There is a debate raging in Wikipedia about two articles, uth proposed for deletion. One is an article on “Jewish supremacy,” which is clearly headed for the dustbin. The other is “Zionist terrorism,” where things are more split.
What is “Zionist terrorism?” Well, according to the editors who wrote the article, it's about Lehi, Irgun, and JDL. These are all groups that in one way or another have been labeled “terrorist.” Lehi characterized itself that way. The British called Irgun terrorist, and several governments feel that way about JDL. As could be expected, there's no clear objective criteria.
Lehi was a small group of people who subscribed to a nutty premise, namely that the greatest enemy of the Jewish people in the 1930s and 40s was British mandatory rule. They killed British officials in an attempt to drive them away. To that end, they sought alliances with Arab separatists and even more remarkably, Nazis.
Irgun was bigger than Lehi, but still small. The group went through several phases - fighting the British, retaliating against Arabs for attacks on Jews, even antagonizing Haganah. If killing non-combatants is the main criterion for being terrorist, Irgun may come close.
Curiously, the two incidents most often cited as proof for Zionist terrorism are the bombing of the King David Hotel and Deir Yassin, and these are questionable examples. Some of the essentiual facts are not disputed in both these cases. The King David Hotel was an administrative center for the British mandatory authorities and included military offices. The Irgun called in a warning in time to evacuate. Deir Yassin was a pitched battle that also included a (more or less effective) warning to the civilians. The Irgun and Stern paramilitary forces suffered severe losses. The dispute is over whether atrocities such as extrajudicial executions and outright murder took place once the Arab positions were overrun. In other words, war crimes, possibly - terrorism probably not.
Far worse were the bombings of Arab marketplaces and squares for which Irgun is blamed. They took place during the “Great Revolt” that was bloody on all sides, Arab Jewish, and British, and their purpose was clearly to punish and discourage Arab efforts to curb Jewish immigration. It was if anything a war of terrorist attrition that the Arabs won, in the sense that Jewish immigration was severely restricted. Tens or hundreds of thousands of Jews perished in Europe, having no place to go.
This is often forgotten in the debate about “Zionist terrorism” - the means were bad, but the ends were critically important. Irgun believed - rightly - that opening the borders to Jewish immigration would save the immigrants' lives. They attacked Deir Yassin to ensure the supply lines to Jerusalem, where famine was imminent. If these groups had a political agenda, they also had legitimate humanitarian concerns. They weren't dealing with adversaries that would be benign if left unpressured.
Perhaps it is right to characterize these groupa as terrorists, but if desparation is (falsely) cited as the cause for Palestinian terrorism, it shouldn't be discounted for Irfun and Lehi either.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.
Comments