another sign of change in the discourse

by on August 8, 2009 24

Susie Kneedler tells me that an ad on National Public Radio for today's "All Things Considered" teases a story by saying that "Jewish terrorists of 1947 were the first terrorists of the modern era." Or words to that effect. Huh. I brought this up with pr pro Marion Dreyfus the other night at a party. "But they warned the people," she said of the Irgun blowing up the King David Hotel in '46 (pictured).The Arabs never do that, said she. Does a flimsy warning excuse killing 91 people? Was Arlosoroff warned before Revisionists murdered him on the beach in Tel Aviv in '33 after he'd made the mistake of speaking about living with the Palestinians? Was Rabin warned before a rightwing nut shot him? (I shouldn't have got into an argument with Dreyfus. Should have said, It's a cycle of violence. And where was my country in the cycle of violence in Iraq? It has not taken sides.)

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel/Palestine, US Politics

{ 24 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Koozie says:
    August 8, 2009 at 9:30 am

    Arabs and Muslims are painted as having a “terrorist” chromosome, as if there isn’t a faction of Jews (or Irish or Basque or….) who are ready to strap on a bomb vest or plant an I.E.D the moment even a handful of their soil is put on the auction block. Your posting makes that point.

    • VR says:
      August 8, 2009 at 4:54 pm

      “Arabs and Muslims are painted as having a “terrorist” chromosome…” It is interesting that you mention this because it opens up the real background of this stoked impression. Of course, there is no “terrorist chromosome,” but there is a history of exploitation and oppression by Western Hegemony.

      It is the widespread ignorance of this fact that is relied upon by all aggressive actors. All the Zionists did was walk in the middle of this history, and play a familiar refrain of propaganda already deeply embedded in the American psyche by the absence of correct education, and the constant vilification in both news source media and popular media. Whether it is Bibi or anyone else you always hear – “we have our terrorist problem also, we are fighting the war on terror.”

      HOW FAR BACK?

      HOW WIDE SPREAD IN THE MEDIA?

  2. Koshiro says:
    August 8, 2009 at 10:18 am

    The “we warned them” story doesn’t hold water anyway, in my opinion. Apply Occam’s razor:
    1. The Irgun and their associates were lying after the fact to make themselves appear more moral.
    2. The allegedly forwarned victims voluntarily resolved to die, and/or let dozens of their co-workers and countrymen die just so that Israel would look bad in the future.
    I formed my opinion on that.

  3. Citizen says:
    August 8, 2009 at 10:37 am

    Let’s not forget the murder of Count Bernadotte; here’s the Jewish Virtual Library’s rendition, which puts the best Jewish face on the incident:

    link to jewishvirtuallibrary.org

  4. James says:
    August 8, 2009 at 11:53 am

    i guess when the idf went into gaza this past january it wasn’t a terrorist move as they gave advance warning and it is a government made decision… with the advance notice all those palestinians had the option of what???

  5. MRW says:
    August 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Marion Dreyfus is wrong. They absolutely did not warn “the people.” It was a pure terrorist act. I first heard of the King David Hotel from an older Jewish friend of mine in Manhattan who lived in Israel, described what happened, and used just that word — terrorists — to describe Menachem Begin and Yitzak Shamir to me. He told me that’s what Ben Gurion called them as well, and that Ben Gurion “despised” Begin.

    • jimby says:
      August 9, 2009 at 12:20 am

      Ben Gurion may have despised Begin but I no longer believe it was for his terrorist activities. The massacre at Deir Yassin was carried out by Begin but it must be evident that it was part of “Operation Naqba” and was part of the plans of the Haganah. Ben Gurion might have well been pleased with the actions of the Stern Gang and the Irgun but made a public display of displeasure. At this point I am aware that they ALL were bloodthirsty racists.

    • VR says:
      August 9, 2009 at 11:52 am

      “Marion Dreyfus is wrong. They absolutely did not warn “the people.” It was a pure terrorist act.”

      Let me assure you that any warning or notes are purely perfunctory and do not take them out of the column of “terrorist.” Overall, the acts are illegal, and deserve the same condemnation of any terrorist act, note or not. It is also a fact that those who are trying to “escape” are also murdered. The trappings of “state” are just as useless.

      Here is an example, there is a certain type of serial killer that likes to write their victims notes of warning before they kill them. They tell them that they are going to do it to them, sometimes how, etc. Imagine the serial killer telling the judge – “well, I wrote them a note, I told them it was going to happen therefore it is not an illegal act or murderous.” Can you see the look on the judges face as he pronounces the sentence? It is the same look that should be on everyone’s face when they hear about warning notes, that somehow this is supposed to absolve the act of its terrorist roots, make it legal, and give someone bragging rights as “the most moral armed forces on the face of the earth.”

  6. Ethan Heitner says:
    August 8, 2009 at 10:38 pm

    Jews introduced indiscriminate terror attacks against civilians to the Palestine conflict. Say what you will about the King David, but it was “kind of” a military target. But long before the King David, from the thirties, Jewish terrorists planted truck bombs on city streets, hurled bombs into crowded markets, and blew up Arab homes. They killed dozens, sometimes twenty or thirty at a time.
    You can start reading a long list of terrorist attacks in Palestine as reported by the British police at the Encyclopedia of the Palestine Problem here:
    link to palestine-encyclopedia.com
    (thanks to Lawrence of Cyberia for the link)

  7. Richard Witty says:
    August 8, 2009 at 10:49 pm

    The King David Hotel bombing was not so much a terrorism act as has been presented historically. The King David Hotel was the site of British military intelligence in the region, and the majority of residents of the hotel were directly associated with active British military intelligence.

    Only a few civilians died in the blast. It was bold, aggressive, violent certainly.

    MANY other actions by Irgun were more directly terrorist, directed at civilians, not at any militarily strategic target.

    • ihsan says:
      August 9, 2009 at 4:44 am

      So what you’re saying is that if a Palestinian strapped a bomb to his waist, walked up to his nearest security checkpoint and blew himself up you would not regard him as a terrorist? Or, if a Palestinian strapped a bomb to his waist, called up his nearest security checkpoint to tell them of his plan, went along and blew himself up you would not regard him as a terrorist?

      In Ireland recently the Real IRA shot two British soldiers outside their barracks. Would you agree this was a terrorist incident or not (bearing in mind that the motive behind the attack was political and that the UK and US have designated the Real IRA as a terrorist organisation)? The same could be said for Irgun – the group that was behind the King David Hotel bombing and was designated a terrorist group by the Israeli government of ’48.

      Interestingly, Netanyahu considers the King David Hotel bombing a legitimate act against a military target because of the advance warning given by the terrorists. He said, “Imagine that Hamas or Hizbullah would call the military headquarters in Tel Aviv and say, ‘We have placed a bomb and we are asking you to evacuate the area.’ They don’t do that. That is the difference.” The IRA used to give advance warnings when they planted bombs on the UK mainland – still, they were considered terrorists. Any attack by a group of terrorists is a terrorist attack because the motive behind it is political.

      The fact is, it gets Israeli Jews’, AIPAC’s and other pro-Israelis’ goats when they have to admit to past mistakes. In today’s world, a terrorist is a man with a beard who wears a white hat and shouts “Allahu Akbar.” God forbid Jews are viewed in the same light too, even if it was for past misdeeds long since buried. Talk about superiority complex.

      Peace be upon you all.

      Sources:
      link to news.bbc.co.uk
      link to jpost.com

    • Shafiq says:
      August 9, 2009 at 6:53 am

      The 9/11 attack on the Pentagon was an attack on a military institution. Does that mean it wasn’t a terrorist attack?

    • Koshiro says:
      August 9, 2009 at 9:18 am

      It was illegitimate violence by an illegitimate, non-state armed force, with the explicit goal of spreading terror. How much more terrorist do you want it to be?

      Note that by your definition, abductions or assassinations of IDF personnel are not terrorism. Not even if a few Israeli civilians die in the same operation.
      But of course, there’s one rule of Jews and another rule for Arabs…

    • Koshiro says:
      August 9, 2009 at 9:22 am

      Oh, and by the way: According to readily available sources (in this case Wikipedia), 75 of the 91 fatalities were civilians. Where did you read something different?

      • Donald says:
        August 9, 2009 at 2:09 pm

        I don’t know enough about the King David Hotel to comment on that incident and I’ll take your word for what really happened, but in fairness to Witty, if he’s wrong it’s probably an error in good faith. I say this because he acknowledges actions by the Irgun that definitely were terrorist in nature.

        Where I feel a bit of unease is in the emphasis on the Irgun. Haganah committed its own share of atrocities during the 1948 war itself. Maybe one wouldn’t call that “terrorism” if one thinks of Haganah as a state actor and defines terrorism as something committed by non-state actors (states commit war crimes or atrocities or crimes against humanity, maybe).

        Also, I can’t remember if Haganah committed any terrorist actions before the 1948 war.

  8. Richard Witty says:
    August 8, 2009 at 10:51 pm

    For example, when Hamas undertakes defensive operations (say to protect civilians during an Israeli military attack – which they didn’t particularly do this year), that is resistance or defense. When they attack even only a military base, that may be described as resistance (though certainly will be described as “terror”).

    When Hamas shells civilians, or bombs buses, that is terrorist, with NO military significance.

  9. The Hasbara Buster says:
    August 9, 2009 at 1:23 am

    I was appalled to learn that Marion Dreyfus’ response was “but they warned the people.”

    What kind of warning was given to the 15 Arabs who were killed by a bomb tossed by Jewish terrorists at the Damascus Gate in Jerusalem on 29 Dec 1947?

    Or to the 18 Arabs killed by a bomb near the Paris Café in Haifa on 19 Jun 1939?

    Or to the 39 Arabs killed with a bomb hidden in a barrel of pickles at the Arab marketplace in Haifa on 25 Jul 1938, in a strike engineered by Irgun member David Raziel?

    (Raziel is celebrated with streets named after him in all major Israeli cities, as well as with a town named Ramat Raziel in the Jerusalem corridor.)

    See here for a few scanned pages from the Palestine Post (today’s Jerusalem Post) with stories of Jewish terror attacks for which no warning was given and which targeted civilians.

    No, it was not just the King David…

    Yet the Zionists continue to peddle the fantasy that Jewish terrorists gave warnings and did not intend to kill civilians. How can they get away with that lie?

  10. kylebisme says:
    August 9, 2009 at 2:53 am

    Oh Witty, before attempting to argue that someone is using a term incorrectly, it is advisable to check a dictionary. In fact, the King David Hotel bombing is a textbook historical example of terrorism; violence used to intimidate and coerce, specifically for political purposes.

    As for your argument that “the majority of residents of the hotel were directly associated with active British military intelligence”; can you substantiate that claim? I find it unlikely considering the majority of the victims weren’t even British.

    On a side note, the whole “targeting civilians” meme is just misdirection for the ignorant, employed after 9/11 to distract from the fact that those terrorists’ targeted the center of our military might and the center of the financial system which controls it. The civilian death toll, while indisputably horrific, was merely incidental, “collateral damage” in state propaganda speak. Had the terrorists’ goal been killing civilians, crashing planes into crowded stadiums would have netted them far higher body counts.

  11. Colin Murray says:
    August 9, 2009 at 9:08 am

    Is IDF headquarters in Tel Aviv a legitimate target? If someone blew it up and killed a hundred uniformed Jewish defense workers, would that be a “bold, aggressive” act? Or would it be an unforgivable terrorist act, with the perpetrators derided as animals whose act proves that negotiation, compromise, and peace are unattainable fantasies?

    I don’t disagree with your assessment. My objective is to highlight the double standard employed in assessing the moral righteousness of Jewish violence, and attacks on those who point it out. Please note that I am not accusing you of having a double standard; nothing in your comment is unreasonable. I am merely making a general observation.

  12. Koshiro says:
    August 9, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Let me again clear up some more confusion that has apparently crept into this debate:
    - The King David Hotel was not a “military target”. Even the part which housed British institutions was mostly civilian. The large majority of those who died were civilian clerks and employees.
    - Even if it was a legitimate target – which it was not – the methods they used were wholly unlawful.
    - One thing was correct in Mr. Witty’s post, though: This was by far not the most heinous act of terrorism by Jewish groups in the Palestine Mandate – just the most spectacular one.

  13. The Hasbara Buster says:
    August 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    I have posted new scanned versions of Palestine Post (today’s Jerusalem Post) stories about Jewish terrorism. In one of them, Jews riding a taxi tossed a bomb at the crowd waiting outside a bus station at rush hour, killing 15 Arabs. Does that look like a “warnings were given” situation?

  14. Richard Witty says:
    August 9, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    I’m glad for the appearance of support for the reasoning that a non-state actor undertaking a “resistance” military action is an act of terror.

    I thought that there would be more agreement that a genuine military target would be considered a valid target of resistance, even if there were many collateral deaths.

    Its refreshing to hear a heightened objection to terror expressed.

  15. VR says:
    August 9, 2009 at 9:58 pm

    Lets use another case scenario. Say there are some Palestinians that wish to assassinate a certain captain in the IDF that was responsible for the destruction of their homes and killing of family members. They know the captain occasionally takes a bus to whatever destination. So these fellows decide to put a large amount of explosives on the bus ostensibly to “get the IDF captian.” The explosives go off killing a large portion of the other passengers. They catch the the culprits and they confess, but in the course of their confession they say – “we were just trying to kill the captain, ot the other people.” How would you feel about that? I think almost everyone here would scoff at it and say at the least that they showed no regard for th other bus passengers, and that it was a terrorist act.

    Well, the same holds true when an entire apartment complex in the West Bank or Gaza gets a one ton bomb dropped on it in order to specifically get “the terrorist.” In the process killing an untold number of innocent people in the apartment complex (this has also happened more than once.” When the perpetrators are addressed they say – “we just wanted to get the terrorist.” If it does not elicit the same response as the above scenario, than we have a problem. The obvious conclusion is that those in authority, and the general population that accepts such explanations does not believe that the lives of the Palestinians are worth as much as the Israeli population.

    However, when courts rule that as an example, the use of a tank shell in a civilian population area can be reduced to a hundred meters from three hundred meters (to shoot at militants) when the accuracy is proven questionable goes deeper than merely a judgment call in hunting down a militant in the heat of the moment, it is a systemic issue that shows state support which does not value the life of other human beings. Such was the case in Beit Hanoun where 18 innocent family members were shelled in their sleep. The question that this evokes is simple – does someone who acts this way, and obviously believes that the Palestinians are worthless deserve to run a government, let alone the fourth most powerful military force in the world?

Leave a Reply