does, and the problem is, it teaches others that terrorism will get you what you want.

Terrorists fight, statesmen talk. So they became statesmen when they stopped oiling their own rifles and started wearing suits.

Its a diference in perception, not reality. Sharon, Mandela and Adams are all still terrorists, because they can't take back what they did, they have to live with it.

As to "paying back" the Jews I think the account is well into the black now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keba

But Israel has been, and is Israel. At that time, they were riding on the card of being the wronged victims of the Nazis and a fair bit of other totalitarian regimes in Europe ... at that time, they could get away with it because nobody would dare accuse them, fearing that the media would turn him into another Hitler.

---

Considering that a portion of Jews of Israel
Hindered the British fighting the Nazis in WWII
Showed a remarkable lack of compassion for the European Jews
That Einstein amongst other American Jews considered the actions by some Jewish groups in Israel/Palestine were those of terrorists.

It is a bit rich for them to play the Holocaust card. A lever is a lever and any politican will kiss babies or claim a claimity to get themselves in office. Also it must be noted that a lot of the leaders were surprised about the extent of what happened to the Jews in Europe and felt quite guilty for being so self obsessed with their building of Israel.

=][=

Now how to turn a terrorist into a statesman?

Menu 1.
Give them a soapbox, justice and something to live for.

Menu 2.
Don't silence them, ignore the rule of law and take away everything from them.

So obviously bombing them into the stone age is far more of menu 2 then menu 1.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wigferth Ironwall

Terrorists fight, statesmen talk. So they became statesmen when they stopped oiling their own rifles and started wearing suits.

Its a diference in perception, not reality. Sharon, Mandela and Adams are all still terrorists, because they can't take back what they did, they have to live with it.

As to "paying back" the Jews I think the account is well into the black now.

---

A significant part of the paying back occured when the Stern Gang killed Folke Bernadotte, who had saved several thousand Jews from the Nazis.

I think bombing a hotel is perfectly reasonable as long as its a Best Western.

*shudder*