British soldiers were the ostensible target but Irgun members didn't spend a lot of time distinguishing between military and civilian targets, killing and maiming Jews and non-Jews alike. Its piece de resistance, the bombing of the St David's Hotel in Jerusalem, still rates as one of the world's worst terrorist attacks in terms of loss of life.
As far as I know, neither of these groups ever considered a campaign of non-violence - you know, the sort of actions which are constantly urged upon the Palestinians as the only legitimate means of protesting grievance. On the contrary, the Jewish groups were violent from the get-go with a 'by all means necessary' mantra. So savage did their attacks become, they led to anti-Jewish riots in Britain. Israel has never repudiated its violent birth - many of those who served in the Irgun rose to high office in the post-independent country.
Violently removing the British from Palestine went hand-in-hand with violently removing Palestinians from their homes. Several thousand who returned to Palestine and tried to reclaim their properties after fleeing were killed.
So, you know, I wonder why all of this has fallen down the memory hole - why, for our MSM, politicians, talking heads, the commentariat etc was it ethical, forgivable and forgettable for Israel's to use exceptionally violent tactics in establishing its state but monstrous for the Palestinians to do the same?
Responses
« Back to index | View thread »